Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Note 1° that the man who is Pope can be considered in two ways, by reason of the person and by reason of the office, that is, as a private man and as the supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ; and that, considered in either way, he can speak. He speaks as a private man when, from his own mind, not from the fullness of power, he interprets a book, opens up a private opinion, treats and resolves a question. But he speaks as Pontiff when, as supreme pastor and head of the Church, he proposes something to the whole Church in matters of faith and morals, binding all the faithful, under pain of heresy, to believe it with divine faith : and thus he is said to speak ex cathedra, that is, from the fullness of power, because by the chair is signified the authority of teaching and commanding; whence Matth., XXIII, 12 : Super cathedram Moysi sederunt, etc. Some say this distinction was recently invented; but, besides that it is demanded by the nature of the thing and is found in all who exercise some public office — for a king or praetor or judge does not always act ex officio as king or judge — the French nation, in the year 1305, employed this distinction in a little book given to Clement V against Boniface VIII, as we shall see below.

[Note 2° that for the Pope to be judged to speak ex cathedra, several things are required : that he define freely, and not from fear or violence, with prayers poured out to God, with a mature examination of the matter to be defined premised, and with prior consultation of the Most Eminent Cardinals held; because Christ constituted the Pope infallible as acting in a human manner, according to which it is fitting that men be governed, and as using ordinary means. Others hold that these things, liberty excepted, are not required; because the Holy Spirit did not bind the assistance promised to Peter and his successors to these extrinsic aids.

We do not deny indeed that these means are to be employed more or less according to the gravity of the matter; but we say that the faithful are not to inquire whether they were employed, nor to seek to know it. For by what right would they require this, and from whom would they learn it? Hence, by the very fact that a constitution in matters of faith and morals emanates from the supreme Pontiff as the universal teacher of the Church speaking, and all the faithful are bound to adhere to it with interior assent under pain of heresy, it is not licit for them to suppose that the Pope omitted something necessary; because God, who promised the Pope infallibility, surely provides for the means necessary to obtain this end. For indeed it was defined by the Vatican Synod, as will be seen below, that «the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.» On what foundation could it be asserted that their value depends on the consent of a body which itself is not infallible and whose existence does not pertain by divine right to the constitution of the Church?]

The present question therefore is not about the supreme Pontiff as a private man, whom the more common opinion holds to be able to err as such, but about the Pontiff as Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. Concerning this there is a twofold opinion¹ : The first, that of the Gallicans, who for the most part hold that the supreme Pontiff is not infallible in matters of faith and morals unless the consent of the Church accedes, whether gathered in a general council or at least diffused through the world, from the declaration of the Cleri Gallicani of the year 1682, whose fourth article runs thus : «In questions of faith also the chief parts belong to the supreme Pontiff, and his decrees pertain to each and every Church; yet nevertheless his judgment is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accede.»

The other opinion is that of all the other nations, which steadfastly hold that the supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, in the manner we have explained, independently of the consent of the Church, whether gathered or dispersed, is infallible in deciding questions of faith and morals. Although, however, we judge this common opinion plainly founded on Scripture and tradition, as will appear, we do not propose it as obliging under pain of faith, nor do we assert it; because the Church, whose certain office this is, according to all, to propose revealed truths, has not yet defined it by a special and express solemn decree, nor does merely respective certainty of revelation suffice for faith that binds.

[This indeed was rightly said before the Vatican Synod. Now, however, it must be said that the doctrine which holds that the supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra is infallible independently of the consent of the Church is not only the common opinion, but must be held as of Catholic faith, as revealed : which will become evident from what follows.]

Note 3° that in definitions two things must be distinguished, the intended definition, or conclusion, and the reasons of the conclusion, or other things which Popes say in passing and incidentally. It is of the definition or intended conclusion alone that the common opinion is to be understood, not of the reasons of the definition, or of those things which are said in passing and incidentally.

The true doctrine is asserted and proved by invincible testimonies of Scripture.

I say: The judgment of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals is infallible, independently of the consent of the Church.

Proof. from a threefold place of Scripture. The first is Matth., XVI, 17-19, where Christ says to Peter confessing his divinity :

«Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Iona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee : That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc.» That these words are directed to Peter alone we proved in art. 1°, where we treat of the primacy of St. Peter. Likewise we showed in art. 2°, where we treat of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, that they pertain to the successors of Peter in the Roman See; for since Christ founded a Church to endure forever, its foundation had to abide forever in the successors of Peter. Nor is there here any difficulty about these things; for the adversaries concede them, who prove from this and the following places, together with us, against the sectaries, the primacy of St. Peter and of the Roman Pontiff.

I subsume: But contained in these words is the privilege of infallibility promised to Peter and his successors. Ergo. — Proof of the subsumption. In these words the infallibility of the Church is promised. But the Church, or building, cannot be indefectible if the foundation upon which it rests is defectible. Ergo.

[You will object, 1st : By the rock, according to all the Fathers and Pontiffs, only the faith of Peter is understood. Ergo.

I answer. 1° The antecedent is plainly false. 2° Given the antecedent, nothing is concluded against us. For one interpretation does not exclude another, but they are excellently reconciled by saying that the Fathers and Pontiffs understand the faith of Peter not in the abstract, but in the concrete, namely Peter professing the faith of the divinity, and that this faith was the meritorious cause of the promise, while Peter is the subject to whom the promise was made.

You will object, 2nd : Infallibility was promised not to Peter, but to the Church, to which alone it is necessary. Ergo.

I answer. It was promised to both, yet the Church through Peter, not Peter through the Church; for Peter was not founded upon the Church, but the Church upon Peter.]

The second place is Luc., XXII, 31 and 32, where Christ, with the Passion at hand, thus addresses Peter : Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. 1° In these words Christ promises Peter indefectibility in faith; for he prays for it, and there is no doubt that he was heard out of reverence for him. 2° These words are directed to Peter alone, not to the other Apostles, nor in them to the whole Church. For he makes an open distinction of Peter from the other Apostles and from the whole Church, when he says : And thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren; and when immediately before he had spoken in the plural : Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you, straightway he adds in the singular : But I have prayed for thee, etc. This he would not have said if he had addressed all the Apostles, and in them the Church; but he would have said : «I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not, and you, being once converted, etc.» Nay, he could not even have said that, since the Church consists of the faithful, and besides them there are no others in the Church who are brethren capable of being confirmed. 3° What is most important, he promises Peter indefectibility not as a private person, but as pastor of the Church, such as he was about to constitute him, according to the promise made Matth. XVI, 17-19, consequently to his successors. For he promises him indefectibility in order that he confirm his brethren in faith; which pertains to the office of pastor and head. Hence this copulative proposition : I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren, has the force of a rational, or causal, as though he said : «Therefore I prayed that thy faith fail not, that thou mayest confirm thy brethren;» or : «I prayed that thy faith fail not. Thou therefore, endowed with that indefectible faith, confirm thy brethren.»

