Quid Est Veritas?

PIUS X AND CARDINAL PIE

2012-02-04T14:47:00.001-05:00

PIUS X AND CARDINAL PIE (From The Angelus, May 2004)

Pope Pius X never hid his admiration for Cardinal Pie, who was probably the greatest French bishop of the 19th century. The posthumous influence that he was to exercise on Pius X does even more credit to his teaching. On March 1, 1912, he gratified the cathedral of Poitiers with the title of minor basilica, a tribute which revealed what was in his heart, as Canon Etienne Catta remarks in his book The Social and Political Doctrine of Cardinal Pie.2 To Cardinal Pie, Pope Pius X rendered homage that day when he referred to St. Hilary, Doctor of the Church, "the intrepid champion of the divinity of Christ against the Arians, but alongside of him it is sweet to remember Louis-Edouard Pie, cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, who, like a second Hilary - alter Hilarius - avenged the integrity of the Faith against the modern Arians by his victorious eloquence."3

Canon Vigue recounts in the introduction to his Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie4 that one day a priest from the diocese of Poitiers had the honor of being received into the office of Pope Pius X.

"Oh! The diocese of Cardinal Pie," said the Holy Father, raising his arms as soon as he had heard the name of Poitiers. "I have the works of your cardinal right here, and for years hardly a day has gone by that I haven't read a few pages."

As he spoke, he took one of the volumes and put it in the hands of his visitors. These could tell, by the wear on the binding, that they must have belonged to the parish priest of Salzano or the spiritual director of the seminary of Treviso long before entering the Vatican.

"As soon as I can snatch a few moments," admitted Pius X on another occasion, "I read something by your great cardinal, Cardinal Pie. He is my mentor."5

Pope Pius X was imbued with the writings of the Bishop of Poitiers and many times, in his pontifical acts, the Pope was to cite him without giving his name. The four examples that follow will try to prove this fact: I) The famous "prophecy" concerning France's future; II) The first pages of his first encyclical, E Supremi Apostolatus; III) The prayer of Pope Pius X to the Immaculate Conception; IV) A final example; V) Conclusion.

"Prophecy for France"

This "prophecy" of Pope Pius X has been published often.6 It was pronounced November 29, 1911, during the allocution Vi Ringrazio, which was a response to Cardinal Falconio, after the creation of several new cardinals, among whom were numbered three Frenchmen distinguished in the battle against modernism: Cardinals Cabrieres, Dubillard, and Billot. The Pope's discourse was not an improvisation; it had been written out by the Pope beforehand. Cardinal Merry del Val testified to the fact before the bishop of Laval during an audience; the latter referred to it in his Religious Week [Semaine Religieuse], July 29, 1917. The letter itself, if not its spirit, had been drawn from the works of Cardinal Pie. Some support for this claim is found in Cardinal Pie's homily when he took possession of his titular see of Santa Maria della Vittoria, in Rome (Sept. 28, 1879)-the very homily printed in the last volume of his episcopal writings7 (Vol. X, pp.63-64).

The thought of Cardinal Pie, which became a "prophecy" in the mouth of St. Pius X, was present in his mind when a parish priest, then bishop, and at last a cardinal, that is to say, during his entire life. This is proven by his sermon "On the Duty of Society as a Whole to Turn Itself Toward God" which he gave in the cathedral of Chartres (Mar. 1, 1846) and the funeral sermon for General de La Moriciere, delivered in the cathedral of Poitiers (Dec. 5, 1865) and published in the episcopal works Oeuvres de Monseigneur I'eveque de Poitiers. It is probably from here that Pius X drew his "prophetic inspiration."

What follows is the text of Cardinal Pie which was known to Pope Pius X, with his "prophecy" after it; then the main passages of Pius X's first encyclical, after passages of Cardinal Pie's first pastoral letter which are most likely their origin. Finally, we reprint Pope Pius X's prayer to the Immaculate Virgin which reads very much like its probable source, Cardinal Pie's prayer to the Immaculate Virgin.

Comparison of the Texts

I

The "Prophecy" concerning France

This "prophecy" of Pope Pius X had been formulated a second time by Cardinal Pie (Dec. 5, 1864). It is clearly from this text that the Pope drew his inspiration.

Cardinal Pie

Text of Card. Pie (Dec. 5, 1864)8

God holds in his hands the hearts of peoples as well as the hearts of men. Courage, O France: thus you will return to your first vocation. Precious instincts, which yet escape you, but which are only asleep, will awaken in your breast.

And even as, like Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter on the road to Damascus, you seem perhaps to be engaged in the way of impiety and violence, suddenly a secret force will throw you to the ground, a blinding light will shine about you, and a voice will be heard: "Who art thou?" you will cry: "Quis es, Domine?' "I am Jesus, whom you pursue, whom you persecute: Ego sum Jesus quern tu persequeris." O France, it is hard for you to kick against the goad. To make war on God is not in your nature. Rise up, predestined race, vessel of election, and go, as in the past, carry my name to all peoples and to all the kings of the earth.

Pope St. Pius X

The allocution Vi Ringrazio (Nov. 29, 1911)9

What shall I say to you now, dear sons of France, who groan beneath the weight of persecution? The people who made an alliance with God at the baptismal font of Rheims will repent and return to its first vocation. Her faults will not remain unpunished, but she will never perish, the daughter of so many merits, so many sighs, and so many tears.

A day will come, and we hope it will not be far, when France, like Saul on the road to Damascus, will be surrounded by a heavenly light and will hear a voice repeating to her, "My daughter, why do you persecute me?" And to her response, "Who art thou, Lord?" the voice will reply, "I am Jesus, whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the goad, because, in your obstinacy, you destroy yourself." And she, trembling and astonished, will say, "Lord, what wouldst thou have me do?" And He will say, "Rise up, wash the filth that has disfigured you, awaken in your heart those dormant affections and the pact of our alliance and go, eldest daughter of the Church, predestined nation, vessel of election, go, as in the past, and carry my name before all peoples and before the kings of the earth."

II

The First Pastoral Letter of Card. Pie
and the First Encyclical of Pope Pius X

Cardinal Pie
The first Pastoral Letter (Nov. 25, 1849)10

It is not for us to say with what pleading and with what tears we have asked that this chalice pass far from us...; but in submitting to a will stronger than our own, we have accepted a heavy charge, a labor of courage and sacrifice. For we are not so blind to the nature of things as to be dazzled by certain outer appearances. We cannot mistake the fact that human society is prey to an evil more intimate, more profound, and more destructive than can be expressed in words.

The logic of passions, long held in check, retained in its advance, has finally produced the inevitable conclusions of the principles posed by the previous centuries. We live in the fatal period of consequences, of extreme consequences. Each day the last hopes melt away; the same terrible problems, pushed aside for a moment, present themselves before us. Any human solution is henceforth impossible. There remains only one alternative: submit ourselves to God, or perish.

If you ask me at this moment who we are, to what party we belong, I will answer without hesitation. We are, and we will be among you the man of God. We will always be of the party of God. We will engage all of our efforts, and consecrate our entire life, to the service of the divine cause. And if we were to adopt one rule of action, it would be this: "Instaurare omnia in Christ" "To restore all things in Christ" (Eph. 1:10).

...What essentially characterizes the modern age is that the world has now been separated into two parties, along a clearer dividing-line and according to a more frank opposition than at any other age, that is, the party of God, and the party of man, or if you prefer, of the prideful genius that drives him. The struggle between man and God had never been more open or more direct. No other generation had broken its every pact with heaven, or so absolutely. No society had ever spoken to God with such resolution or audacity, telling Him: "Begone!" Man had never set himself up as a god on earth with greater insolence. He thought he had already vanquished. The old dream of human pride was thus to become a reality: man was to be his own god.

One could easily have believed that the son of perdition, announced by St. Paul, had appeared on the earth, or at least that all the elements he was to embody awaited only their unification in a single person to constitute the Antichrist named by the Scriptures. Vowed to the most constant opposition, adversary of all belief and of any affirmation of truth, man had also toppled all that bore the character of the divinity, or any resemblance thereof. And if the idea of a god still remained, it was because man, putting himself at the place of his Creator, had made the universe into a temple, in which he played the god.

The struggle was unequal, and we knew which side would carry off the victory and which know defeat. The more man seemed to triumph, the more surely we predicted his fall, and, to speak as do the holy books, one of those catastrophes whose blast long echoes in the ears of those who hear.

History had taught us that God hides Himself for a certain time, and that He seems at times to retreat before His enemies, but that these apparent defeats are of the moment, and are only the wise and cunning tactics of Providence, after which He takes back the position and delivers the final blow. More than once it seemed to us that the heavenly spirits, weary of the long success of the triumphant rebellion, adopted the language of the prophets and said, "Arise, O God, and may it not be given to man to prevail."

That is why, notwithstanding the great work of social reconstruction undertaken by so many architects at once, we will suffer in spite of ourselves the consequences of the sins of our fathers, so long as we have not rebuilt, in the heart of the nation, the temple they overturned. Men speak of a great party founded in the name of order and compromise. Only one party can save the world, the party of God. There alone is salvation. Renounce our dreams of independence from the Supreme Being, and submit to Him. Make no mistake. The burning question, and the question that troubles the world, is not between man and man; it is between man and God. If we were to adopt a single rule of action, it would be "to re-establish all things in Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ! Ah! We are profoundly moved as we utter this sacred name among you for the first time, this saving name that we will have so often to repeat. "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid by the hand of God; which is Christ Jesus" (I Cor. 3:11).

The God whose minister-whose ambassador-we shall be among you is not that vague, complacent God whose tutelary authority is invoked by today's materialism, taking fright and wishing to defend its pleasures and its idols against the new wave of invaders, firmly resolved to pay Him no tribute in return, and certainly not to offer Him any sacrifice. Our God is He who gave His law to men, who came down to earth and who spoke in the person of Jesus Christ, His Son and His envoy. Outside of Jesus Christ, there is no other Messias, or Revelation, or Savior.

Both God and Jesus Christ are to be found by us only in the Catholic Church. Whoever does not listen to the Church, is in our eyes worse than an infidel.

Therefore, to replace all these things under the legitimate empire of God, of Jesus Christ, and of the Church; everywhere combat that sacrilege which puts man in the place of God, and which is the chief crime of the modern age; resolve anew, by the precepts or the counsels of the Gospel and by the institutions of the Church, all the problems that the Gospel and the Church had already resolved-education, family, property, power; to re-establish a Catholic balance between the diverse conditions within society; to pacify the earth and give citizens to heaven: such is our mission.

L.E. Pie

Pope St. Pius X
The first encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus (Oct. 4, 1903)11

I need not remind you with what tears and ardent prayers we endeavored to turn aside the heavy charge of the supreme pontificate. Fully conscious of our weakness, we dreaded to take on a work so replete with difficulty, and yet so imperative.

We felt a kind of terror when we called to mind the tragic condition of humanity today. Can anyone be unaware of the profound and serious illness from which human society suffers, now so much more than in the past, and which, worsening day by day and eating away at its very substance, drags it down to ruin? This illness, as you well know, is apostasy and the rejection of God; and surely there is nothing that leads more inevitably to disaster, according to the word of the prophet, "Behold, those who depart far from you will perish."

We declare in all truth that we desire to be, in the midst of human societies, nothing other than the minister of that God who has invested us with His authority, and with the divine assistance, we shall be only that. His interests remain our interests; to consecrate our strength and our life to them: such is our unshakable resolution. That is why, if one asks us for a motto revealing the very depths of our soul, we will give none but this: "To restore all things in Christ."

...in the face of the impious war that has been declared and that continues to be waged against God from nearly every side. In our day it is only too true, "the nations have trembled and the peoples have meditated folly" against their Creator, and this cry has become nearly a commonplace among His enemies: "Depart from us." From there springs, from nearly every side, a total rejection of any respect for God. From there spring those manners of living, public as well as private, without the least regard for His sovereignty. What is more, there is no effort and no artifice that is not employed in the attempt to abolish the memory of Him, and even the very notion of God.

He who considers these things may well fear that such a perversion of mind be the beginning of those evils announced for the end of time and as it were their introduction upon the earth, and that truly the son of perdition of whom the Apostle speaks (II Thess. 2:2) is already among us. So great is the boldness and so violent the rage with which men everywhere hurl themselves to the assault of religion, attack the dogmas of the Faith, and labor with obstinacy to destroy all relation of man to the divinity! On the other hand, and this is the hallmark of the Antichrist, in the very words of the same Apostle, man, with an unspeakable temerity, has usurped the throne of the Creator, raising himself above all that bears the name of God. And this to such a degree that, powerless to eradicate in himself the notion of God, he nonetheless shakes off the yoke of His majesty and dedicates the temple of the visible world to himself, where he wishes to receive the adoration of his fellow creatures. "He is enthroned in the temple of God, where he presides as if he himself were God."

No sane mind can doubt what will be the outcome of this war waged on God by frail mortals. Man is surely able to abuse his liberty if he wishes and violate the rights and the supreme authority of the Creator, but the victory will always belong to the Creator. But my words fall short. Catastrophe threatens all the closer precisely when man waxes more audacious in the hope of triumph.

But this confidence does not dispense us from hastening the divine work, insofar as it depends on us, and not only by untiring prayer: "Arise, O Lord, and do not allow man to prevail in his force," but also by demanding the fullness of God's empire over man and all creation.