And this the holy Fathers testify, who infer from this passage the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff : St. Leo, Serm. 3 on these words of Luke; St. Agatho, Epist. to the Emperor Constantine, which was read and approved in the sixth synod; Leo IX, Epist. to Michael patriarch of Constantinople; St. Bernard, Epist. 190², to Innocent II; Innocent III, Epist. 209, to the patriarch of Constantinople; St. Thomas, 2 2ae, q. 1, a. 10, of whom below.

The adversaries answer that the indefectibility here promised to Peter is transmitted to his successors, not in this sense that each one is indefectible in faith, but in this sense that it will never come to pass that the successors of Peter, that is, their series, succession, and see over which they preside, and the Church which they have undertaken to teach and govern, fall away from the faith. Hence this faith suffers nothing even if several Pontiffs fail in their office and stray from the faith; the Roman faith stands firm, established by their predecessors, to be vindicated by their successors.

Sed contra : 1° The Fathers just now praised prove from these words the indefectibility, not of the Roman See alone or of the Church, but of any Roman Pontiff whatsoever. 2° According to this understanding, the promise of indefectibility was made not to Peter alone, but to the Church, the contrary of which is evident from the proof. 3° Christ prayed, not only that the faith would not simply and absolutely fail, but that it would not fail in Peter. Therefore neither in any one of his successors. 4° If one of the successors of Peter fell away from the faith by teaching, he could not confirm his brethren, which Christ prayed might never come to pass. 5° If one Pontiff speaking ex cathedra could err and errs in the faith, how does the See remain inviolate? How does faith subsist in it? For the See ought to hear the one sitting and obey him. It was, they say, in the predecessors; it will be in the successors. Be it so; but now it is not.

They urge that by the very word confirming the supreme and unappealable judgment is not indicated; for confirm, that is, as far as lies in you, strive that they be firm. For we sent Timothy, says the Apostle, I Thess., I, 2, to confirm you. And it was said to each bishop, Apoc., III, 2 : Be vigilant, and confirm the rest, which were ready to die. Ergo.

I answer. We prove from not this single word, confirm, but from the whole period : I have prayed, etc., and thou confirm, etc., that the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, unappealable and infallible; because in these words Christ promises Peter and each of his successors unfailingness in faith, in order that he confirm the faithful, and thus constitutes him their supreme and infallible judge in matters of faith; which cannot be said of Timothy or of any other bishop.

The third place is Ioann., XXI, 15 and 17, where Christ committed to Peter alone, before the other Apostles, the care of the whole Church : Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. See art. 1° on the primacy of St. Peter for a fuller exposition of this passage applied to our subject. Peter therefore, and any successor of his, must feed the whole Church with the word of doctrine; the Church must hear him and follow his doctrine. But the Church cannot follow false doctrine; for she is indefectible. Therefore neither Peter, nor any successor of his, can propose false doctrine to the Church. And truly it would be absurd that a fallible shepherd be placed over an infallible flock; for then rather the flock ought to feed and rule the shepherd than the shepherd the flock.

They reply that from these words : Feed my sheep, only the office of Peter is indicated, not however that the fulfilling of the commanded office is guaranteed; otherwise it would follow that Peter and his successor would never sin, not only in doctrine, but in no part whatever of the pastoral office, since certainly there is no part which that word does not embrace.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. — To the proof, I deny the consequence. 1° From these words we rightly infer the infallibility of the Pontiff in proposing the faith to the Church; because the Church is indefectible in the faith of her members, and her indefectibility would be infringed if the shepherd proposed to her false doctrine which she ought to follow. But she is not thus indefectible in the morals of her members. Whence it is not likewise necessary that the shepherd be impeccable in the other parts of the pastoral office, as in proposing the faith. 2° Because as long as faith remains, the structure of the Church subsists, and it is the root by which, while it remains, the other virtues can revive. But, once it is taken away, the body of the Church does not subsist, and almost all hope of salvation is taken away. Whence the spiritual pastor must care for this above all and beyond all things, that faith be preserved incorrupt in the flock.

And hence you have why the other bishops, who are also pastors, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility. Since they preside over a private flock only, their error would not infect the universal Church, but the flock only; and moreover, since they are subordinate to the supreme infallible pastor, their error can be corrected by him.

It is confirmed. The conclusion, by an argument ad hominem. The Gallican theologians from these places of Scripture cited prove with us, against the heretics, the primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the universal Church. Why not infallibility, since no more is the primacy expressed in these places than infallibility?

§ III

The conclusion is proved from the Fathers.

Besides the holy Fathers already praised in the preceding §, to be read are St. Irenaeus, lib. II adversus Haereses, c. 3 ; St. Hippolytus Martyr, orat. de Consummatione mundi ; St. Basil, Epist. 74 ; St. Flavian, Epist. to St. Leo ; St. Cyprian, lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae and Epist. 55 ; St. Ambrose, on Psal. XI : «Where Peter is, he says, there is the Church ;» St. Jerome, Epist. 57, to Pope Damasus : «Whoever, he says, gathers not with thee, scatters ;» and in the Exposition of the Symbol, to the same.

Augustine, after the Pelagian heresy condemned by Innocent I, serm. 2 de verbis Apostoli, num. 131, ed. 10, says : «Already on this cause two councils have been sent to the Apostolic See, and from thence rescripts also have come. The cause is finished : would that the error might sometime be finished!» And on the Psal. contra partem Donati, of the Roman Pontiff : «Itself, he says, is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome.»

St. Thomas asks in this second part of the 2ae, q. 1, a. 10 : «Whether it belongs to the supreme Pontiff to order the symbol of faith?» And answers thus : «It must be said that the new promulgation of the symbol is necessary to avoid errors springing up. To his authority therefore belongs the promulgation of the symbol, to whose authority it belongs finally to determine those things that are of faith, that they be held by all with faith unshaken. But this belongs to the authority of the supreme Pontiff, to whom the greater and more difficult questions of the Church are referred, as is said in the Decretal., tit. de Bapt., c. Maiores. Whence also the Lord, Luc., XXII, 32, said to Peter, whom he constituted supreme Pontiff : I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. And the reason of this is, because there ought to be one faith of the whole Church, according to that, I Cor., 1, 10 : That you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you. Which could not be preserved unless, when a question of faith arises, it be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, so that his sentence be firmly held by the whole Church. And therefore to the authority of the supreme Pontiff alone belongs the new promulgation of the symbol, as also all other things that pertain to the whole Church, such as convoking a general synod, and others of this kind.»

Ibid., ad 2um : «It belongs, he says, to the supreme Pontiff [to order a new symbol of faith], by whose authority the synod is gathered, and whose sentence is confirmed.»

Likewise q. 11, a. 2, ad 3 : «The authority of the universal Church resides principally in the supreme Pontiff; for it is said 24, q. 1³ : «As often as the reason of the faith is debated, I judge that all our brethren and fellow-bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, that is, to the authority of his name.»

Against whose authority neither Jerome, nor Augustine, nor any of the sacred doctors defends his own opinion. Whence Jerome says to Pope Damasus : «This is the faith, most blessed Father, which we have learned in the Catholic Church; in which if anything perchance has been set down less skillfully or with too little caution, we desire it corrected by you, who hold both the faith and the see of Peter. But if this confession of ours is approved by the judgment of your apostolate, whoever wishes to blame me will prove himself ignorant, or ill-disposed, or even not Catholic, not me a heretic.» These things are plain and clear, nor do we express our opinion in clearer terms. Nevertheless

The haters of papal infallibility answer, following Gerson, that St. Thomas concedes to the Pontiff supreme and full ecclesiastical power respectively toward the individual faithful and particular churches, not respectively toward the whole Church.