We know that many, driven by the love of peace-that is, the tranquility of order-come together in associations, forming what they call "the party of order." Alas! Vain hopes and wasted labors! There is only one force of order capable of re-establishing tranquility in the midst of universal turmoil-the party of God. It is therefore that party that we must promote, and to this association that we must attract the greatest possible number of adherents, if we have public security at heart.

Nonetheless, and whatever be our efforts to realize it, this return of nations to the respect of God's sovereign majesty can only come about through Jesus Christ. Indeed, the Apostle warns us that "other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus" (I Cor. 3:11).

From this it follows that restoring all things in Christ and bringing men back to God's obedience are one and the same thing. And that is why the goal toward which all our efforts should tend is to bring the human race back under the empire of Christ. This accomplished, man will find himself led back to God, by that very fact.

We do not refer to a lifeless God, unconcerned with the ways of man, like the one invented by materialists in their foolish imaginings, but a living and true God, three Persons in the unity of a single nature, Author of the universe, extending His infinite Providence to all things, and finally a very just Law-Maker who punishes the guilty and ensures the recompense of virtue.

Now what is the way that gives us access to Jesus Christ? She is before our eyes-the Church. As St. John Chrysostom rightly tells us, "The Church is your hope; the Church is your salvation; the Church is your refuge."

That is why Christ established her after having acquired her by the price of His blood. That is why He confided His doctrine and the precepts of His law to her, at the same time bestowing on her the treasures of divine grace for the sanctification and the salvation of mankind.

It is a question of leading human societies, strayed far from the wisdom of Christ, back to the obedience of the Church; the Church, in turn, will submit them to Christ, and Christ to God.

First and foremost, if the results are to match our desires, we must employ every means and consecrate every effort to uprooting entirely that monstrous and detestable iniquity proper to the present age and by which man puts himself in the place of God; to re-establish in their former dignity the very holy laws and counsels of the Gospel; to proclaim far and wide the truths handed down by the Church concerning the sanctity of marriage, the education of youth, the possession and the use of temporal goods, the duties of those who govern; finally, to re-establish the just balance among the diverse classes of society according to Christian laws and institutions.

Pope Pius X

III

The prayer of Pope Pius X for the
Novena to the Immaculate Conception

Cardinal Pie 12

O spotless Virgin, you were pleasing to the Lord, and you were His Mother only because you were immaculate in all things; immaculate in your flesh as in your soul; immaculate in your faith as in your charity.

Indeed, the great blasphemer, the great cause of damnation, is the serpent, against whom was pronounced the first of damnations.

And you, O Mary conceived without sin, thou art the woman of the promise who has crushed the head of the serpent. I say it, "of the serpent" - and it was foretold - who never ceases to lay traps for thy heel, and who yet continues in his enmity against thy race. But while that head which raises itself beneath thy victorious foot, hisses damnation and blasphemy through every age, thou, O Virgin, O Mother, O Queen, thou lettest rise toward the heavenly throne the accent of thy all-powerful supplication. O Mary Immaculate, we join our prayer to thine this day. And the Church, and Rome, and Christian France will once again sing the hymn of deliverance, of victory, and of peace.

Pope Pius X

Most holy Virgin, who wast pleasing to the Lord and who became His Mother, Immaculate Virgin in thy body, in thy soul, in thy faith, and in thy love, have pity on us, and look with kindness on us, so miserable, who implore thy powerful protection.

Alas! The infernal serpent, against whom was cast the first damnation, continues to combat and to tempt the poor sons of Eve.

O thou, our blessed Mother, our queen and our advocate, thou who crushest the head of the enemy from the first moment of thy conception, accept our prayers, and, united as in one heart, we beseech thee. Present them before the throne of God in order that we never allow ourselves to be taken by the traps laid before us, but that we all reach the port of salvation; and that in the midst of so many dangers, the Church and Catholic society sing once again the hymn of deliverance, of victory, and of peace.

IV

A Final Example

Cardinal Pie
Homily preached on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of his episcopal consecration (Nov.25,1864)13

Hear this maxim, O you, Catholics full of temerity, who so quickly adopt the ideas and the language of your time, you who speak of reconciling the faith and of reconciling the Church with the modern spirit and with the new law. And you who accept with so much confidence the most dangerous pursuits of what our age so pridefully labels "Science," see to what extent you are straying from the program set out by the great Apostle, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so-called" (I Tim. 6:20). But take heed. With such temerities, one is soon led farther than he first had thought. And in placing themselves on the slope of profane novelties, in obeying the currents of so-called science, many have lost the Faith.

Have you not often been saddened, and taken fright, my venerable brothers, on hearing the language of certain men, who believe themselves still to be sons of the Church, men who still practice occasionally as Catholics and who often approach the Lord's Table? Do you still believe them to be sons, do you still believe them to be members of the Church, those who, wrapping themselves in such vague phrases as modern aspirations and the force of progress and civilization, proclaim the existence of a "consciousness of the laity," of a secular and political conscience opposed to the "conscience of the Church," against which they assume the right to react, for its correction and renewal? Ah! So many passengers, and even pilots, who, believing themselves to be yet in the barque, and playing with profane novelties and the lying science of their time, have already sunk and are in the abyss.

Pope St. Pius X
The letter Il Gravore Dolore on the occasion of the creation of new cardinals (May 27, 1914)14

Alas! We are living in an age when men welcome and adopt with great ease certain ideas of reconciling the Faith with the modern spirit; ideas that lead much farther than one would imagine, not only to the weakening, but to the complete loss of the Faith. One is no longer surprised to hear men who delight in the most vague expressions of modern aspiration, of the force of progress and of civilization; who delight in affirming the existence of a conscience of the laity, a political conscience opposed to the conscience of the Church, against which they assume the right to react for its correction and renewal.

It is not unheard-of to meet individuals who express doubts and uncertainty about truths, and even obstinately cling to manifest errors, a hundred times condemned, and who are nonetheless convinced that they have never left the Church, since they sometimes accomplish Catholic duties. Oh! How many navigators, how many pilots, and, God forbid, how many captains, confident in profane novelties and in the lying science of the time, rather than arriving at the port, have already capsized.

V
Conclusion

People can talk all they like of the Rights of Man: there are two of them that must never be forgotten. Every man is born with the right to death and the right to hell (Cardinal Pie).15

When he first was made a bishop, Giuseppe Sarto took on his charge with resolution animated by that hope which was symbolized in his coat of arms-an anchor cast into a stormy sea, lit up by a star. It was a passage from St. Paul (Heb. 6:18-19) that inspired his choice. Perhaps he added the lion when he became the successor of St. Mark's in Venice. As for the motto of his pontificate, "To restore all things in Christ," he had already taken it as patriarch, and there is every indication that it was the motto of his entire episcopate.

Cardinal Pie was a great figure. Now, more than ever in this battle waged between the Church and the Revolution, he remains the man who dominates the situation. He is a light, a standard-bearer, a leader worthy of a rank of honor among those fathers of our generation whom we should praise, whose counsels we should follow, whose example we should imitate, and upon whose teachings we should meditate. If our heart's ambition is to serve the sacred cause of God and His Holy Church in the troubled times in which we are living we can benefit from placing ourselves at the school of this master. (Praise of Cardinal Pie expressed by Cardinal Billot on the 100th anniversary of his birth [Sept. 26, 1915])16

Before closing this study, I cannot resist telling you the story of a conversation between Msgr. Pie and the emperor Napoleon III (Mar. 5, 1859),17 following the account of Canon Etienne Catta in The Social and Political Doctrine of Cardinal Pie.18

The audience lasted 55 minutes. The emperor himself had brought the conversation over to politics. He dismissed all negative interpretations of his Italian intervention.19 He only wished well to the pontifical government, and desired to "render it more popular, showing Europe that France had not maintained an army of occupation in Rome in order to give its stamp [of approval] to corruption."

Msgr. Pie asked if he might express his thoughts frankly, Napoleon III granted the request, far from imagining the line of argument that was about to drive him into a corner.

"Since Your Majesty deigns to hear my opinion," said the bishop, "you will also permit my surprise at the scruples that make you fear all appearance of giving your stamp [of approval] to corruption by the presence of our army of occupation in Rome. Surely, I am aware that there are abuses everywhere. What government can claim to escape them entirely? But I dare say that nowhere are there fewer abuses than in the city and in the states governed by the pope. May it please Your Majesty to consider Constantinople and Turkey, on the other hand. May you draw a comparison and permit me to ask what our glorious Crimean expedition was doing there?20 Is it not there rather than to Rome that France went to give her stamp to corruption?"

The secretary of Msgr. Pie, who was taking down the account of the audience by dictation, recounts that at that moment, "the eyes of the Emperor, ordinarily half-closed, were raised for a moment on his audacious interviewer."

"Ah! Sire, when one considers that, during 11 centuries, the policy of Catholic Europe was to combat the Turks, how can one avoid a certain astonishment seeing the sovereign of a Catholic country providing support for the Ottoman power, and embarking, at great cost, to ensure its independence? Indeed, am I not justified in asserting that such an action was precisely putting the stamp on corruption? I ask you, whom are we protecting? There is a man, at Constantinople, or rather a being that I prefer not to qualify, who eats, out of a trough of gold, 200 million francs [about 37 million US dollars-Ed.] earned by the sweat of Catholics. He eats them with his 800 legitimate wives, his 36 sultans and his 750 harem-girls, not counting the court favorites, the sons-in-law and their wives. And it was to perpetuate and consolidate such a state of affairs that we embarked for the East! It was to ensure its security that we threw away two billion francs [about 370 million US dollars-Ed.], 68 superior officers, 350 young men, the flower of our noble families, and 200,000 Frenchmen. In view of all that, are we really here discussing the corruption of pontifical Rome?"

During this discourse, the emperor twisted his long moustache, and the bishop observed that he pulled them lower as the question became more embarrassing. Msgr. Pie continued:

"Excuse me, Sire, but not only did we say to this Turk, 'Continue to wallow in your age-old mire as you have done in the past. I guarantee your pleasures and I will not permit anyone to lay a hand on your empire,' but we added, 'Great Sultan, until now, the pope, the sovereign of Rome, had presided at the councils of Europe. Well, now we are going to have a European Council. The pope will not be there, but you will come, you who have never been part of it before. Not only will you be there, but we will perform before you the trial of the absent old man.

And we will give you the pleasure of seeing us describe and submit to your judgment all the so-called corruption of his government!'"

"Truly, Sire, is that not what has taken place?"

Seeing the bishop's animation, the emperor had drawn closer. He listened spellbound, passing his hand over his forehead. Suddenly, he changed the direction of the conversation:

"But honestly, Monsignor, have I not given abundant proof of my goodwill toward religion? The Restoration of the monarchy itself did not do more than I have done."

With this remark the way was open, and the bishop, inspired, could express his own idea of what Christian politics should be, going straight to the principles that guide it.

"I am most eager to do justice to Your Majesty's religious dispositions, and I can quite appreciate, Sire, the services you have rendered to Rome and the Church, particularly in the first years of your government.

"Perhaps the Restoration did not do more than you. But allow me to add that neither the Restoration, nor you, have done for God what should have been done. Neither of you has raised up His throne. Neither of you has denied the principles of the Revolution, whose practical consequences you continue to fight because the social gospel that inspires the State is still the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which, Sire, is nothing other than the formal negation of the rights of God.

"Indeed, it is among the rights of God to rule over States as over individuals. It was for this alone that our Lord came upon the earth. He ought to reign here by inspiring our laws, sanctifying our morals, enlightening our teaching, directing our counsel, and ordering the actions of governments as of the governed. Everywhere that Jesus Christ does not reign, there is disorder and decadence.

"It is my duty to tell you that He does not reign among us and that our Constitution is not that of a Christian and a Catholic State, far from it. Our public law establishes that the Catholic religion is that of the majority of the French people, but it adds that all other religions have a right to an equal protection. Is that not tantamount to proclaiming that the Constitution equally protects truth and error? Well, Sire, do you know what Jesus Christ responds to governments who incur the guilt of such a contradiction? Jesus Christ, King of heaven and earth, answers them. 'I, too, O governments, who succeed yourselves the one upon the other, as you overthrow one another, I, too, grant you equal protection. I granted this protection to the Bourbon king, and the same to the Republic, and to you as well I accord the same protection.'"

The emperor stopped the bishop.

"But do you still imagine that in our day such a thing could exist, and that the moment has arrived to establish the exclusively religious reign that you demand? Do you not rather think, Monsignor, that such an action would unleash the most passionate opposition?"

The bishop of Poitiers had not spoken of an "exclusively religious reign," he had simply brought to light the divine prerogative to dominate every reign. The essential of the objection consisted in the "political expedience" that is always put first. He answered it with this solemn reply:

"Sire, when great men of politics like Your Majesty object that the moment has not come, I can only bow before their judgment, because I am not a great man of politics. But I am a bishop, and as a bishop, I answer them. 'The moment has not come for Jesus Christ to reign. In that case, the moment has not come for governments to endure.'"21

If only God would accord us, not a half-dozen, but a single shepherd of this mettle, and the quality of the air we breathe would be greatly improved.

Fr. Nicolas Pinaud was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1993. He is currently headmaster of the Society's school at Domezain, France, Ecole Saint Michel Garico'its. The article was translated into English exclusively for Angelus Press. Edited by Fr. Kenneth Novak. Taken from Le Donjon (No.45, May 2000) the bulletin of the Society of Saint Pius X for the Basque country, the Landes, Bigorre, and Gascony. It was revised and completed by the author for publication in Sel de la Terre, No.42, Autumn 2002, pp.206-21.