On the contrary. The question now is not about the ecclesiastical power of the Pontiff in general, of which in the following article; although St. Thomas here plainly expresses it to be supreme and full respectively toward the whole Church : «He presides over the whole Church,» he says. But the question is about his infallibility. Most formally, however, the holy Doctor teaches that «to the authority alone» of the supreme Pontiff belongs the publishing of the symbol of faith, that it be held by all with unshaken faith.

But, they say, by «alone» the holy Doctor understands principal.

By the faith of the gods! who ever interpreted τὸ «alone» as principal? If principal, not alone; if alone, not principal. When I say : «To the authority alone of the king belongs the enacting of laws for the whole kingdom,» who will pretend that by «alone» I understand principal? Nor does it help that St. Thomas, in the argument On the contrary, says the symbol was published by the authority of the universal Church. For all know that with D. Thomas the proof taken from the argument Sed contra carries light weight. But neither do we deny that the symbol was published by the authority of the Church — true, according to the holy Doctor, by an authority borrowed from the supreme Pontiff, who «presides over the whole Church,» and to whose «authority alone» belongs the publishing of the symbol, the gathering and confirming of general synods, and the managing of all things that pertain to the whole Church.⁴

But why do we linger over refuting this violent interpretation, when we have St. Thomas expressly excluding it? «Just as the later synod, he says, q. 10 de Potentia, a. 4, ad 13, has the power of interpreting the symbol composed by the earlier synod, and of positing something for its explanation; so also the Roman Pontiff can do this by his authority, by whose authority alone a synod can be convoked, by whom the sentence of the synod is confirmed, and to whom from the synod appeal is made. All which things are evident from the acts of the synod of Chalcedon. Nor is it necessary that a universal council be convoked to make its exposition.» To the authority therefore, to the authority alone, and not merely to the principal authority in a general council, of the supreme Pontiff belongs the ordering of the symbol of faith, and the final determining of those things that are of faith, that they be held by all with unshaken faith.

These things the most perspicacious theologians have scented out. Whence finally they conclude that, if St. Thomas grants the supreme Pontiff absolute infallibility independent of the consent of the Church, it is licit for themselves to rest safely in the doctrine of the Fathers who went before and in the later decrees of the council of Constance.

Does St. Thomas then see dimly in the doctrine of the Fathers, he whose greatest praise is that he was the mouth of the holy Fathers, and poured them all into himself as it were one? St. Thomas, I say, concerning whom the most celebrated Academy of Paris in a decree issued under Stephen bishop of Paris sings these things : «Divine Thomas was the most resplendent light of the universal Church, a gem shining among clerics, a fountain of doctors, the clearest mirror of our university and a distinguished and shining candlestick, through which all who walk in the ways of life and the schools of sound doctrine see light.» I urge no more. Of the council of Constance I shall speak in the following article.

§ IV

It is proved from the councils and Pontiffs.

On the Sardican council see art. 2 preceding.

On the Ephesine council, in the same place, second proof, we saw that the Fathers «compelled by the letter of Pope Celestine,» passed sentence against Nestorius.

On the council of Chalcedon also, in the same article, we said that, act. 2, when the celebrated letter of St. Leo to St. Flavian had been read, the Fathers exclaimed : «This is the faith of the Fathers... Peter has spoken through Leo.» Likewise, the council finished, the Fathers asked St. Leo to confirm what had been sanctioned in the council. He confirmed, however, only those things which concerned the Eutychian heresy, and he disapproved and rescinded those which concerned the privileges of the church of Constantinople.

The adversaries oppose, and urge strongly, the examination of the celebrated letter of St. Leo to Flavian made by the synod; from which they infer that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff in causes of faith is not irreversible.

I answer. that this examination was made not because the synod suspected any error in that letter; for already beforehand — which is well to be noted — the synod had subscribed to it without examination, and often the Fathers had cried out : «As Leo believes, so we believe. Peter has spoken through Leo. We have subscribed to all the letters. Those things suffice for faith which have been set forth; it is not licit that another exposition be made.» That examination was made therefore after the letter had already been received, in order that the Eutychians, who execrated it as Nestorian, might be more thoroughly convicted, and that no ground for retracting it remain to them any longer, since it was strengthened by the consent of the whole Church, as St. Leo himself says, epist. 65, to Theodoret, and the Fathers of the synod in their relation to Marcian the Emperor : «To those who believe, speaking of this letter, they say, the undiscussed contemplation of it suffices for the utility of faith, drawing devout souls to the confession of the pious dogma. But against those who endeavor to pervert right doctrine one must meet each thing which they wickedly bring forth.»

Whence, when the Fathers of the V synod, collat. 6, in order to prepare their way to the condemnation of the letter of Ibas, which had been neither discussed nor approved in the council of Chalcedon, said that the letter of St. Leo had not been received in that same council without inquiry and comparison with the doctrine of the Fathers : either they erred in a matter of fact, as is evident from the acts of the council of Chalcedon; or they understand it of the second reception, which was only a fuller declaration of the first, for a greater and more efficacious confutation of the Eutychians.

Pope Agatho, on the occasion of the VI general council, Constantinople III, in the year 680, wrote two letters to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, the first alone, the second with the Roman council. In the second he pronounces securely that he charged his legates at the council that the things which he himself with his council had defined were not to be examined as doubtful and uncertain, but were to be published as certain and immutable. And he utters threats against those who should contradict the sentence of condemnation. This letter, however, was read in the council, act. 4, and by all, act. 8, approved and subscribed, none contradicting, except one Macarius a monothelite, who was therefore deposed.

In the first letter Agatho says that the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiffs never have failed in the faith nor ever shall fail, but that it is their part to confirm the brethren in the faith, and that his predecessors always performed this.

This letter, like the preceding, the Fathers equally received, act. 18, each one assenting severally in his own order, and in an acclamatory address they said : Through Agatho Peter spoke. And in the letter to Agatho himself : «To thee, as the High Priest of the first See of the universal Church, we leave what is to be done, standing upon the firm rock of faith.»

A certain man replies that the letters of Agatho were not received without a previous examination; from which he infers that they were not held infallible by the council.

I answer. 1° that only one or another of the Fathers mentioned the examination, while all the rest voted simply, no mention of an examination having been made.

I answer. 2°. Given the antecedent, I deny the inference. For whoever examines some doctrine does not doubt its truth. Thus theologians daily examine the sacred Scriptures, the decrees of oecumenical councils, by comparing them with Scripture and tradition : not that they doubt at all of the truth of the Scriptures or of the decrees of faith, but that they may be more and more confirmed in them, may be ready to answer all who inquire of them about them, and be more fit to confute the refractory. Thus the Ephesine Fathers examined the letter of St. Leo, doubting not at all of its truth, as we said above. — Likewise, if, the examination having been made, the synod approved the letters of Agatho : therefore it approved, the examination having been made, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff clearly asserted in them.

In the eighth general council, Constantinople IV, in the year 869, against Photius, no one was admitted unless he had first subscribed the formula of faith sent by Adrian II. But in this formula of faith are contained the following things : «Because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, saying : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; these things which were said are proved by the events of facts, because in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved immaculate and holy doctrine celebrated. Not wishing at all to be separated from this faith and doctrine, and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers and especially of the holy pontiffs of the Apostolic See, we anathematize all heresies, together with the iconomachs.» Behold in a general council the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff admitted, founded on the words of Christ : Thou art Peter, etc.

In the council of Vienne, Clement V, Clementina de summa Trinit., § Nos igitur, defined that «it pertains to the Apostolic consideration alone to declare» those things that are obscure in the Scriptures.

Clement VI, himself a Gallican and a doctor of Paris, proposed fourteen articles of doctrine to the Armenians newly converted to the Catholic faith, to which they ought to subscribe if they wished to be joined wholly with the Roman Church. The fifth of these ran thus : «If you have believed and believe that so it has been, so also will be the supreme and preeminent authority and juridical power of the Roman Pontiffs, and of those who will be hereafter : so that they have been able to be judged by no one, we could not, nor shall they be able hereafter, but they have been reserved, we are reserved and shall be reserved, to be judged by God alone; and that from our sentences and judgments there could not, nor can, nor will be an appeal to any other judge?» The thirteenth ran thus : «If you have believed and still believe that only the Roman Pontiff, in doubts arising concerning the Catholic faith, can by an authentic determination, which must be inviolably adhered to, put an end; and that whatever he determines by the authority of the keys delivered to him by Christ to be false and heretical is true and Catholic, or that such must be so judged?» These things are found in Odoricus Raynaldus, in the Annals, under the years 1346 and 1351.

[Let the decrees of councils on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff cited in the preceding article be re-read, and especially the Florentine decree by which it is declared that the Pope «exists father and teacher of all Christians.»]

You will say : The supreme Pontiffs whom we have praised up to this point spoke in their own cause. Therefore their testimonies prove nothing.

I answer. 1° I distinguish the antecedent. That the supreme Pontiffs spoke in their own cause openly and with no one contradicting — I concede the antecedent; with others contradicting, I deny the antecedent and the consequence. Thus, while throughout all past antiquity bishops defended the rights of their sees, kings and princes the rights of their thrones, by public acts which no one contradicted, their testimonies were admitted. Why should not those of the Pontiffs be admitted, who testified to and defended the privileges of their See by monuments and public acts which no one in their time contradicted?

2° The Pontiffs praised were distinguished not only for learning but also for probity of life, and many among them are numbered among the saints. There is therefore no reason for suspecting that out of pride and ambition they wished to vindicate to themselves unfounded and unjust privileges.

[The doctrine expressed by the ancient councils and sanctioned by the Pontiffs the Vatican synod defined more explicitly, constitutio Pastor aeternus, cap. 4, on the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. This decree, by which an end was put to the disputes raised about this grave question, we insert here entire.

«By the Apostolic primacy itself, moreover, which the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter prince of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of magisterium also is comprehended — this Holy See has always held, the perpetual usage of the Church approves, and the oecumenical councils themselves have declared, especially those in which the East met the West in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession : The first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, saying : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, these things which were said are proved by their effects, because in the Apostolic See the catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate and holy doctrine celebrated. Not wishing at all therefore to be separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the complete and true solidity of the Christian religion.⁵ » With the second council of Lyons approving, however, the Greeks professed that «the holy Roman Church obtains the supreme and full primacy and principality over the universal Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges itself to have received from the Lord himself, with the fullness of power, in blessed Peter, prince or head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as beyond the rest it is bound to defend the truth of the faith, so too, if any questions should arise concerning the faith, they ought to be defined by its judgment.» Finally the Florentine council defined that «the Roman Pontiff exists as the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter was handed over by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church.»

«From hence also our predecessors gave unwearied labor that they might satisfy the pastoral office, in order that the saving doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, where it had been received, it might be preserved sincere and pure. Wherefore the bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synods, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the ancient rule and form, referred especially those dangers which emerged in matters of faith to this Apostolic See, that there above all the losses of faith might be repaired, where the faith cannot know failure ⁶. The Roman Pontiffs moreover, as the condition of times and affairs counseled, sometimes convoking oecumenical councils, sometimes exploring the opinion of the Church dispersed through the whole world, recognized, with God's aid, what was consonant with tradition. Nor indeed was the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter in order that, revealing through him, they might make known a new doctrine, but that, assisting them, they might holily guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith. Their apostolic doctrine indeed all venerable Fathers embraced, and orthodox holy Doctors revered and followed, knowing most fully that this See of St. Peter remains always untouched by every error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples : I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

«This gift therefore of truth and of never-failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might fulfill their lofty office for the salvation of all, that the whole flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine, that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting on her foundation, stand firm against the gates of hell.

«But truly, since in this very age, in which the saving efficacy of the Apostolic office is most especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God deigned to join with the highest pastoral office.

«Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approval of the sacred Council, teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma : that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when fulfilling the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be instructed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

«But if anyone presume to contradict this our definition, which God forbid — let him be anathema.»

Here you have, not only that the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra is infallible, but the reasons, nature and extension of this infallibility.]

The conclusion is proved from Fathers, bishops and Gallican theologians.

1° The Fathers of the council of Arles, in the year 453, in a synodical letter to St. Leo say : «The writing of your Apostolate (doubtless the celebrated letter to St. Flavian) whoever does not neglect the sacraments of Religion has inscribed upon the tablets of his heart as the symbol of faith, and commits to tenacious memory, that he may be the more ready to confound the errors of heretics.»

2° In the year 517, St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, in the name of the Gallican Church recognizes the supreme Pontiff as supreme judge in causes of faith. For thus he writes epist. to Pope Hormisdas : «We ask therefore, with my service joined, that you instruct me what I ought to answer your sons, my brothers, that is, the Gallicans, if they consult me; because, already secure, I promise, not of Vienna alone do I speak, but of the devotion of all Gaul, that all seek after your judgment concerning the state of the faith. Pray that the counterfeited profession of those aforementioned deceive us not, just as the truth discovered separates us not from the unity which you govern.» The same of the council of Tours, in the year 567, to which nearly the whole Gallican Church had come together.

3° In the year 1324, Stephen, bishop of Paris, on the occasion of the bull of canonization of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of that same Academy, issued a decree, with the consent of the dean and Chapter of Paris and of the masters of said University, as the edict states, of the following tenor : «We therefore attending to the fact that the most holy Roman Church, MOTHER AND TEACHER OF ALL, founded upon the most firm confession of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, to which, as to the UNIVERSAL RULE OF CATHOLIC TRUTH, belongs the approval and reprobation of doctrines, the declaration of doubts, the determination of things to be held and the confutation of errors, etc.»

A few years later, the same Academy offered to Clement VII, residing at Avignon, whom France acknowledged as the true Pontiff, a theological treatise in which it asserted and proved the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in questions of faith, by the same authorities of Scripture and of the Fathers by which we prove it.