1. June 2, 1835-August 20, 1914, pope from 1903-14. Defunctus adhuc loquitur refers to the sacrifice of Abel which still rises to heaven after his murder: "and by it he being dead yet speaketh" (Heb. 11:4).

2. La doctrine politique et sociale du cardinal Pie (Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1959) p.362.

3. Actes de S.S. Pie X (Bonne Press), Vol.VII, p. 188.

4. Pages choisies du cardinal Pie (Paris-Poitiers: Oudin, 1916) 2 vol., Introduction, p.xi.

5. See also Rene Bazin, St. Pie X, 1928 edition, pp.57-58.

6. You can read it in the Bulletin diocesain de Bayonne, December 1,1918, pp.597-598; No.28 of Itineraires published it, p.42; in this same review, Fr. Calmel cites it as well, in his article "Brumes du revelationisme" (No.181, p.182); Fr. Rifan referred to it in his sermon during the day of "BBR 1998"; Francis-Marie Algoud also cites it in Annex XVII, p.480, of his book Histoire de la volonte de perversion de Vintelligence et des moeurs', and the 15th centenary of the baptism of Clovis, in 1996, provided a new occasion for a number of journals to reprint this prophecy, such as Sel de la Terre, No. 17, pp.86-87.

7. Oeuvres de Monseigneur I 'eveque de Poitiers (Paris-Poitiers: Oudin, 1886-1879) 1st edition, Vols.I to IX. The 10th edition was published by Leday, Paris, and contained 10Vols. (1890-1894).

8. Ibid., t. V, pp.506-507.

9. Documents pontificaux de S.S. saint Pie X (Versailles: Courrier de Rome, 1993), Vol.11, pp.396-397.

10. Oeuvres de Monseigneur I'eveque de Poitiers, Vol.1, pp.96-119.

11. Documents pontificaux de S.S. saint Pie X, Vol.1, pp.33 ff.

12. Oeuvres de Monseigneur I'eveque de Poitiers, Vol.VII, p.68.

13. Ibid., Vol.V, pp.376-377.

14. Documents pontificaux de S.S. saint Pie X, Vol.11, pp.575-577.

15. Oeuvres de Monseigneur I'eveque de Poitiers, Vol.V, p. 154.

16. Published in Nos.40 and 41 of the Bulletin catholique of the diocese of Mon-tauban, October 2 and 9, 1915, pp.339, 342.

17. Napoleon III was proclaimed emperor November 7, 1852, following the coup d'etat of December 2, 1851, remaining emperor until his imprisonment by the Prussians at Sedan, August 30, 1870. The empire was overthrown a few days later and a republic was proclaimed, September 4, by Favre, Gambetta, and Ferry.

18. La Doctrine politique et sociale du cardinal Pie (Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1959), ch. XIII: "Ueveque, Fempereur and la question romaine," pp.301-304.

19. Beginning in June 1849 (when Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, future Napoleon III, was president of the Republic), France had sent an expeditionary force into Italy, the Papal States, to support the pope who was being attacked by Italian "republican" forces. The French troops occupied Rome from July 3, 1849, to December 11, 1866. However, Napoleon III, himself a former carbonaro [Freemason], wished to maintain his alliance with the House of Piedmont, [desirous of a secular, united Italy] and little by little weakened his policy of support for the papacy, letting the Piedmontese conquer Italy and invade the Pontifical States in 1860-61.

Laws forbidding Catholics to associate with false religions

2012-01-21T20:33:00.000-05:00

Modern Ecumenism Condemned by
Sacred Scripture
by Bishop George Hay

General Laws of God, Forbidding All Communication in Religion with Those of a False Religion

Q. What are those laws which prohibit this in general?

A. They are principally these following:--

(1) The first is grounded upon the light in which all false religions are considered in the Holy Scripture; for there we are assured that they arise from false teachers, who are called seducers of the people, ravenous wolves, false prophets, who speak perverse things: that they are anti-Christs, and enemies of the cross of Christ; that, departing from the true faith of Christ, they give heed to the spirits of error; that their doctrines are the doctrines of devils, speaking lies; that their ways are pernicious, their heresies damnable, and the like. In consequence of which, this general command of avoiding all communication with them in religion is given by the apostle: "Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers; for what participation hath justice with injustice? or what fellowship hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbelievers? or what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God." (2 Cor. 6:14)

Now it is the true religion of Jesus Christ, the true doctrine of His gospel, which is justice and light; all false doctrines are injustice and darkness; it is by our holy faith that we belong to Christ, and are temples of the living God; all false religions flow from the father of lies, and make those who embrace them unbelievers; therefore all participation, all fellowship, all communication with false religions, is here expressly forbidden by the Word of God. We have seen above² that we are obliged to love the persons of those who are engaged in false religions, to wish them well, and to do them good; but here we are expressly forbidden all communication in their religion -- that is, in their false tenets, and worship. Hence the learned and pious English divines who published at Rheims their translation of the New Testament, in their note upon this passage, say: "Generally, here is forbidden conversation and dealing with unbelievers in prayers, or meetings at their schismatical service, or other divine office whatsoever; which the apostle here uttereth in more particular terms, that Christian people may take the better heed of it."

(2) The next general command to avoid all religious communication with those who are heretics, or have a false religion, is this, -- "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, AVOID; knowing that he that is such a one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." (Tit. 3:10)

Here we see another general command to avoid all such -- that is, to flee from them, to have no communication with them. But in what are we commanded to flee from them? Not as to their persons, or the necessary communications of society; for then, as the same holy apostle says upon a similar occasion, "You must needs go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5:10) Not as to the offices of Christian charity; for these we are commanded by Christ himself, in the person of the good Samaritan, to give to all mankind, whatever their religion be: therefore, in the most restricted and limited sense which the words can bear, the thing in which we are commanded to avoid them is in all matters of religion; in that in which they themselves are subverted and sin; in things relating to God and His service. In these they err, in these they are subverted, in these they are condemned; therefore in these we must avoid them.
Hence the pious translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note on this text, say, "Heretics, therefore, must not wonder if we warn all Catholics, by the words of the apostle in this place, to take heed of them, and to shun their preachings, books, and conventicles."
(3) A third general command on this subject is manifestly included in this zealous injunction of the apostle: "We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us." (2 Thes. 3:6)

In this passage, all the different sects of false religions are particularly pointed out; for, however they may differ in other respects they generally agree in this, of rejecting apostolical traditions handed down to us by the Church of Christ; all such the apostle here charges us, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid -- to withdraw ourselves from them. Now it is evident that the most limited sense in which this command, so warmly laid on us by the apostle, can be taken, is to withdraw ourselves from them in everything relating to religion, -- from their sacraments, prayers, preachings, religious meetings, and the like. It is in these things that they "do not walk according to the tradition received from the apostles". In these things, then, we are here commanded, in the name of Christ Himself, "to withdraw ourselves from them".

Seeing, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of this holy apostle, has so often, and in such strong terms, forbidden all manner of fellowship in religion with those who are out of His holy Church, let us not be deceived by the specious but vain sophistry of cunning men, who lie in wait to deceive; let us not offend our God, by transgressing these His express commands, by joining in the prayers or going to the meetings of such as are separated from His holy Church, lest He should withdraw His holy grace from US, and as we expose ourselves to the danger, leave us to perish in it.

Let us hear and follow the advice and command of the same holy apostle: "As therefore ye have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk ye in Him; rooted and built up in Him, and confirmed in the faith; as also ye have learned, abounding in Him in thanksgiving. Beware lest any man impose upon you by philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:6) Wherefore, to all those arguments which may be brought from human, worldly, or interested motives, to induce us to join in or to partake of any religious duty with those of a false religion, though in appearance only, we ought to oppose this one, -- "God has expressly forbidden it, therefore no human power can make it lawful."

Particular Laws of God Forbidding All Communication with False Religions, and Assigning Reasons for It

Q. What are the particular laws on this subject?
A. In the three general commands above mentioned, God Almighty speaks, by the mouth of His holy apostle, as Lord and Master, and lays His orders upon us absolutely. In what follows, He unites the merciful Savior to the Sovereign; and whilst He no less strictly commands us to avoid all religious communication with those who are separated from His holy Faith and Church, He at the same time condescends to engage our obedience, by showing us the strongest reasons for it.

(1) "Beware of false prophets", says our blessed Master, "who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". (Mat. 7:5) Here Jesus Christ commands His followers to "beware of false prophets" -- that is, to flee from them, to be on their guard against them; and He adds this powerful motive, "Lest ye be seduced and ruined by them"; for, whatever appearance of godliness they may put on, though they come to you in the clothing of sheep, yet within they are ravenous wolves, and seek only to slay and to destroy.
To the same purpose He says in another place, "Take heed that no man seduce you; for many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and they will seduce many." (Mat. 24:4) "And many false prophets shall arise and seduce many." (ver. 2) Here He foretells the cunning of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them, and commands us to take care of ourselves, that such be not our fate.

But how shall we escape from them? He afterwards tells us how: do not believe them, have nothing to do with them, have no communication, with them. "Then", He says, "if any man shall say, to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Behold. I have told it you beforehand. If therefore, they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out; behold he is in the closet, believe it not." (Mat. 24:23)

Can there be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of His command, or a stronger motive to induce His followers to have no religious communication with such false teachers? Many will be certainly seduced by them; and so will you, if you expose yourself to the danger.

(2) St. Peter, considering the great mercy bestowed upon us by the grace of our vocation to the true faith of Christ, says, that it is our duty to "declare the praises and virtues of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His admirable light". (1 Pet. 2:9) St. Paul also exhorts us to "give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom -- that is, in His Church -- where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and "departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils". (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they "have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts". (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. "Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light, ... and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness". (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness -- that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments -- but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

(3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent". (Rom. 16:17)
See here whom we are to avoid -- "those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine"; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by "pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" -- that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, "having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" then he immediately gives this command: "Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires"; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church -- the only sure rule for knowing the truth -- they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth"; because, as he adds, "they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith". (2 Tim. 3:5)

Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, "Now these avoid", though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others.

(5) Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)

Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" -- that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion -- is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better.

Q. These laws are very clear and strong; but has the Christian church always observed and enforced the observance of them?

A. The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: "None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated". (Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73)

The same is her language in all ages; and in this she shows herself to be the true mother, who will not suffer her children to be divided. She knows her heavenly spouse has declared that "no man can serve two masters; we cannot serve God and Mammon"; and therefore she must either have them to be hers entirely, or she cannot acknowledge them as such. She knows His holy apostle has protested that there can be no "participation, no fellowship, no concord, no pact, no agreement between the faithful and the unbeliever"; and therefore she never can allow any of her faithful children to have any religious communication with those of a false religion and corrupted Faith.

Endnotes1. The Sincere Christian pp. 474 -533, James Duffey and Son, Dublin
2. Ibid.

The Sacrament of Order

2012-01-12T09:22:00.002-05:00

The Sacrament of Order

by Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D., 201 Otter Rock Drive, Greenwich, Conn. - 06830. U.S.A.

Edited by Prakash Mascarenhas. From the book "The Post Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders."

Considerable perplexity arises from the fact that while the Sacrament of Order is one, it is conferred in stages. In the Western Church these are divided into seven - the "Minor Orders" of acolyte, exorcist, lector and doorkeeper; and the "Major Orders" of the subdeaconate, deaconate and priesthood.

Almost at once, confusion enters the picture, for some of the ancient texts list six, others eight and nine major and minor orders. In the Greek Church, the rites of which are considered unquestionably valid, subdeacons are listed in the "Minor" category.

In all the Churches that recognise Orders as a Sacrament (the Protestants - which category includes the Anglicans - do not) we find both Deacons and Priests are "ordained" and that the Episcopate or rank of Bishop is included under the heading of Priests; it is in fact called the "summum Sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood," and it is through the Bishop that the Apostolic Succession is passed on. Higher ranks in the Church such as Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope are considered administrative and not Sacramental. Thus once a Pope is elected he is installed with appropriate ceremonies, but not with a sacramental rite. (Sacramentally speaking, there is no higher rank than that of Bishop. Such a statement in no way denies the Primacy of Peter.)

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that an Ordinand (an individual about to be ordained) to any order automatically is the recipient of all the graces pertaining to a lesser order. (This is technically called "per saltem" or "by jumping.") Thus an individual consecrated to the priesthood automatically receives - if he has not already received them - all the power and graces that relate to the lesser orders such as exorcist or deacon. The post-Conciliar Church has (as did the Protestants,) abolished many of the minor orders, but if this Church validly ordains priests, then these priests automatically receive the powers of exorcism, etc., which pertain to the lower and "abolished" orders.

However, when it comes to Bishops, almost all theologians hold that they must be already ordained priests, lacking which the episcopal rite conveys absolutely nothing. The Church has never infallibly pronounced on this issue and the contrary opinion - namely that the Episcopal rite automatically confers on the recipient the character of priestly orders - exists. Cardinal Gasparri in "De Sacra Ordinatione," and Lennertz in his "De Sacramento Ordinis" both hold that the recipient of Episcopal Orders automatically receives - if he does not already have it - the powers of the priesthood.

The issue is discussed in "Anglican Orders and Defect of Intentions," (Francis Clark, Longmans & Green, London, 1956.) So critical is the Apostolic Succession that it is the customary practice of the Church to ordain a bishop with three other bishops. The rule is not absolute, for validity only requires one, and innumerable examples of where this custom has been by-passed can be given.

It is of interest that many traditional theologians have questioned whether the elevation of a Priest to the rank of Bishop is a sacramental or juridical act. The point is important because

It implies that an ordinary priest has the ability (not the right) to ordain (make other priests,) and because,
If the Episcopal rite involves no "imprinting of a sacramental character," the question of validity can hardly arise.

However, in so far as the ordination of Bishops has a "form" and a "matter," the greater majority hold that it is in fact a Sacrament - or rather that it is the completion of the Sacrament of Orders and confers on the ordinand the fullness of priestly powers and functions.

Pope Leo XIII clearly taught that such is the case. To quote him directly: "the episcopate, by Christ's institution, belongs most truly to the Sacrament of Orders and is the priesthood in the highest degree; it is what the holy fathers and our own liturgical usage call the high priesthood, the summit of the sacred ministry." (Apostolicae Curae.)

Distinctions Between Priest and Bishop.

In the traditional ordination rite of the priest the Bishop instructs him that his function is "to offer sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize." (In the post-Conciliar rite this instruction has been deleted, and he is consecrated to "celebrate" the liturgy which of course means the Novus Ordo Missae.)

Such an instruction is not all-inclusive, for it mentions nothing of the power of absolution - its intention being to specify the principal function of the priest. The power to absolve is however clearly specified in other parts of the traditional rite. (Again, the post-Conciliar rite has abolished the prayer that specifies this power).

Bishops however have certain powers over and beyond those of the priests. According to the Council of Trent, "Bishops, who have succeeded to the position of the Apostles, belong especially to the hierarchical order; they are set up, as the same Apostle (St. Paul) says, by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God; they are superior to priests, and confer the sacrament of Confirmation, ordain ministers of the Church, and do several other functions which the rest who are of an inferior order have no power to perform." (Denzinger 960) Again, the seventh canon on the Sacrament of Orders says: "if anyone says the bishops are not superior to priests, or have not the power of confirming and ordaining, or have that power but hold it in common with priests... let him be anathema!" (Denzinger 967)

However, as Father Bligh in his study on the history of Ordination states: "from the practice of the Church it is quite certain that a simple priest can in certain circumstances (now not at all rare) administer Confirmation validly, and it is almost certain that with Papal authorisation he can validly ordain even to the deaconate and priesthood.

"The Decree for the Armenians drawn up by the Council of Florence in 1439 says that a Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and the ordinary minister of Ordination - which would seem to imply that in extra-ordinary circumstances the minister of either sacrament can be a priest.

"Since the decree Spiritus Sancti Munera of 14th September 1946, it has been the common law of the Latin Church that all parish priests may confer the sacrament of Confirmation on their subjects in danger of death. And there exist four Papal Bulls of the fifteenth century which empowered Abbots, who were not Bishops, but simple priests, to ordain their subjects to Sacred Orders; two of them explicitly give power to ordain even to the priesthood." (John Bligh, S.J. "Ordination to the Priesthood," Sheed & Ward, New York, 1956.)

Some have held that such ordinations were invalid because the popes were acting "under duress," but the fact remains that, at least with regard to the Deaconate, these powers were exercised for centuries without papal objection.
In the Greek and other "Eastern" Churches, the priest is the ordinary minister of Confirmation and the Bishop is the Ordinary minister of Ordination. Canon Law (1917) states that "the ordinary minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop; the extra-ordinary minister is one, who, though without episcopal character, has received either by law or by a special indult form the Holy See power to confer some orders." (CIC 782 & 951)

Now the term "extra-ordinary" minister is important, for it is commonly used with regard to the priest who administers the Sacrament of Confirmation; in the post-Conciliar Church it is used to describe lay-persons who distribute the bread and wine. And so it seems necessary to conclude that a simple priest can be given by Apostolic indult certain powers, or, since no additional ceremony is involved, the right to exercise certain powers that normally are not considered appropriate to his status. One could draw a parallel with the Sacrament of Baptism which any Catholic can administer, but which in fact is usually administered by a priest.

How can we resolve these seeming conflicts? One solution is to consider the right of conferring Orders as juridical. When Pope Pius XII gave permission for parish priests to become extraordinary ministers of Confirmation he did not confer this power by means of a sacramental rite, but through the media of a mandate. Thus, one could hold that by his ordination every priest receives the power to confirm and ordain, but cannot utilise this power without episcopal or papal authorisation.

As Father Bligh says, "by his ordination to the priesthood a man receives no power whatever to confirm or ordain..." He, however, is stamped with an indelible character so that "he is a fit person to whom episcopal or Papal authority can communicate power when it seems good."

On the assumption that the matter is jurisdictional, several questions can be raised. Did Christ our Lord Himself lay down the rule that in normal - or perhaps all - circumstances only bishops should confirm and ordain? Was this rule laid down by the Apostles in virtue of the authority received from Christ? Is the rule sub-Apostolic, which would make it part of ecclesiastical law rather than revelation?

Further the necessity for episcopal authorisation can be conceived of as arising either from an ecclesiastical law restricting the priest's valid use of his power, or from a Divine Law requiring that a priest who exercises these powers must receive a special authority or some kind of jurisdiction from a bishop or the Pope.

The Council of Trent deliberately left the answer to these questions open and undecided. In its sixth Canon on the Sacrament of Order it simply states: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy, instituted by divine ordination and consisting of bishops, priests and deacons, let him be anathema!"

Before adopting the phrase "by divine ordination" the Council considered the phrases "by divine institution" and "by a special divine ordination," but rejected them because it did not wish to decide the question. Reference to the practice of the early Church suggests that normally the sacraments were administered either by the bishop or by priests explicitly delegated by the bishops. Bligh quotes De Puniet as saying that priests in Apostolic times administered the churches under the direction of the Apostles and almost certainly enjoyed the fullness of sacerdotal power which included the power of ordination.

St. Jerome (Hieronymus) taught that at his ordination, the priest received the power to ordain which was immediately restricted ecclesiastically. Even in mediaeval times, after the bishops ordained a priest, the other clergy present would place their hands on the head of the ordinands and repeat the consecratory prayer - thus acting as "concelebrants" in the rite. In current practise, the priests bless the ordinands by placing their hands on their heads, but no longer repeat the consecratory form. The point is important for under such circumstances, it is only the bishop who ordains. The post-Conciliar Church retains this practice.

Is the Bishop Ordained or Consecrated?

The question as posed is illegitimate, for Pope Pius XII uses both terms inter-changeably in his Sacramentum Ordinis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 28th January 1958.) The real issue is whether or not raising a Priest to the rank of Bishop involves a sacramental act.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (1908) "most of the older scholastics were of the opinion that the episcopate is not a sacrament; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e.g., Billot, "De Sacramentis"), thought the majority of theologians hold it as certain that the Bishop's ordination is a sacrament." (The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Appleton, 1911, Vol. XI, section on "Orders.")

Whatever the answer, two points are made:

The Council of Trent defines that Bishops belong to a divinely instituted hierarchy, that they are superior to priests, and that they have the power of Confirming and Ordaining which is proper to them." (Session XXIII, c. iv, can. 6, 7)
Pope Leo XIII, as already noted, clearly teaches that the episcopate "belongs most truly to the Sacrament or Order," and Pope Pius XII in defining both the Matter and the Form to the used in the rite implicitly teaches that it is, indeed, a sacramental act.

The position taken in this paper is that while the issue as to whether a simple priest receives the power (not the right) to ordain remains open, the episcopate remains part of the Sacrament of Order. Despite the fact that the power to ordain is a lesser power than that of offering the propitiatory sacrifice of the living and the dead (i.e. the Mass), and despite the fact that the priest may indeed already have this power, one can certainly hold that special graces are required of a Bishop properly to perform his functions, and that these graces are transferred by means of a sacramental act.

It is thus that the Bishop receives within this sacramental what is called the "summum sacerdotium" or the "fullness of the priesthood." Again, it should be stressed that in the ordination of priests, regardless of earlier practise, both in the traditional and the post-Conciliar practise, it is only the Bishop who repeats both the matter and the form. Consequently, when a Bishop ordains, the "validity" of his own orders and of his sacramental act remain essential.

END

God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural

2012-01-11T09:30:00.002-05:00

God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural
Part Two: Creation as a Divine Fact

Section Two: Supernatural Anthropology

THESIS VIII
Before the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace
and the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge.

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Having studied the nature of man according to his nature, his origin in soul by an immediate creation of God and in body by some special agency directed by God, we are now in a position to examine into the moral and religious phase of human kind. Our immediate concern will be with the first man, Adam, as the father of his race; and our scope of inquiry will be twofold: to establish the fact that he was possessed of original justice or sanctity, covered by the term "sanctifying grace," and of certain additional gifts that followed on this supernatural orientation, namely, in his mind, and body and relation to the external world.

The basis which we face in this matter is the naturalistic mentality, almost inbred in modern thought, which conceives of man as autonomous agent and self-sufficient "master of his own destiny." Yet faith requires us to say that man not only came from the hands of God primordially, in soul and body, but his destiny is beyond the capacities of nature and therefore a sheer gift of divine love. All that we ever say in theology about the supernatural order had its beginnings for the human race in Adam, in the possession he received from the Creator and the means he was given to retain the gift for himself and transmit the same to his progeny.

From the viewpoint of modern paleontology and ethnology, which posit man in ancient times as crude and undeveloped, we seem to face a contradiction to the present thesis. If primitive man was also "primitive," how square this with the dogma that the first man was superlatively gifted with powers of mind and body?

Terminology

Adam in context means first of all the man, described in Genesis and St. Paul as distinct from Eve. This is the term also found in the documents of the Church. However we do not use the word of him alone but extend it to Eve, in fact apply it to human nature as represented in our first parents.

The expression "before the fall" simply states the fact that Adam possessed grace and the preternatural gifts, without committing ourselves as to when the infusion took place.

By sanctifying grace we understand that permanent gift, which is now given through Christ and by which a man becomes formally justified, a partaker of the divine nature, an adopted son of God and heir of eternal life. In the present order, sanctifying grace is associated with the uncreated gift of the Holy Spirit and such created gifts as the infused virtues of faith, hope and supernatural charity.

The three gifts of bodily immortality, integrity and infused knowledge are called preternatural because they are not strictly due to human nature but do not, of themselves, surpass the capacities and exigencies of created nature as such. In other words, they are not entitatively supernatural.

Bodily immortality is the converse of mortality, i.e., the possibility of separation of soul from body. Adam was therefore capable of not dying. Yet the gift was conditional, provided he did not sin; it was gratuitous, since Adam's nature by itself did not postulate this prerogative but came from the divine bounty; and it was participated, since only God enjoys essential immortality.

The gift of integrity is equivalent to exemption from concupiscence. It is called "integrity" because it effected a harmonious relation between flesh and spirit by completely subordinating man's lower passions to his reason.

This integrity, it should be noted, did not consist in lacking the natural power to desire for sensible or spiritual bona, nor was it a lack of activity of this power, since all of these belong to the perfection of human nature. Rather it was the absence of certain kinds of acts of the appetitive faculty, namely those which anticipate or go before (praevertunt) the operations of reason and will and tend to continue in opposition to the same.

Stated positively, integrity consisted in the perfect subjection of the concupiscible and irascible appetitive powers to the dictates of reason and free will. As a consequence the will had not only indirect (diplomatic) but also direct (despotic) dominion over the appetite.

Two kinds of concupiscence should be distinguished, the one dogmatic and the other moral. In a dogmatic sense, concupiscence is the appetite - primarily sensitive and actual, and secondarily spiritual and habitual - in so far as its movement precedes the deliberation and dictate of reason and tends to endure in spite of the command of the will. In a moral sense, concupiscence is the appetite - again primarily sensitive and actual, and secondarily spiritual and habitual - in so far as 1) its acts not only precede reason and perdure in spite of the will, but 2) they tend to moral evil. Another name for the latter is inordinate or prava concupiscence.

Our concern in the thesis is with concupiscence in the dogmatic sense, and integrity as immunity from this kind of appetitive drive.

In order, further to clarify Adam's gift of integrity, we may say that he was perfectly sound, entire and integral, in the sense that hedid not experience within himself that division which mankind now understands so well. Our own indeliberate tendencies, we know, often oppose themselves to what we decide or want to do. The life of a man who wants to do well and avoid evil is literally a conflict, more or less violent, between reason which sees and approves the good and wants fewer tendencies. This conflict is variously described as a tension between spirit and flesh, between the interior and exterior man, or simply between soul and body. But in our first parents there was no such internal discord. Their integrity was "the absence of any resistance from their spontaneous tendencies, notably the sense appetite, in the performance of good or avoidance of evil." In a word it was a perfect dominion of animal and spiritual passion.

Adam's infused knowledge was not acquired, in the sense of natural cognition derived from experience and the reasoning process; nor was it intrinsically supernatural as giving a knowledge of the mysteries, such as the souls enjoy in the beatific vision. It was infused because not naturally acquired, but yet entitatively not beyond the capacity of man's faculties in his statu viae. Theologians commonly refer to three areas of special knowledge possessed by Adam: regarding God and His attributes, the moral law or man's relations to God, and the physical universe both material and spiritual.

Adversaries

Since the main object of the thesis is the supernatural order, the principal adversaries would logically be the classic opponents of supernaturalism. Historically and chronologically they are Pelagianism and Rationalism.

Pelagianism was named after the British lay monk, Pelagius, and now is practically synonymous for the denial of grace or of a higher order than nature in human existence.