4° Of the same opinion was the whole Gallican nation in the year 1305, when the nobles of the kingdom, in the name of the nation, petitioned, by a little book given to Clement V, that he condemn the memory of Boniface VIII. For they said : «No inquiry is made into the heresy of the former Pope as Pope, but as a private person. FOR HE COULD NOT BE A HERETIC AS POPE, but as a private person. Nor was ever any Pope a heretic IN QUANTUM POPE.»

By this testimony is evinced not only the conclusion according to the mind of the nation, but it is also established that this distinction between the Pope as Pope and as a private man is not recently invented, as some babble forth.

In the year 1579, the Gallican Clergy, in the general assemblies of Melun against the errors of Luther and Calvin, thus commands : «Clerics and laity with open profession pronounce that faith which the holy Roman CHURCH, TEACHER, PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH, professes and cultivates. To this indeed, on account of its principality, EVERY CHURCH MUST NEEDS COME TOGETHER.» And at the end of the articles is subjoined : «All these things we subject to the judgment and authority of the holy Roman Church, by whose precepts the faithful people ought to be instructed and the CERTAIN RULE OF FAITH AND OF CORRECTION OF MORALS established.»

5° In the year 1626, the general assembly of the Gallican Clergy, article 1637, enacts, «that the bishops are to be exhorted to observe the Apostolic See, and the Roman Church founded upon the infallible promise of God... THE INFALLIBILITY OF FAITH given to Peter with the keys, which we see, by the miracle of divine power, to remain IMMOVABLE IN THE SUCCESSORS OF PETER, even to this present day.»

6° In the year 1653, eighty-five bishops, gathered in assembly, ask of Innocent X judgment upon the book of Jansenius, chiefly for this reason, that «to refer greater causes to the Apostolic See is the solemn custom of the Church, in which the faith of Peter NEVER FAILING IS PRESERVED FOREVER.» And in the year 1654, giving thanks to the same Pontiff for the condemnation of the book of Jansenius, in letters given they say : «We perceive, not only from the promise made by Christ to Peter, but from the acts of previous Pontiffs, that judgments laid down by the supreme Pontiffs for establishing the RULE OF FAITH upon the consultation of bishops rest upon DIVINE AND SUPREME authority throughout the universal Church, to which all Christians, from duty, owe obedience even of mind itself, whether the bishops put forward their own opinion in the consultation, or put it not forward;» that is, whether the consent of the consulting bishops accede or accede not. Therefore the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is an infallible rule of faith, independently of the consent of the Church.

[7° To these testimonies of the pristine doctrine of the Gallican Church concerning the inerrancy of the Roman Pontiff are to be added the decrees of more recent provincial councils convoked in France from the year 1849 down to this time. By nearly all of these the Florentine decree was renewed, by which it is taught that «the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and exists father and teacher of all Christians.» By some also it was asserted that his judgments concerning faith and morals are per se irreformable. Among these councils may be cited the councils of Soissons, Sens, Bordeaux and Reims, to say nothing of those whose acts we have not at hand.]

The conclusion is proved by reasons.

Proof. 1°. Thus I argue with our Hyacinthus Serry. That judgment in the matter of faith is irreformable which is supreme and last, after which no higher one is given to which appeal could be made. But such is the judgment of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, in the matter of faith and morals. Ergo. — The major is evident.

Proof of the minor manifoldly. 1° From three Pontiffs, Boniface I, Gelasius I and Nicholas I. He, epist. 8, to Michael the Emperor speaks thus : «It is clear indeed that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority THERE IS NONE GREATER, is to be revoked by no one, NOR IS IT LICIT FOR ANYONE TO JUDGE ITS JUDGMENT.» According to which Pope Boniface, writing to Rufus and the other bishops settled throughout Thessaly, says : «NO ONE EVER boldly laid opposing hands upon the Apostolic summit, concerning whose judgment it is not licit to appeal; NO ONE HAS

APPEARED A REBEL in this, except he who wished himself to be judged. » And B. Pope Gelasius : «They themselves are the canons which willed the appeals of the whole Church to be brought to the examination of this See; THEY SANCTIONED THAT FROM IT ITSELF NOWHERE AT ALL OUGHT AN APPEAL BE MADE : and thereby that it judge THE WHOLE CHURCH, that it itself pass to the judgment of no one. »

Proof. 2° of the same minor from Augustine, who, as we saw, held the judgment of Innocent I against the Pelagians as final and irreformable, when he said : «The rescripts came from Rome, the cause is finished.» This also is established from several other Fathers praised by us before.

Proof. 3° of the same minor. 1° The Appellant in the case of an appeal is exempted from the jurisdiction of him from whom he appeals, and withdraws from his obedience. But no faithful man can be exempted from the jurisdiction of the supreme Pontiff, otherwise he would no longer be his sheep, consequently neither faithful; nor can he withdraw from his obedience, since he is the supreme ruler, pastor and superior of all. Ergo. 2° The judge from whom appeal is made ought not give and designate to the appellant the judge to whom, otherwise he would act against himself. But it belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke, gather, confirm and give force to oecumenical councils. Ergo the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is last in the Church, consequently infallible and irreformable. — The consequence is evident, because, if there were a tribunal from which one could appeal from the Pope, it would doubtless be a general council.

The conclusion is proved by another reason. In a Church well ordered by Christ there ought to be admitted a judge always abiding and living, who interprets and settles infallibly the Scriptures, traditions and controversies arising concerning faith and morals. But he is none other than the Roman Pontiff. Ergo. —

Proof of the minor. This supreme and infallible judge always living is not the private spirit of anyone, not a secular prince, as we said formerly, not a general council; because, although with the Pontiff presiding it is an infallible rule of faith, yet it suffices not, because general councils are gathered very rarely and with great difficulty, and yet controversies concerning faith and morals arise continually in the Church, for the settling of which a judge must be present at hand. Ergo.

They say that the universal Church is present, with whose consent acceding the judgment of the supreme Pontiff becomes irreformable and infallible. So the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the thirty-four Gallican bishops spoken of above. And this seems to be the epoch of the present-day opinion of the French, which although it remains refuted by all that has been said, it helps nevertheless to attack it specially from the absurdities which follow from it. Whence

§ VII. — The conclusion is proved from the absurdities of the adverse opinion.

If the judgment of the supreme Pontiff be not infallible in questions of faith and morals except by the consent of the Church,

It follows 1° that the Pontiff borrows his infallibility from the Church, and thus that the Church is not founded upon Peter, but Peter upon the Church; that Peter feeds not the sheep, but the sheep feed Peter; that Peter confirms not the brethren in the faith, but the brethren confirm Peter : which things are plainly contrary to the Scriptures.

It follows 2° that the supreme Pontiff enjoys the privilege of infallibility no more than the bishop of the smallest diocese. For let him define something of faith and propose to his diocesans a thing to be believed; if the consent of the other bishops accede, his judgment will be infallible. The same can be said of the judgment of a simple pastor and teacher. But the consequent is absurd and utterly alien to Scripture and the whole tradition. Ergo.