Little is known about the personal career of Pelagius. Born in England about 354, he came to Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius (399-401), where he was so alarmed by the low morality of the day that he became convinced it could only be reformed by concentrating on the responsibility of men for their actions. Together with his disciple Celestius, he began teaching a doctrine of free will which left no room for grace.

Pelagius and Celestius went to Africa in 410, the latter staying to find himself charged with heresy by the Council of Carthage in 412, while Pelagius went on to Palestine and met the same treatment at the hands of St. Jerome. In 418 a plenary Council of Carthage protested to Pope Zozimus and Pelagius was formally condemned by Rome. Though Pelagius leaves the scene of controversy at this point, eighteen Italian bishops, led by Julian of Eclanum, refused to submit to the Pope. Condemned once more at the Council of Orange (529), Pelagianism disappeared as an organized system in the second half of the sixth century, but its influence in opposition to orthodox Christianity remains to the present day.

Two premises served as basis for Pelagius' theory. Arguing from the principle that “A person is free if he does what he wills and avoids what he wants to avoid," he said that heaven and the beatific vision are attainable by the use of our native powers alone, since nothing but free will isneeded to practice virtue and keep out of sin. From the axiom that "Adam neither injured nor deprived us of anything," Pelagius concluded that men require no special help to repair what Adam is supposed to have lost.

Historians of dogma distinguish four stages of development in the Pelagian system: 1) No grace is necessary for right living, but nature and free will are enough to keep the commandments and reach eternal life. 2) Nature itself and free will are grace, because they are free gifts of God. 3) Besides nature and freedom, external graces may be admitted, in the form of preaching, miracles, revelation, and the example of Jesus Christ. 4) If, for the sake of argument, real supernatural grace were needed, it would be only as light for the mind and never internal grace in the will. "You destroy the will," it was argued, "if you say it needs any help."

Pelagianism was therefore in conflict with orthodoxy by claiming that grace is not gratuitous on the part of God, but comes to everyone according to his natural merits and that, in the last analysis, grace is not absolutely necessary but only a help to facilitate the operations of nature.

St. Augustine was the most formidable adversary of Pelagian speculation. At least five of his major treatises were directed against the innovation, which he accused of corrupting the Scriptures and denying man's elevation to the supernatural order.

Directly pertinent to our thesis, the Pelagians denied that Adam was possessed of sanctifying grace as a supernatural gift of God. Regarding Adam's integrity, the principal adversary among the Pelagians was Julianus, who identified concupiscence with the sense faculty. Immortality in the Pelagian theory was not a special gift, nor was infused knowledge in Adam.

Rationalism has been variously defined in different fields. But in theology it is that system of thought which postulates the absolute rights of natural reason as the only source of religious truth. Common to all rationalists is a dogmatic confidence in the powers of human inquiry and a conviction that man alone, without revelation, may comprehend whatever he needs to reach his final destiny.

As a trend in religious culture, rationalism is as old as Judaeo-Christianity. Among the ancient Jews, the Sadducees denied the resurrection and questioned bodily immortality. The very name Gnostics in the first century of the Christian era meant "knowers" who professed to have a special understanding that was not shared by other believers. Arius was condemned by the Council of Nicea because he insisted on a complete explanation of the hypostatic union. Pelagius "settled" the problem of original sin, grace and freedom by denying the supernatural order. The Reformers did the same by liquidating free will. In fact, the rationalist tendency has been active in every major heresy since apostolic times, challenging the Church's right to teach the mysteries of faith on the word of God and not on the strength of human speculation.

The same critical attitude was adopted by those who questioned the foundations of the Christian religion in England, France and Germany. Tindal, Collins and Hume, Voltaire and Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Strauss were all rationalists in the generic meaning of the term. They found Christianity unreasonable by their own standards of rationality.

Since the turn of the present century, rationalism has entered a new stage that was partly the creature and partly creator of a new concept of history as an empirical science. The area of conflict has shifted from the mainly philosophical grounds that featured the rise of English and French Deism, and especially the idealism of Kant and Schleiermacher. Now the onus probandi was placed on the faithful, and those who would believe in Christianity had to defend themselves against the charge of being unhistorical.

In the context of our thesis, modern Rationalism does not speculatively agitate against the special gifts of nature and grace which orthodoxy claims Adam received from God. It rather centers attention on the objective historicity of the facts, and under guise of sublimating dogma by “rising above the anthropomorphisms and metaphors of Scripture,” reduces the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion to mere symbolism. Among such symbolic truisms, original justice and sin, bodily immortality and freedom from concupiscence in the first man - and intended for the human race - are prominent in today's rationalists.

Paul Tillich isa good example. By Christian standards, original sin is a contingent fact, the result of Adam's loss of original justice through a wilful transgression of God's law. For Tillich, on the other hand, "The difficult concept of ‘original sin’ denotes an original self-contradiction in human existence, coincident with human history itself" Protestant Era, pg. 165. Accordingly the Judaeo-Christian notion of a prior state of justice and holiness, from which the first man fell, by Tillichian norms is to be taken as a symbol of the built-in tension within the human frame. Man was always as he is now, and the "fall" is only an imaginative way of expressing a conflict that is descriptive of man's inevitable existence.

Dogmatic Value

It is defined doctrine, at least implicitly in Trent, that Adam possessed sanctifying grace before the fall.

Regarding Adam's integrity, theologians distinguish between immunity from carnal and spiritual concupiscence. They say it is implicitly defined in Trent (DB 792) that Adam was free from sense concupiscence; or according to others it is proxima fidei. Immunity from spiritual concupiscence is said to be at least theologically certain; or the composite of integrity as such may be called proxima fidei.

Adam's immortality of body has been defined by the Church, and is found in a series of documents: DB 101, 174, 788.

The possession of infused knowledge is held to be common and certain doctrine, though some assign a higher dogmatic note.

Theological Proof

Part One: “Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace."

Ecclesiastical Documents
Besides the Council of Orange against the Pelagians (DB 192), the most explicit documentation is in Trent which declared, “If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he disobeyed the command of God in the Garden of Paradise…let him be anathema" DB 788.
The only question is the meaning of sanctitas and justitia in the definition. But these terms either singly or at least together certainly equivalate sanctifying grace, as appears from general conciliar language and specifically in Trent, “Justification…and sanctification" are defined as taking place through the voluntary acceptance of "grace and the gifts" DB 799. And again in a canon, it issaid that "grace…justifies us" DB 821.
Sacred Scripture
Briefly the probative argument from Scripture goes to St. Paul, not only to individual passages but to the whole tenor of his economy of salvation. The work of Christ, in Pauline terminology, was to restore what Adam had lost for the human race, since what Adam originally possessed was regained for us by the cross. Christ restored us to divine friendship through grace; therefore Adam must first have had what he later was dispossessed of through sin.
Paul simply describes Christ as the "new Adam" (I Corinthians 15:21), whose work of restoration is to repair what the first Adam had inflicted by his disobedience. So that if through one man sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has passed into all men because in him all have sinned, from the justice of the one (Christ) the result is unto justification of life to all men (Romans 5:12, 18).
Summarily the work of Christ, according to Paul, was one of reconciliation and redemption - in both cases repairing the damage done by Adam. Either concept singly or in combination means the restoration of sanctifying grace and of those supernatural gifts that man needs to attain the vision of God.
Patristic Evidence
While the precise theological language of today was not yet current, the Fathers explicitly teach that the first man possessed sanctifying grace, which they called "deification" and which Adam lost by the fall. "How can we be said to be renewed," St. Augustine asked, "if we do not receive what the first man lost, in whom all of us die? Plainly we receive the one in some way, and just as plainly we do not receive the other. For we do not receive the immortality of a spiritual body (as did Adam); yet we do obtain justice, from which man had fallen by his sin” (RJ 1698).
Some of the Greek Fathers, like Basil and Cyril of Alexandria, believed that the supernatural sanctification of Adam is indicated in Genesis 2:7. They took spiraculum vitae to mean the grace of the Holy Spirit as a supernatural vital principle. Others, notably Ireneus, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine, held that imago Dei referred to Adam's nature, while similitudo Dei described him as being in the state of sanctifying grace. Apart from their interpretation of the texts, the Fathers’ common belief that Adam received both natural and supernatural life is a witness to Christian tradition.

Part Two: "Adam Possessed the Gift of Integrity"

Ecclesiastical Documents
1. The primary text is in Trent, which says, "Concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, this council declares that the Catholic Church has never understood that it is called sin because there is, inthe regenerated, sin in the true and proper sense but only because it is from sin and inclines to sin. If anyone thinks the contrary: let him be anathema” DB 792. Since the council defined that concupiscence comes from sin and leads or inclines to sin, it implicitly declared that concupiscence had not been present before sin, which in context means before the sinof Adam.
  We may further note that Trent speaks directly about concupiscence in the moral sense, namely as the appetite (mainly sense) which tends before the dictate of reason to an object which is morally sinful. However by implication the dogmatic type of concupiscence (defended in the thesis) is also understood; necessarily because the council is talking about the concupiscence which is now in us, namely the kind which may also tend to objects that are morally good or indifferent, yet antecedent to the dictates of reason and continuing in the same direction even against the dictamen rationis.
2. Among papal documents treating of the subject, the Encyclical of Pius XI Christian Education is specially pertinent. He states the principles of faith that should guide the training of youth.
  "It must never be forgotten that the subject of Christian education is man whole and entire, soul united to body inunity of nature, with all his faculties natural and supernatural such as right reason and revelation show him to be; man, therefore, fallen from his original estate, but redeemed by Christ and restored to the supernatural condition of adopted sons of God, though without the preternatural privileges of bodily immortality or perfect control of appetite. There remain therefore in human nature the effects of Adam's sin, the chief of which are weakness of will and unrestrained desires of soul" DB 2212.
Sacred Scripture
In the Book of Genesis, the sexual life of our first parents is described as radically different before and after the fall.
Before the fall, their sex life appears as perfectly under control. God willed the difference between the sexes (Genesis I:27), since man cannot find a helpmate like to himself among the animal kingdom. The Lord therefore created woman to be man's companion and cooperator in the procreation of children (Genesis 2:20-24). Man and woman have no reason to be ashamed of their mutual relation. (Genesis 2:25).
After the fall, things are quite different. Adam and Eve become conscious of their nakedness, which the author of Genesis has coincide with their sense of need for clothing (Genesis 3:7), and with their desire to hide (Genesis 3:10-11). Conjugal life also begins to be a burden and source of sorrow for the woman (Genesis3:16).
The mode of narrative implies that the inspired text wants to show that deordination in the sexual life began only after the fall. It may further be said that the author meant to refer beyond mere sexuality, which he used to illustrate the loss of man's dominion over all his lower powers. Consequently before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions, which is synonymous with integrity.
In the New Testament, when the Pharisees pose the question of divorce, this gives Christ the opportunity to emphasize what was the original state of things, when matrimony was more strict than under the Mosaic law, because there had not been the obstacle of "hardness of heart" (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:1-8). This hardness of heart can be identified with concupiscence, and the relaxation of the law makes us see what was the original condition of things, when perfect equilibrium existed in the sexual life, which mankind later evidently lacked.
St. Paul in Romans 6 and 7 speaks of "sin" which cannot mean sin formally, because it is found also in the just. Rather it is an inclination to sin, or concupiscence. If we further see that this concupiscence is later called sin in that context of the epistle where Paul is speaking of the corruption introduced into the world by Adam's disobedience, we can only conclude that it had its origin in the sin of Adam. Before his disobedience, therefore, Adam was exempt from this defect, which meant that he possessed integrity.
Patristic Evidence
From the time of Pelagianism, there is no lack of clarity and insistence among the Fathers that the special privileges of our first parents are a matter of faith. However even before Pelagius, there is evidence of a Patristic tradition on the subject.
In fact some of the Fathers were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin. Thus it seems Athanasius and John Damascene. No doubt this was going too far. Sexual propagation does not exclude natural integrity, and we may safely say that marriage would have been instituted even if Adam and Eve had remained in their first innocence. It was this attitude which later caused Augustine to retract his earlier statement that if the human race had preserved its primal innocence and grace, propagation might have been asexual.
But with Pelagianism to combat, the original tradition on integrity became clearer than ever. Pelagians maintained that concupiscence was not a defect of nature but a positive vigor, which anticipated the Freudian theory of modern times. Augustine fought against this view in his De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia; and in Contra Julianum he expressly says that freedom from concupiscence was a gift of grace.

Part Three: "Adam Possessed the Gift of Bodily Immortality"

Ecclesiastical Documents
Besides the Councils of XVI Carthage (DB 101) and orange (DB 174), the Council of Trent defined that "If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam… when he disobeyed the command of God in the Garden of Paradise…incurred the death with which God had previously threatened him…let him be anathema" (DB 788).
Later on, when Baianism was condemned by the Church, among the rejected propositions was, the claim that "The immortality of the first man was not a gift of grace, but his natural condition" (DB 1078). This corresponds to another condemned proposition of Baius, to the effect that "The integrity found in first creation was not a gratuitous elevation of human nature, but its natural condition" (DB 1026).
Sacred Scripture
The immortality of our first parents is seen from the sanction which God imposed on them in forbidding them to eat of the tree of knowledge, and His application of this sanction (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:3, 19, 22-24).
The Lord foretold that man would die in whatsoever day he ate of the forbidden fruit. This threat did not literally mean death on the same day as the sin, since the Old Testament often refers to time in broader terms, e.g., III Kings 2:42. Rather it meant that the moment man disobeyed the precept, he would become subject to mortality. Consequently in Genesis and elsewhere (Wisdom 2:24, Ecclesiasticus 25:33) the sacred authors wished to teach that physical death was not man's original lot, but came into the world because of sin. In other words, except for sin, man would have been immortal in body.
In the New Testament, St. John calls the devil “a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). And according to St. Paul, death entered the world as a result of Adam's fall (Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21-22). The death in question is not merely spiritual death, since it is contrasted with bodily resurrection, which came to us through Christ. Logically, therefore, if Adam had not sinned by following the suggestion of the devil, he would have preserved himself in bodily immortality.
Patristic Evidence
The Fathers unanimously taught as a matter of faith that man in his primeval condition was gifted with immortality of body and soul. Thus Theophilus of Antioch explained that God made man neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of either, depending on whether Adam would sin or not (RJ 184). Tatian describes the Word of God “making man a sharer in His own divine immortality" (RJ 156). According to St. Cyprian, with the advent of the first sin there disappeared both man's integrity of body and immortality, which were a special grace of God (RJ 566). St. Athanasius taught that men who are by nature mortal would have been immortal, had they not sinned, thus rising superior to the powers of nature by the power of the Word of God (RJ 750). St. Ambrose says that God did not make death, but imposed it upon man as a penalty for sin, so that now he must return to the earth from which he came (RJ 1325). And St. Augustine held that man was mortal because he was able to die, immortal because he was able not to die, so that he was mortal conditione naturae and immortal beneficio Dei (RJ 1699).

Part Four: “Adam Possessed the Gift of Infused Knowledge,”

Ecclesiastical Documents
It is difficult to cite authoritative documents which treat professedly of the infused knowledge of our first parents. Generally there are only oblique references to man's superior mental and moral condition before the fall, implying some special privileges of mind. Thus Pius XII in the Allocution to the Academy of Sciences previously quoted, said "On the day when God formed man and crowned his brow with His own image and likeness…He taught him agriculture, how to care and cultivate the garden in which He had placed him; led him to all the beasts of the fields and all the birds of the air so that man might name them. And he gave to each of them its true and fitting name…Man is great, and he was greater when created…If he fell from his original greatness…if the remnants of the command once given him over the animal world are nothing more than a fading recollection of his former power…even in his ruin he looms great because of that divine image and likeness he carries in his spirit" (November 30, 1941).
Theological Reason
Christian tradition reasoned on the datum in Scripture to conclude that if Adam was given complete dominion over the lower organisms and ability to name the animals, i.e., understand their properties enough to describe their nature; if moreover the Lord placed the first parents in a place which they were to cultivate - Adam and Eve must have been given adequate knowledge for these purposes, and the knowledge would have been infused since ex hypothesi this was the beginning of human history.
Also in Ecclesiasticus (17:1-9), we are told that "Man, too, God created out of the earth, fashioning him after His own likeness…To him and to that partner of his, created like to himself and out of himself, God gave will and speech and sight and hearing. He gave them a heart to reason with, and filled them with power of discernment. Spirit itself should be within their ken, their hearts should be all sagacity. What evil was, what good, He made plain to them. He gave them His own eyes to see with, so that they should keep His marvelous acts in view, praise His holy name, boast of His wonders and tell the story of His renowned deeds." Given all these, the Fathers and theologians reasonably conclude that the first man and woman were specially gifted with knowledge infused into them by the Creator.
However any attempt to describe the extent of Adam's infused knowledge would be hazardous. On the supernatural level, opinion differs from Suarez' position that Adam probably had a belief in the Trinity and the future Incarnation of the Word of God, to a minimist school which credits the first man only with the essentials necessary for salvation.
St. Thomas restricted the limits of Adam's infused knowledge by setting down two rules: 1) Adam depended on phantasms for his intellectual concepts. Consequently unlike the human soul of Christ, he did not enjoy the beatific vision before the fall; he could have no intuitive but only an abstractive knowledge of the angels; and he even did not have intuitive knowledge of his own soul. 2) In the domain of nature, Adam had a perfect infused knowledge only regarding those things which were indispensable to him and his descendants to live in conformity with the laws of reason. This did not mean that he would not have had to learn and inquire, or that he was unable to progress in matters of science and culture. There is no reason to suppose that Adam knew about the Copernican system, or electronics, or nuclear fission. Yet, in its own way, Adam's knowledge was extensive; it was specially given him by God; and, according to St. Thomas, it was infallible - though subject to obscurity.
A safe norm to follow with regard to Adam's infused knowledge is to attribute to the first man quite extraordinary insight in the moral and religious order, while limiting his understanding of things material and technical to the needs of his condition before the fall.

Kerygmatic Development

Original justice and Prehistory. Until recent times, theologians were only mildly concerned with the problems posed by scientific discoveries, notably anthropology and paleontology. Among the Catholic pioneers, Wilhelm Schmidt ranks as outstanding. Since then the field has become quite thoroughly explored.
Specifically the problems revolve around the apparent contradiction between a highly endowed first man and the primitive, in the sense of crude, state of civilization so far unearthed from times past. A number of careful distinctions have to be made.
The condition of man in paradise is known to us from revelation and accepted on faith. It was not a state of culture which man acquired by his native power, but the result of a special action of God at the dawn of human history. Small wonder, then, that we have no exploratory evidence of this from ethnology or one of the natural sciences.
This primeval condition was not what we would call a "civilization," that existed for centuries and therefore could leave monuments or other historical vestiges for investigation. It may be described as a brief episode in the story of mankind, which science therefore can neither prove nor disprove from a study of human remains.
There is no need to expand on the perfection of our first parents in the Garden of Paradise. It was certainly considerable as regards things of the spirit and their relations with God; but could also have been quite modest in everything else. And even their religious ideas were capable of development, from the instinctive to a more reflexive and demonstrative knowledge.
But most important, we must keep in mind the radical change which took place after the fall. Although scientists speak of the most ancient peoples as "primitive" this is a relative term. Even the oldest civilizations, known or yet to be discovered, are really decadent from their primordial state. Bereft of the special privileges it once enjoyed, the human race had to face and try to surmount the grave difficulties that stood in its way - personally, socially, morally and religiously. So true is this, that the very necessity for a special revelation from God of naturally knowable truths is a logical corollary to man's fallen condition.
Basic principles and Secondary Elements. While holding no brief for the rationalism of Bultmann and the radical Form Critics, we should recognize the prejudice they seek to meet in the modern mind. In large measure this is the result of four centuries of biblicism in Protestant thought, which has affected Western thought to a degree we are slow to admit.
The biblical account of Adam and Eve too often concentrates on secondary elements, which strike the fancy and have been further elaborated by imaginative literature: the picture of the Garden, the rivers which spontaneously flow water and irrigate the land, the Lord walking in the stillness of the night, rows of animals brought before Adam to be named. All the while, the essentials maybe overlooked, namely, the elevation of man to supernatural friendship with God, his disobedience and consequent loss for himself and posterity of grace, integrity and twofold immortality.

Study Questions

Of whom do we predicate the possession of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts? And when were these received?
Briefly distinguish natural, preternatural and supernatural.
What kind of immortality did Adam receive as a special gift of God? Explain.
Distinguish the following: concupiscence in the moral sense and in the dogmatic sense; sensitive appetite and spiritual appetite; diplomatic and despotic dominion of the appetitive faculties.
What exactly was Adam's gift of integrity, and why was it preternatural?
What was the nature and scope of Adam's infused knowledge?
Outline the basic tenets of Pelagianism, and how were the Pelagians against our thesis?
What is Rationalism in theology, and how does it oppose our position that the first man was elevated to the supernatural order and received preternatural powers?
Give the dogmatic value for the various parts of the thesis.
Prove from the documents, Scripture and especially St. Paul that Adam possessed sanctifying grace. What was the Patristic teaching on the subject?
Show from Trent, Scripture and the Fathers that Adam had the gift of integrity.
Using Trent, Genesis and St. Paul, prove that Adam was originally destined to be immortal in body. Briefly state the doctrine of. two of the Fathers on this fact.
How do we argue from theological reason, using Scripture as basis, that Adam had special infused knowledge?
How do we reconcile our thesis with the current idea of the “primitive man”?

Q & A on Salvation by Fr. Muller, C.SS. R.

2012-01-10T16:15:00.001-05:00

Questions and Answers
on Salvation

by Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

Editor’s Note: Father Michael Muller was one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th Century. He ranks as one of the greatest defenders of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in modern times. Father Muller always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication, thus we are sure of the doctrinal soundness of his teachings. This article, first published in 1875, is one of the finest treatments of the doctrinal truth that Our Lord founded one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Father Muller’s firm writings are desperately needed in our time when this doctrine is denied by those who are the most influential members of our Holy Church. We publish Father Muller’s excellent little Catechism as an antidote to the prevalent religious indifferentism — an indifferentism that is the direct result of what Blessed Pius IX denounced as “Liberal Catholicism”.

1. Do all admit that the Catholic Church is the first and the oldest Church, and, consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ?

That the Catholic Church is the first and oldest and consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ, is and must be admitted by all, because it is a fact clearly proven by Scripture and by history.

2. Who bear witness to this fact?

The Jews and the Gentiles bear witness to it, and even Protestants themselves acknowledge it, because, if asked why they call themselves Protestants, they answer: “Because we protest against the Catholic Church.”

3. What follows from this answer?

That the Catholic Church is older than Protestantism; otherwise they could not have protested against her.

4. If we go still further back and ask the Greek Church how they came into existence, what will be their answer?

The Greek Church must answer: “We began by separating from the Catholic Church in the 9th Century.”

5. What follows from this?

That the Catholic Church existed for eight hundred years before the Greek Church began, and consequently, it is older than the Greek Church.

6. If we thus go back to the very days of the Apostles, what do we find everywhere in regard to the manner in which religious sects arose?

If we go back to the days of the Apostles, we find that every sect separated from the Catholic Church, and therefore we see Calvinists, Kilhamites, Quakers, Shakers, Panters, Seekers, Jumpers, Reformed Methodists, German Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists, Baptists, Particular Baptists, Hardshell Baptists, Softshell Baptists, Forty- Gallon Baptists, Sixty- Gallon Baptists, Mennonites, Millerites, Universalists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Mormons, Christian Perfectionists, etc., etc., etc.

7. Is it not all the same to God whatever religion a person professes?

If it were all the same to God whatever religion a person professes, God would not have forbidden, in the First Commandment, to worship Him in any other than in the true religion. Nor would Christ have solemnly declared: “He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.” (Matt. 18:17)

Ex Cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." - Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Feb. 4, 1442.

8. Who, then, will be saved?

Christ has solemnly declared that only those will be saved who have done God’s will on earth as explained, not by private interpretation, but by the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. “Not everyone,” says Christ, “who saith to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doth the will of My Father Who is in Heaven, he shall enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 7:21) The will of the heavenly Father is that all men hear and believe His Son, Jesus Christ. “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him.” (Luke 9:35)

Now Jesus Christ said to His Apostles and to all their lawful successors: “He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him, the heavenly Father, that sent Me.” Hence all those who do not listen to Jesus Christ speaking to them through Saint Peter and the Apostles in their lawful successors, despise God the Father. They do not do His will, and therefore Heaven will never be theirs.

9. Must, then, all who wish to be saved, die united to the Catholic Church?

All those who wish to be saved, must die united to the Catholic Church. For out of her there is no salvation, because only she teaches what Jesus Christ requires of everyone to be saved, and because only to her did Christ leave the means to obtain all the graces necessary for salvation. Hence Jesus said to His Apostles and to all their lawful successors: “Go and teach all nations: teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth not all these things shall be condemned.”

Our Divine Savior says: “No one can come to the Father, except through Me.” If we then wish to enter Heaven, we must be united to Christ — to His [Mystical] Body, which is the Church, as Saint Paul says. Therefore, outside the Church there is no salvation.

Again, Jesus Christ says: “Whoever will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican,” a great sinner. Therefore outside the Church there is no salvation.

Holy Scripture says: “The Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47) Therefore the Apostles believed and the Holy Scriptures teach that there is no salvation out of the Church.

10. What did Saint Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, in 412, say about the salvation of those who die outside the Roman Catholic Church?

“Whosoever,” they said, “is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

11. What does Saint Cyprian say about the salvation of those who die outside of the Roman Catholic Church?

Saint Cyprian says: “He who has not the Church for his mother cannot have God for his Father.” And with him the Fathers of the Church in general say that, “as all those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the waters of the deluge, so shall perish all who are out of the true Church.”

12. Who are out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church?

Out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church are all unbaptized and all excommunicated persons, all apostates, unbelievers, and heretics.

Infidels and Apostates

13. How do we know that unbaptized persons are not saved?

That unbaptized persons are not saved, we know from Christ, Who said: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5.) For God cannot unite Himself to such souls in Heaven on account of Original Sin, with which they are defiled.

14. How do we know that persons justly excommunicated, who are unwilling to do what is required of them before they are absolved, are not saved?

Persons justly excommunicated, who are not willing to do what is required of them before they are absolved, are not saved, because the sin of great scandal, for which they were as dead members expelled from the communion of the Church, excludes them from the kingdom of Heaven.

15. Which Catholics are excommunicated?

All those Catholics are excommunicated, who are members of secret societies, which have been excommunicated [condemned] by the Church, such as Freemasonry, and other societies affiliated with it under various names.