It follows 3° that the faithful would be fluctuating in faith, nor have anything fixed and firm to which, with the assent of faith, adhere. For I ask what kind of assent of the Church is required. Of the whole Church, of the greater part, of the lesser, say of one province or nation? Not the latter; for by what right would this Church of one province or nation confer upon the Pontiff an infallibility which it has not? Not the first; otherwise the dissent of one or another bishop or faithful man would suffice to weaken the judgment of the supreme Pontiff, and thus never will any judgment be infallible. Moreover how and when could the consent of the bishops and faithful who are in the East and West Indies be had? And meanwhile the faithful will waver and heresies will rage. Finally not the second : 1° Because, as I was just saying of the third, whence has a part of the Church, even though greater, and not the whole Church, an infallibility which it confers upon the Pontiff? 2° Who will count the consenting parts, that it be discerned whether the greater part adheres? Who will announce this consent to the faithful? We know this done once from the beginning of the Church on the occasion of the bull Unigenitus, which nevertheless not all obey. What then of the innumerable ones concerning which it has not been done? What of future ones, concerning which it is not credible that it ever will be done? Meanwhile no faithful man will be bound to offer the assent of faith to papal decrees; for no one is bound nor can assent with divine faith unless to an authority which he certainly knows to be infallible, since falsity cannot underlie faith : and thus each one will be left to his own judgment, and, as I was just saying, heresies will rage and gain strength. 3° If the assent of the greater part suffice, there is no reason why the French dispute with such zeal; for since, these excepted, all the other churches, at least three parts of the whole universality, acknowledge the supreme Pontiff infallible, no decree emanates ex cathedra from him which is not received by the greater part of the Church.

But, they say, it must be accepted after previous examination. — I distinguish. After previous examination, that it be understood what it contains — I concede; that it be corrected as though doubtful or erroneous, I deny. Otherwise it could happen that three parts of the Church err in faith together with the Pontiff, and France alone without the supreme Pontiff preserves the true faith. Moreover whence could the faithful certainly know that all the bishops accepted after previous examination? And until they learn this, they will waver, nor will they be bound nor able to offer the assent of faith. Where then will the faith of the Church be? Where the Church?

§ VIII. — The common and principal evasion of the adversaries is cut off.

Whatever we have produced up to this point from Scripture, the Fathers, councils,

Pontiffs, theologians, etc., for the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the adversaries take the sayings, not of the man sitting in the chair of Peter, but of the very chair, of the Roman See, of the Roman Church, and, as some say — which is the same thing — of the series and succession of the Roman Pontiffs; so that the sense is, that the chair of Peter, the Roman See, the Roman Church is infallible, and never to fail in faith : that should it happen that one Pontiff fail, it will be corrected by successors, and thus faith will remain forever in the Roman See, in the chair of Peter, in the Roman Church. And to this end they praise that celebrated saying of St. Leo, epist. 53, to Anatolius : «Other are the sees, other the sitters,» and because otherwise, they say, upon the dying of the Pontiff, the faith of the Church would fail, or be imperiled.

Besides those things by which we have already here and there refuted this understanding — besides the fact that several testimonies which we have produced ascribe infallibility not only to the See or chair of Peter, or the Roman Church, but to the very sitter and to the very Pontiff, even sometimes by his express name; besides these things, I say,

I ask now only, what do they understand by the See and chair of Peter, or the Roman Church. Whether that which is contained within the circuit of the city of Rome? Whether the universal or Catholic Church? For I see some understand the Church of the city of Rome, others the universal Church; nay, the same persons understand now the Church of the city of Rome, now the universal, according as they are pressed by arguments.

If they understand the Church which is contained within the circuit of the city of Rome : the supreme Pontiff never defines anything of faith ex cathedra without having the Church of the city of Rome consenting, both because he consults her in her chief members, and because she herself immediately assents to the things defined by the Pontiff; and thus the Pontiff defining ex cathedra is always infallible.

If they understand the Catholic and universal Church, they plainly contradict Scripture in the three places adduced in the first proof, in which we proved that the dignity of the foundation of the Church, of the pastor of the Church, of the confirmer of the brethren, whence infallibility follows, was handed to Peter alone, and not to the whole Church. They contradict likewise tradition and all past antiquity, the decrees of councils and supreme Pontiffs, the Fathers, theologians, themselves. For the holy Fathers, councils, Pontiffs, theologians whom we have praised, the adversaries themselves, say that the Roman Church, which the proud gate of hell does not overcome, to which perfidy cannot have access, which finally they acknowledge to be infallible, is Mother and Teacher of all the churches, the center of ecclesiastical unity, whence sacerdotal unity arose, to which all churches must needs come together, that the Church is founded upon her, and many like things. Now it is plain that these things cannot be said of the universal Church, since besides her there are no churches. For what is the universal Church other than all the churches taken together? But the whole is not distinguished from the parts taken together. It cannot therefore be said of the universal Church that she is Mother and Teacher of all the churches, just as it cannot be said that someone is father and teacher of himself; nor that she is the center of unity, just as all lines cannot be the center of any line; nor that sacerdotal unity arose from her, since she herself is sacerdotal unity; nor that other churches must needs come together to her, since besides her, as was said, there are no others; nor that the Church is founded upon her, else she would be founded upon herself. Finally let the studious reader deign to attend to the testimonies which we have produced : scarcely one will he find by which that exotic interpretation is not pierced through.

As to the saying of St. Leo, doubtless other are the sees, other the sitters. The see is the name of authority, dignity and office; the sitter is the name of the person obtaining authority, dignity and office : whereby is signified that he who has authority and office does not always act from authority and office; and thus the Roman Pontiff can act not ex officio pontifical, but conduct himself as a private person, which helps the adversaries nothing, nor harms us.

To that which they add of the dead Pontiff answers

Cano, lib. IV de Locis theologicis, last chapter, that, «the supreme Pontiff dead, one without doubt the Church remains, and there remains in her the Spirit of truth; but maimed and diminished, without the Vicar of Christ and the one shepherd of the Church, she is left. Wherefore, although truth then also be in the Church (for it is not in the Pontiff alone passively), yet, if controversies of faith and religion arise, the judgments of the Church without a head on earth will not be so certain.»

They urge. If by the rock and foundation the person of Peter be understood, it follows from thence that Peter was not only infallible, but also ought to have been immortal, since the building of the Church founded upon him was to remain forever. False consequent. Ergo.

I answer. Besides the answer already given above to this instance, I distinguish the consequence. If by the rock and foundation be understood the person of Peter physically and entitatively, it follows, etc. — I concede; if the person of Peter morally, that is, his very dignity, authority, jurisdiction and doctrine, it follows, etc. — I deny the consequence and its proof. For these, upon the dying of Peter, persist in virtue in the Church and pass over to his successors; just as, upon the dying of the king, the kingdom does not perish, because the dignity, authority, jurisdiction remain, which pass over to the successors.

ARTICLE IV

The objections are solved.