16. Why have several Popes solemnly excommunicated all Freemasonry?

All Freemasons have been solemnly excommunicated by several Popes on account of the main object and spirit of Freemasonry, to establish heathenism or the Church of Satan all over the world:

a) By upsetting governments to obtain for themselves the power of governing and making impious laws for their subjects; b) By trying to overthrow the Catholic Church, which teaches and maintains the rights and laws of God and civil society; c) By spreading immoral and impious principles through the infidel press and other satanic means; d) By establishing public schools for the infidel education of youth.

17. Is this main object and spirit known to all Freemasons?

This satanic object and spirit is known only to the members of the highest grades of Freemasonry. But it is sufficiently known to all from the works and speeches of Freemasons, and therefore every member, even of the lowest grade, is guilty of the foul deeds of this satanic society.

18. How do we know that apostates are not saved?

Apostates from the Catholic Faith are not saved, because to fall away from the Faith is a great sin, which makes one lose the kingdom of Heaven.1

19. How many kinds of infidels or unbelievers are there?

There are three kinds of infidels or unbelievers: (a) Those who are guilty of the sin of infidelity; (b) those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other great sins; and (c) those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, and live up to the dictates of their conscience.

20. What kind of infidels are guilty of the sin of infidelity?

All those unbaptized persons are guilty, who do not embrace the true religion, although the truths thereof have been sufficiently made known to them — like many of the Jews of whom our Lord said that they had no excuse for their sins, because He had spoken to them.

All those unbaptized persons are guilty, who have received sufficient light to know the truth, or at least to understand the danger of their position, and the obligation of making diligent inquiries to ascertain and embrace the truth, but neglect to do so.

And all those are guilty of the sin of infidelity, who willfully deny the truth and obstinately resist it.

"We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord, (Matt 18:17; Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:18) as also from the words of Saint Paul (2 Tit. 52:11) and of Saint Peter (2 Peter 2:1) To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch." - Blessed Pope Pius IX

21. Why is it that positive infidels are not saved?

Positive infidels are not saved because, “positive infidelity, being willful obstinacy, palpable contradiction, and public contempt of divine revelation and of the precepts of the Gospel, is one of the most grievous sins in the sight of God and of His Holy Church,” says Saint Thomas Aquinas.

22. Explain the grievousness of the sin of infidelity.

Mortal sin is a deviation from virtue and divine law. The most heinous sin, therefore, is that which separates man from God more than any other. Now, no sin causes a greater separation from God than that of positive infidelity. When the intellect is in error and abandons the knowledge of God, the will follows it and increases in malice in proportion as the intellect turns away from the path of truth, justice, and charity. Each step that such a man takes in the darkness of infidelity, increases the distance that separates him from God. A return from that dangerous course is very difficult, for when the intellect is in error and the will is filled with malice and depravity, all the bonds capable of uniting man to God are torn asunder.

If such men die in this disposition of mind they are infallibly lost, says Saint Thomas. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. 11:6)

23. Which kind of infidels are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other grievous sins?

Those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other grievous sins, are all those unbaptized persons who never had an opportunity of knowing the true religion, or of becoming aware of the obligation of seeking and embracing it, but who do not live up to the dictates of their conscience.

24. Will this class of infidels be lost?

This class of infidels will be lost, not on account of their infidelity, which was no sin for them, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed against their conscience. “For whosoever have sinned without the law,” says Saint Paul, “shall perish without the law.” (Romans 2:12)

25. Will those infidels be lost, who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity and live up to their conscience?

Of those infidels who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity and are faithful in obeying the voice of their conscience, Saint Thomas Aquinas says: “If anyone was brought up in the wilderness or among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of nature to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe that God, by an inward inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as He sent Peter to Cornelius.”

Heresy Explained

26. What is the meaning of the word “heretic”?

The word “heretic” is derived from the Greek, and means “a chooser.”

27. What is a heretic?

A heretic is any baptized person, professing Christianity, and choosing for himself what to believe and what not to believe as he pleases, in obstinate opposition to any particular truth which he knows is taught by the Catholic Church as a truth revealed by God.

28. How many things, then, are required to make a person guilty of the sin of heresy?

To make a person guilty of the sin of heresy, three things are required:

a) He must be baptized and profess Christianity. This distinguishes him from a Jew and idolater; b) He must refuse to believe a truth revealed by God, and taught by the Church as so revealed;c) He must obstinately adhere to error, preferring his own private judgment in matters of faith and morals to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

29. How many kinds of heretics (Protestants) are there?

There are three kinds of heretics:

a) Those who are guilty of the sin of heresy; b) Those who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other grievous sins;c) Those who are not guilty of the sin of heresy and live up to the dictates of their conscience.

30. Who are guilty of the sin of heresy?

Of the sin of heresy are guilty:

a) All those baptized persons, who profess Christianity and obstinately reject a truth revealed by God and taught by the Church as so revealed; b) Those who embrace an opinion contrary to Faith, maintain it obstinately, and refuse to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church;c) Those who willfully doubt the truth of an article of Faith, for by such willful doubt they actually question God’s knowledge and truth, and to do this is to be guilty of heresy; d) Those who know the Catholic Church to be the only true Church, but do not embrace her faith; e) Those who could know the Church, if they would candidly search, but who, through indifference and other culpable motives, neglect to do so; f) Those who, like the Anglicans, think that they approach very near the Catholic Church, because their prayers and ceremonies are like many prayers and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, and because their Creed is the Apostles’ Creed. These are heretics in principle, for, “The real character of rank heresy,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “consists in want of submission to the divine teaching authority in the Head of the Church.”

31. Why are true heretics lost?

True heretics are lost because by rejecting the divine teacher — the Catholic Church — they reject all divine teaching, to do which is one of the greatest sins. Hence Pope Pius IX spoke of Protestantism in all its forms as “the great revolt against God,” it being an attempt to substitute a human for a divine authority, and a declaration of the creature’s independence from the Creator. For this reason Holy Scripture condemns heresy in the strongest terms. “A man,” says St. Paul, “that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he who is such a one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Tit. 3:10-11) And again he says: “Though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema,” that is, “accursed”. (Gal. 1:8)

Heretics are lost because they have no divine Faith. “To reject but one article of Faith taught by the Church,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “is enough to destroy Faith, as one mortal sin is enough to destroy Charity. For the virtue of Faith does not consist merely in adhering to the Holy Scriptures, and in revering them as the Word of God; it consists principally in submitting our intellect and will to the divine authority of the true Church charged by Jesus Christ to expound them. “I would not believe the Holy Scriptures,” says St. Augustine, “were it not for the divine authority of the Church.” He, therefore, who despises and rejects this authority, cannot have true Faith. If he admits some supernatural truths, they are but simple opinions, as he makes those truths depend on his private judgment.

And as divine Faith is the beginning of salvation, the foundation and source of justification, and is found only in the true Church, it is clear that there is no salvation for one as long as he is a heretic.

Heresy Denies All Faith

32. Have heretics faith in Jesus Christ?

Saint Thomas Aquinas says: “It is absurd for a heretic to say that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a person is to give our full consent to His word and to all He teaches. True Faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ and in all He taught. Hence, he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation, has no more the doctrine of Jesus Christ and of His Church, than the pagans, Jews, and Turks have.” “He is,” says Jesus Christ, “but a heathen and a publican”; and therefore he will be condemned to hell.

33. Show how Protestants have no absolute faith in Christ.

Jesus Christ says: “Hear the Church.” “No,” say Luther and all Protestants, “do not hear the Church; protest against her with all your might.”

Jesus Christ says: “If anyone will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican.” “No,” says Protestantism, “if anyone does not hear the Church, look upon him as an apostle, an ambassador of God.”

Jesus Christ says: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church.” “No,” says Protestantism. “ ’Tis false, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more.”

Jesus Christ has declared Saint Peter and every successor to Saint Peter — the Pope — to be His Vicar on earth. “No,” says Protestantism, “the Pope is anti- Christ”.

Jesus Christ says: “My yoke is sweet, and My burden light.” (Matt. 11:30) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “it is impossible to keep the Commandments.”

Jesus Christ says: “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt. 19:17) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting.”

Jesus Christ says: “Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.” (cf. Luke 13:3) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “fasting and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.”

Jesus Christ says: “This is My Body.” “No,” said Calvin, “this is only the figure of Christ’s Body; it will become His Body as soon as you receive It.”

Jesus Christ says: “I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) “No,” say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another.”

Jesus Christ says to every man: “Thou shalt not steal.” “No,” said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church.”

34. Do heretics speak in this manner also of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles?

They do. The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture: “Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred.” (Eccles. 9:1) “Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?” (Prov. 20:9) And, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philip. 2:12) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, is in the state of grace.”

Saint Paul says: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:2) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “faith alone is sufficient to save us.”

Saint Peter says that in the Epistles of Saint Paul there are many things “hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition.” (2 Pet. 3:16) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood.”

Saint James says: “Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord.” (Chapter 5, verse 14) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “that is a vain and useless ceremony.”

35. Now, do you think God the Father will admit into Heaven those who thus contradict His Son Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles?

No, He will let them have their portion with Lucifer in hell, who first rebelled against Christ, and who is the father of liars.

36. Can a Christian be saved, who has left the true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church?

No, because the Church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom, shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in Heaven.

37. Have Protestants left the true Church of Christ?

Protestants left the true Church of Christ in their founders, who left the Catholic Church either through pride or through the passion of lust and covetousness.

38. What will be the punishment of those who willfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church?

Those who willfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church, will, like Lucifer and the other rebellious angels, be cast into the everlasting flames of hell. “He who will not hear the Church,” says Christ, “let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matt. 18:17)

39. But if a Protestant should say: “I have nothing to do with Luther or Calvin or Henry VIII or John Knox, I go by the Bible,” what would you answer him?

In that case, you adopt, and go by, the principles and spirit of the authors of heresies, and you change the written Word of God into the word of man, because you interpret Holy Scripture in your own private manner, giving it that meaning which you choose to give it, and thus, instead of believing the Word of God, you believe rather your own private interpretation of it, which is but the word of man. Hence, Saint Augustine says: “You who believe what you please, and reject what you please, believe yourselves or your own fancy rather than the Gospel.”

Inculpable Ignorance

40. Which Protestants are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other great sins?

Those who are Protestants without their fault and who never had an opportunity of knowing better, are not guilty of the sin of heresy; but if they do not live up to the dictates of their conscience, they will be lost, not on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed.

41. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?

Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.

If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, “Out of the Church there is no salvation,” we must remember:

a) That there are four great truths2 of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved;

b) That no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;

c) That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;

d) That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.

Msgr. G. Van Noort on Infallibility

2012-01-09T16:08:00.000-05:00

Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church,
by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.,CHAPTER III

The Properties of the Church

The Church's properties are those qualities which flow from its very essence and are a necessary part of it. Authors differ somewhat in enumerating these properties; and some distinguish between properties and endowments. But the difference seems to concern method and terminology rather than the matter itself. Seven properties, then, can be listed: visibility, indestructibility, infallibility, unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Since visibility and indestructibility have already been considered, there remain for discussion only the last five.

Article I

THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY

1. Meaning of the Term

The word infallibility itself indicates a necessary immunity from error. When one speaks of the Church's infallibility, one means that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals, It is a prerogative of the whole Church; but it belongs in one way to those who fulfill the office of teaching and in another way to those who are taught. Hence the distinction between active infallibility, by which the Church's rulers are rendered immune from error when they teach; and passive infallibility, by which all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs.

Passive infallibility depends on and is caused by active infallibility: for the faithful are kept free from error in religious matters only by loyally following their rulers. Consequently, it is limited by the same restrictions as is active infallibility, and it will therefore suffice to treat only the latter. Active infallibility may be defined as follows: the privilege by which the teaching office of the Church, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is preserved immune from error when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.

The words through the assistance of the Holy Spirit indicate that this freedom from error is something derived; the words when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals limit this inerrancy to definite subject matter.

II. Errors

1. Protestants in general ascribe infallibility to no church, at least to no visible church. The Puseyists were willing to grant it to some sort of ideal Church made up of the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Anglican communions. The Pistoians asserted that infallibility, like all sacred power, had been given principally and directly to the whole body of the faithful, but to rulers only as agents of that body. The Jansenists of Holland seem to follow the same opinion, since they demand for an infallible decree: (a) that delegates or representatives of the whole “Church” be gathered together for a ecumenical council; (b) that these delegates agree that the doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith and that it has always been accepted by the whole Church; (c) that their judgment be ratified universally by the Church throughout the world.

2. Modernists, since they acknowledge not even a divinely established teaching office, naturally do not admit that the privilege of infallibility was granted this office. The doctrinal or dogmatic authority which they themselves grant the Church's rulers means only this: that these rulers are to be watchfully alert for what may, at any given period, be going on in the Christian consciousness, so that they may give it apt formulation. Of course the formulae must be modified as soon as they no longer correspond with the new mentality and the evolution of religious consciousness. In fact, in the Modernist system, the duty of doctrinal authority is not to see to it that there is never any change in the believing or in the understanding of the absolute and immutable truth preached from the beginning by the apostles. This authority is rather to take care that that be maintained which may seem best adapted to the cultural level of each generation. (1)

The first step in the treatment to follow will be a demonstration of the fact of infallibility. Next in order will be a study of its object or extent, and finally an investigation into its nature. The special discussion of the subject of infallibility fits more conveniently into the second section of this treatise. Suffice it to mention here, in anticipation of the fuller discussion, that that subject is both the body of the Church's rulers together with its head, in other words, the Roman Catholic college of bishops, and the supreme ruler of the whole Church, the Roman pontiff.