You will object, 1° : If the supreme Pontiff is infallible in defining questions of faith and morals, general councils are useless. False consequent. Ergo. — The consequence is evident; because the Pontiff, by this very fact that he is infallible, can by himself alone, without a council, define all controversies of faith and morals with irreformable judgment. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the consequence. — To the proof, I distinguish the antecedent. That the supreme Pontiff can by himself alone, without a council, define all controversies of faith and morals with irreformable judgment — I concede; and that at the same time he can by himself alone, without a council, equally efficaciously repress the insolence of heretics, break their pertinacity, quiet tumults, provide means fit for the execution of the definitions — I deny; and that he cannot do these things equally efficaciously by himself alone — I concede; and I deny the consequence. General councils therefore are not per se absolutely necessary for the certain and infallible definition of truth against heretics. For how many heresies before the first general council of Nicaea, and also in following times, were irretractably condemned by the Roman Pontiffs alone without general councils! Per accidens, however, they are sometimes necessary, or at least highly useful, both to repress the audacity of rioting heretics and to break their pertinacity; for more easily and with less shame is concession made to all than to one; then for the easier and more efficacious execution of the decrees, insofar as all the bishops of all nations subscribe to them, and profess that they will embrace them and commit their execution to their diocesans. Likewise the needs and customs of the individual provinces become better known, and what means are to be employed toward each one for meeting the growing error and promoting the observance of laws and decrees; for what suits Italy or Germany will perhaps profit France or Spain little; for as there is a various complexion of bodies, so also of morals.

Hence an answer is given to the various instances which they seek from the convocation of councils, even after heresies already condemned by the supreme Pontiffs. Thus Celestine had condemned the heresy of Nestorius, but had not extinguished it, on account of the most powerful friends and defenders of Nestorius; and therefore the convocation of the Ephesine synod was necessary, that with opportune remedies the madness of the heretics might be compressed, the progress of the heresy stopped, the faith of Catholics fortified. Thus St. Leo, in the celebrated Epistle to St. Flavian, had condemned the Eutychian heresy; but, because Dioscorus and others in the robbery of Ephesus had rejected it as Nestorian, had beaten Flavian with blows and stripes and cast him out, nay more, had passed sentence against St. Leo himself, it was necessary that the Chalcedonian synod be gathered, that it might quiet these tumults and meet so many evils.

You will object, 2° : St. Cyprian, conspicuous for doctrine and holiness, resisted Pope Stephen defining that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized, together with several African bishops. Therefore he himself did not acknowledge the supreme Pontiff infallible, nor was infallibility then held in the Church.

I answer. I deny both inferences; because Cyprian never apprehended the question about rebaptizing those baptized by heretics to pertain to faith, but only to discipline, nor did Stephen define it ex cathedra as a dogma of faith.

A twofold question therefore is here to be distinguished : the first, whether the baptism of heretics is invalid; the second, whether those baptized by heretics are to be rebaptized. The first is speculative, and pertains to faith; the second is disciplinary, and regards practice. Stephen however, leaving the first question untouched, prohibited the second, and ordered that nothing be innovated, but that the ancient custom be preserved, nothing more; and this, not by a solemn decree directed to the whole Church, but by a rescript in private letters to Cyprian and his colleagues. Which thing Cyprian thus reports, Epist. 74, to Pompey (for we know it from him alone) : «If anyone therefore come from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated, except what has been handed down, that hands be laid upon him for penance.» Whence Aug., lib. II de Bapt. cont. Donat., cap. 9, n. 14 : «By the strength of custom, he says, the whole world was held, and this alone was opposed to those wishing to introduce novelty.» Nor indeed did Cyprian hold that rescript as a decree ex cathedra of the Apostolic See, since, as Augustine testifies, ibid., c. 7, n. 12, «that question of baptism was not yet diligently discussed (in the time of Cyprian), yet nevertheless the Church held the most salutary custom.» But what was not yet sufficiently discussed and examined could not be proposed as a decree of the Apostolic See and an article of faith. Whence the objection bears not against the conclusion, which concerns the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra in controversies of faith. We proved this answer with many arguments in the Digress. hist. to dissert. V de Sacram. in genere, sect. 1, tom. II, where you will find several of the things the adversaries object anticipated and solved.

They insist 1° : Stephen, defining that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized, supposed their baptism to be valid : at least that could be inferred from the definition. Ergo.

I answer. here there is no question of supposition or inference, but of definition ex cathedra. Whatever Stephen had in mind, it is established that he defined nothing else than that «nothing be innovated,» whether he held of faith that this baptism was valid, or only as something he held more certain. Nor, as was said, did he define it ex cathedra.

They insist 2° : Even if Stephen had defined ex cathedra, as a dogma of faith, that the baptism of heretics is valid, and that those baptized by them are not to be rebaptized, Cyprian ought not to have acquiesced to him. Ergo. — Proof of the antecedent from Augustine, lib. II de Bapt. cont. Donat., cap. 4, n. 5, where he says : «Nor would we ourselves dare to assert such a thing, unless strengthened by the most harmonious authority of the universal Church, to which doubtless even he would yield, if already at that time the truth of this question were strained out and declared, and confirmed by a plenary council.» Ergo, according to Augustine, we are bound to acquiesce to the judgment of a plenary council alone, and not to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff.

I answer. I deny the consequence. For the sense of Augustine is that he would not dare to assert — namely as a dogma of faith, as he asserted it then, when he spoke against the Donatists — that the baptism of heretics is valid, and that those baptized by them are not to be rebaptized, unless it had been defined in a general council; because only a general council had defined it as a dogma of faith, and not Stephen, in whose age this question was not yet sufficiently strained out and discussed, and who opposed to novelty only the ancient custom, as Augustine himself says. Whence by these words Augustine does not intend to exclude the infallibility of papal judgment, but to assert the infallibility of the council; just as if, speaking of a proposition defined by the Tridentine council, I were to say : «This proposition I would not dare to assert, if it had not been defined by the council of Trent.» Badly would anyone interpret me from thence to deny infallibility to the supreme Pontiff, and to attribute it to the council of Trent alone. For no comparison is there made between the council and the Pontiff, such that the one is called infallible and the other fallible; but the plain sense is : «I dare to assert this proposition as doctrine of faith, because the council of Trent, which is infallible, defined it, and no other who is infallible defined it.»

You will object, 3° : St. Peter erred twice in faith : 1° when he denied Christ, at the time of the Passion; 2° when at Antioch, after the Ascension, he observed legal observances and compelled the Gentiles to judaize, for which cause he was reproved by Paul.

I answer. To the first, that St. Peter denied Christ orally, not in heart. Thus the holy Fathers commonly interpret. And grant that he denied him in heart; he was not yet constituted Pontiff then, nor was he teaching the universal Church.

To the second, Peter erred by observing legal observances, «not by preaching falsehood, but by imprudent conversation,» says Augustine, Epist. 40⁷ and 82⁸ to Jerome. Of this fact I wrote more at length in the tract. de Relig., Digress. hist. at the end of dissert. IX, in the greater Work.

[Add that even if Peter had not had the privilege of infallibility as Pontiff, he would have had it at least as Apostle; for all the Apostles, by the coming down of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, were so confirmed in the faith that none could fall away from it. Whence under no title can it be supposed that Peter taught falsely as regards the observance of legal ceremonies. If perchance he erred in practice, judging opportune what displeased Paul, his fault was not grave, on account of the reason given by St. Thomas, in cap. 1 epist. ad Gal., lect. 3 : «It must be said that, after the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles in no way sinned mortally, and they had this gift through divine power, which had confirmed them. Psal. LXXIV, 4 : I have confirmed the pillars thereof. They sinned, however, venially, and this befell them from human frailty, I Ioann., I, 8 : If we say that we have no sin, namely venial, we seduce ourselves.»]

You will object, 4° : Liberius subscribed to the Arian heresy and to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, whose cause was joined with the cause of the faith, insofar as he was its strenuous defender, and he communicated with Arian bishops. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the antecedent for the first part; but Liberius subscribed to a formula in itself Catholic, as I proved at sufficient length in the Digress. histor. to the introductory dissertation of the treatise on the Trinity, in the greater Work. See it. — To the second part of the antecedent : Liberius subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius, because he judged his cause to be severed from the cause of the faith, and Athanasius to have been condemned for faults concerning discipline and morals, of which he had truly been accused. — To the third part of the antecedent : Liberius communicated with semi-Arian bishops, who simulated that they had condemned Arius and were Catholics.

I answer 2°. Given the antecedent as to all its parts, no one will dream that the Pontiff driven into exile, terrified by threats, overcome by desire of liberty, subscribing orally to the Arian formula and to the condemnation of Athanasius, and communicating with heretics, had spoken ex cathedra, and by the fullness of power bound the universal Church to subscribe to Arianism; which alone however is here brought into question.

You will object, 5° : Zosimus, successor of Innocent I, approved the little book of Celestius the Pelagian, in which original sin was openly denied. Ergo.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That Zosimus approved the book of Celestius, in which original sin was denied, as Catholic, having regard to the propositions and dogmas which it contained — I deny; having regard to the mind, disposition and manner of speaking of the author, who asserted this error of his not absolutely, but proposed it only in the manner of one doubting, seeking instruction, submitting his own sense to the judgment of the Apostolic See, ready to correct whatever he judged should be corrected; moreover declaring that he consented to the letters of Innocent condemning Pelagius, and that he would condemn all things whatsoever which the Apostolic See should condemn — I concede. But nothing prohibits a book under such consideration, whereby pertinacity is excluded from its author, from being able to be called Catholic. The solution is that of Augustine, lib. II contra duas Epist. Pelagian. ad Bonifac., cap. 3, n. 5.

I answer 2°. Given the antecedent, nothing follows against us. For it is established that Zosimus, approving privately the book of Celestius and writing private letters to the bishops of Africa, had not addressed the universal Church, nor bound her to believe with divine faith that original sin is not given, and thus had not spoken ex cathedra, as afterwards he spoke, when, the fraud detected, he condemned Pelagius and Celestius by a solemn decree, the epistle of condemnation being sent to all the bishops of the whole world, which was commonly called Translatoria.

You will object, 6° : Vigilius now proved, now disapproved the three Chapters, which pertained to the faith; for they were dogmatic facts. Ergo.

I answer. Of the cause of the three Chapters and of Vigilius I have said enough in art. 6 of the preceding dissertation. One instance alone remains against what I said, that Vigilius never proved the three Chapters as regards the obvious sense of the texts, but only forbade that they be condemned under the names of the authors appealed. Therefore

They urge : Vigilius, in his constitution, says of the letter of Ibas : «Itself understood in a most right and most pious sense» remains unreprehended. Ergo.

I answer. That Vigilius said not of Ibas that the «letter» remains unreprehended, but that the «faith» does; because namely in the council of Chalcedon he had opened his mind, and what he had written in this Epistle against Cyril from an error of fact he had retracted, as I said in the place cited.

You will object, 7° : Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the sixth oecumenical synod. Ergo.

I answer 1°. I distinguish the antecedent. That Honorius was condemned as a heretic in his teaching — I deny the antecedent; as a heretic in favor, that is, as a favorer of heretics, insofar as he commanded to be silenced the voices of one or of two wills and operations in Christ — I concede. This answer we have proved with many and most weighty arguments, and the other things concerning Honorius we have expounded in the Digress. hist. to dissert. IV of the tract. on the Incarnation, sect. 4, in the greater Work. Let the reader go there; for there is no leisure here to repeat everything. One instance only we there omitted, which had not then occurred. Whence

They urge Honorius rejected not only the word, but also the sense of the double operation; for in Epist. 2 to Sergius, which was read in the sixth synod, act. 13, he says : «But where the mediator of God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ, either is or was of the operation or of two, to think and to express it is sufficiently inept.» Ergo.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. That Honorius rejected absolutely the sense of the double operation — I deny; that he rejected it in order to its expression — I concede. It is evident both from the adjoining words «to think and to express;» and from the whole series of both his epistles to Sergius, in which he urges nothing else than that the words of one or of a twin will and operation be silenced, for the quieting of tumults and contentions; then because he did not command Sophronius, who defended the double operation keenly, to put off this sense, but only admonished the envoys sent by him not to strive thereafter to usurp the word of two operations, as he himself relates in the same Epist. 2 to Sergius; finally because, if from these words it follows that Honorius rejected the sense of the double operation in Christ, it follows likewise that he rejected the sense of the single operation, because of both he speaks in these words, and thus he recognized neither one nor two operations in Christ, which is plainly absurd.

I answer 2° to the objection. Granting that Honorius was condemned as a heretic, he was doubtless a heretic as a private man, not as Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; for he taught the error, if he taught it, not by a solemn constitution directed to the universal Church, by which he bound her to believe with divine faith the false dogma, but from private opinion, by private letters written in a private name and directed to private persons. Which is evident both from the inscription of the letters, which is to Sergius; and because they were drawn from the archive of Constantinople hardly forty years after the death of Honorius, before which time they were scarcely known, whether in the East or in the West.

They urge Honorius, consulted about the faith by three Patriarchs, namely by Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria, both Monothelites, and Sophronius of Jerusalem an orthodox man, answered, teaching error, and charged them to teach it and that its false dogmas be spread abroad through the whole East. Therefore he spoke ex cathedra. Ergo.

I answer. Setting aside the antecedent, I deny the consequence. For the things adduced in the antecedent do not suffice for the Pope to be said to speak ex cathedra; but it is required that he address the universal Church with a solemn decree by which he commands all the faithful to believe with divine faith what he decrees. These things however are not found in the case of Honorius.

You will object, 8° : Several Pontiffs acknowledged themselves fallible, Leo IV, can. Si incompetenter, cause 2, q. 4; Innocent III, serm. 2 de consecr. Pontif.; Clement VI, in a diploma given the 7 ides of December 1351; Gregory XI, in his testament, and others. Ergo.

I answer. That these Pontiffs acknowledged themselves fallible in dispensations or in the granting of privileges, in particular facts, or even in matters of faith, but as private teachers, not however as pastors of the universal Church speaking ex cathedra. Nor does it stand in the way that Gregory XI says he could err even in Consistory; for the things done in Consistory are not always defined ex cathedra; but often in them the merits of causes are weighed, counsels are proposed, without coming to a solemn sentence.