Ill. The Fact of Infallibility (2)

PROPOSITION: When the teaching office of the Church hands down decisions on matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent, it is infallible.

This is a dogma of faith.

The teaching office of the Church or, as they say, “the teaching Church,” is made up of those to whom God entrusted the right and the duty to teach the Christian religion authoritatively. The words “in matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent” are included in the proposition because, according to Catholic teaching, the Church's rulers are infallible not in any and every exercise of their teaching power; but only when, using all the fulness of their authority, they clearly intend to bind everyone to absolute assent or, as common parlance puts it, when they “define” something in matters pertaining to the Christian religion. That is why all theologians distinguish in the dogmatic decrees of the councils or of the popes between those things set forth therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition, and not the historical observations, reasons for the definition, and so forth. And if in some particular instances the intention of giving a definitive decision were not made sufficiently clear, then no one would be held by virtue of such definitions, to give the assent of faith: a doubtful law is no law at all.

Although this proposition has never been defined in the precise form in which it is here stated, it is a dogma of faith by reason of the universal teaching of the Church. Moreover, the Vatican Council did define that the Roman pontiff “enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be equipped in defining a doctrine of faith or morals.” (3)

Proof:
1. From the promises of Christ. (a) Christ said to the apostles in the Last Supper discourse, “And I will ask the Father, and he will grant you another Advocate to be with you for all time to come, the Spirit of Truth … he will make his permanent stay with you and in you … but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and refresh your memory of everything I have told you” (John 14:16-17, 26). “But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will conduct you through the whole range of truth” (John 16:13). Then, after His Resurrection, He added, “…you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence … you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth” (Acts 1:5, 8).

Two things are promised in these texts: the Holy Spirit, as the Teacher of truth (a) will come upon the apostles to imbue them with an exceedingly rich knowledge of the Christian religion; (b) He will remain with them forever. The purpose and the result of both these aids is that the apostles will preach Christ's religion pure and unabridged “even to the very ends of the earth.”

The former promise has in view especially the first communication of the Christian religion and, furthermore, at least in the strict and full sense, refers to the apostles alone. The latter promise, which is concerned more directly with the practice and preservation of this religion, cannot, in view of the words themselves(4) and of the purpose intended, be limited to the apostles personally; but embraces the apostolic college as it is to continue forever. But if the Holy Spirit is to remain with the successors of the apostles forever, and is to be in them that they may be witnesses of Christ to the ends of the earth, He will doubtless keep them from error when they define Christian doctrine. For would they really be witnesses of Christ if they corrupted His doctrine in even one point and unjustifiably demanded the assent of all to a falsehood?

(b) “Absolute authority in heaven and on earth has been conferred upon me. Go, therefore, and initiate all nations in discipleship … and teach them to observe all the commandments I have given you. And mark: I am with you at all times as long as the world will last” (Matt. 28:20). These words contain a promise to the apostolic college, as to a perpetual institution, of continuous and effective aid in teaching all nations the religion of Christ (see no. 20). But this aid certainly includes infallibility, for if they could err at times in defining Christian doctrine, the purpose of the aid would not be realized.

Furthermore, the force of Christ's promise is highlighted in an extraordinary manner by the obligation enjoined on all men to accept the doctrine preached by the apostles and by their successors throughout all ages: “He that believes … will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Could our Lord have imposed this obligation without any limitation or restriction, and under the threat of eternal damnation, if He had left to posterity a teaching authority which was liable to error?

2. From the testimony of the Apostle. St. Paul: I write these instructions to you, so that … you may know what your conduct should be in the house of God which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth (I Tim. 3:14-15). Truth purely and simply is the whole body of truth leading to eternal salvation: Christian doctrine in its entirety. The Church considered absolutely, i.e., the universal Church, is called a thoroughly solid pillar of this truth,(5) because it bears and supports the truth as an unshakably solid pillar supports a building. But it would not be the pillar and bulwark of the truth if it could shift from the truth in even one matter. Therefore we have here a direct statement of the infallibility of the Church as a whole; but one can immediately deduce from this the infallibility of the teaching office, since the whole Church depends on this office for its knowledge and profession of the truth.

3. From the testimony of the early fathers. They have left, in unmistakably clear or at least equivalent terms, testimony to their belief in the infallibility of the teaching office or, what actually comes down to the same thing, of the Church itself.

St. Ignatius:

Live in harmony with the mind of God. Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for His part in the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ.—Epistula ad Ephesios 3. 2; ACW translation.

Now, if those who do this to gratify the flesh are liable to death, how much more a man who by evil doctrine ruins the faith in God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a filthy creature will go into the unquenchable fire, as will anyone who listens to him. The Lord permitted myrrh to be poured on His head that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church. Do not let yourselves be anointed with the malodorous doctrine of the Prince of this world.—Ibid. 16. 2-17. 1; ACW translation.

St. Irenaeus:

One should obey the presbyters [bishops] of the Church, for they are the successors of the apostles and along with episcopal succession have received the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.(6)

Tertullian makes sport of the thesis that

the Holy Ghost sent by Christ and asked of the Father for this very purpose, viz., to teach the truth, neglected His duty by allowing the Church to understand and to believe otherwise than what He Himself taught the apostles. — De praescriptione 28.

St. Athanasius: “The only words you need for answering those [paradoxes of the heretics] are the following: 'This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church'” (Epistula ad Epictetum 3).

St. Jerome: “I was able to dry up all the rivulets of false assertions with the one sun of the Church” (Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi 28).

St. Augustine:

Many tongues and various heresies speak in opposition … hasten to the tabernacle of God, hold fast to the Catholic Church, depart not from the rule of truth, and you will find in this tabernacle asylum from the tongues which wag in opposition. — Enarrationes in Psalmos 30. 3. 8.

The Catholic Church wages war against all heresies. It can give battle, but it can never be vanquished. All heresies have gone forth from it [the Church] like useless branches pruned from a vine; but it remains itself firmly fixed in its roots, in its vine, in its love. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. (7)
4. Theological argument. The Church, according to Christ's promises, is indestructible (no. 19); but it would fail through corruption if it strayed from the true teaching of Christ; and it would so stray, indeed inevitably, if its teaching authority were to err at any time in defining points of doctrine.

Corollary

Since even in the Old Testament period the revealed religion was to be piously safeguarded, theologians usually bring up at this juncture the question of the infallibility of the Synagogue. Opinions vary, but, here, in sum, is that of Cardinal Franzelin.(8) (a) The Aaronic priests undoubtedly exercised authoritative teaching power in sacred matters; but there is no sufficient proof that the charism of infallibility was granted this ordinary teaching body. However, (b) even at that time God was watching over the preservation of sacred doctrine, and He did so in a manner suited to the special character of that stage of religious development, when revelation was not only to be safeguarded but also to be steadily increased. He effected this increase through new revelations made to the prophets, whose mission, however, was directed no less to the safeguarding of already promulgated revelation than to its further unfolding. Consequently the teaching office of the Old Testament comprised two elements, the ordinary teaching office of the priests and the extraordinary teaching office of the prophets; and so, considered in its entirety, it guarded the deposit of faith with infallible sureness, inasmuch as the prophets corrected any mistakes which the ordinary teachers might possibly have made.

IV. The Object of Infallibility

In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.” It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too, of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.

It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone.

The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object.

PROPOSITION 1: The primary object of infallibility is each and every religious truth contained formally in the sources of revelation.

By a religious truth is meant anything (doctrine or fact) which pertains to religion, i.e., to faith and morals, and insofar as it does pertain to it. The various ways in which a truth can be formally contained in the sources of revelation will be explained in the treatise on Faith. According to all Catholics, the present proposition is a dogma of faith.

Proof: That religious truths contained formally in the sources of revelation are the object of infallibility calls for no explicit demonstration.

That infallibility extends to each and every one of these truths, whether they be matters of intellectual concern or of practical action, is clear: (1) from the words of Christ, who promised His assistance to the apostles and sent them forth to teach the nations “to observe all the commandments I have given you,” and who promised them the Spirit of truth who “will teach you everything.” (2) from the express purpose of infallibility. If the latter did not embrace all these truths, one could be doubtful about almost any single truth; for where could one find a criterion for distinguishing fundamental from not-so-fundamental truths?

Sequel

To the primary object of infallibility belong specifically: 1. Decisions on the canon, or the material extent, of Sacred Scripture, or on its true meaning in passages dealing with faith or morals.
2. Decisions acknowledging and explaining the records of divine tradition.3. Decisions on the selection of terms in which revealed truth is to be presented for belief (dogmatic terminology, creeds, dogmatic decrees).
4. Decisions on doctrines directly opposed to revealed truth (condemnation of heresies). For he who knows with infallible certainty the truth of a proposition knows with the same infallibility the falseness of a contradictory or contrary proposition.

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church's rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.
Assertion 1: The Church's infallibility extends to theological conclusions. This proposition is theologically certain.

A theological conclusion is a proposition which by genuinely discursive reasoning is deduced with certainty from two premises, one of which is formally revealed, the other known with natural certitude. It can be strictly a matter of intellectual knowledge, like the fact that the Son proceeds from the Father by a process of intellectual generation; or it can be a matter of practical knowledge, like the fact that one may not directly abort a foetus to save the life of the mother. To assert that the Church is infallible in decreeing these conclusions is to affirm implicitly that it is infallible in rejecting errors opposed thereto; the principle is the same for both.

Proof:
1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible in matters so closely connected with revelation that any error in these matters would constitute a peril to the faith. But theological conclusions are matters of this type. The conclusion is obvious.
Major. It is evident from Christ's promises that the teaching office of the Church was endowed with infallibility so that it might be able to carry out its mission properly: to safeguard reverently, explain confidently, and defend effectively the deposit of faith. But the realization of this purpose demands the extension of infallibility to related matters, in the sense explained above. Here is the reason. The security of the deposit requires the effective warding off or elimination of all error which may be opposed to it, even though only indirectly. This would be simply impossible without infallibility in related matters. If the Church were infallible only in the field of revealed truth and not in that of matters annexed thereto, it would be like a general who was assigned to defend a city but was given no authority to build up defenses or to destroy the material which the enemy had assembled. It would be like a caretaker to whom the master of the house had said, “Take care that my house doesn't burn down; but don't put out any flames as long as they remain merely nearby”!

Minor. Every conclusion is so connected with its premises that a denial of the conclusion involves necessarily the denial of at least one of those premises. Now one of the premises upon which every theological conclusion rests is a truth evident from reason, and since no one can very well deny such a premise, there is danger that an error in the conclusion may give rise to an error about the revealed premise.

2. From the mind of the Church. The Church surely makes no mistake when it determines the force and extent of its infallibility, for the greatest of harm would result if the Church, by stretching infallibility beyond its limits, could force everyone to give unqualified assent to a matter about which it is liable to be mistaken. But the fact is that the Church has often and openly expressed its conviction of being infallible in the matter of theological conclusions. It has expressed this conviction at least in an active, practical way, by irrevocably repudiating doctrines which, while not directly opposed to revealed truths, are opposed to theological conclusions. See, e.g., DB 602, 679, 1542, 1748.

Assertion 2: The Church's infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.
This proposition is theologically certain.

A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: “Was the Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected bishop of Rome?” One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Piux XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.

From the time of the Jansenist controversies, theologians have understood by the term “dogmatic fact” especially the following question: “Is such and such a doctrine (orthodox or heretical) really contained in such and such a book?” The Jansenists in fact admitted the Church's infallibility in a question of right or of dogma, i.e., the Church could decide whether this or that doctrine (considered in itself and prescinding from the book in which it was said to be expressed) was heretical. But at the same time they denied its infallibility in a question of fact, e.g., whether this (heretical) doctrine was really stated in such and such a book, as, e.g., Jansen's Augustinus.(9) One can readily see that a determination of this fact would determine whether one could or could not maintain and defend the doctrine of this book.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible in those related matters in which an error would constitute a danger to the faith. But dogmatic facts are matters of this kind. The reason should be obvious from the examples alleged above. What good would it do to proclaim in theory the infallible authority of ecumenical councils if one could licitly doubt the legitimacy of a specific council? What good would it do to acknowledge the inspiration of the Sacred Books in their original forms — forms long ago extinct — if one could not definitively establish the substantial fidelity of copies of the original, and of the translations which the Church has to use? Could Christians be effectively protected against errors in their faith if the Church could not warn them against poisonous fare, such as are books which contain heresy or errors in religious matters?

2. From the practice of the Church, which (a) often resolutely and officially repudiated heretical writings as e.g., the Thalia of Arius in the Council of Nicaea and the works of Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus; (b) declared the Vulgate to be authentic at the Council of Trent,(10) and the Canon of the Mass to be free of any error; (11) (c) asserted specifically in the case of Jansen that “reverent silence” about a dogmatic fact is not at all adequate, “but that all faithful Christians must condemn as heretical in their hearts as well as with their lips the opinions [which the Church has] condemned in the five aforementioned propositions of Jansen's book, opinions which the very words of those propositions quite clearly state.” (12)

A famous objection is that concerned with the Three Chapters (Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia and his works; some of the works of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, and the letter of Ibas, a priest of Edessa, to Mans of Persia, all of which works favored Nestorianism). The Council of Chalcedon is said to have approved these works and the Second Council of Constantinople and Pope Vigilius subsequently to have condemned them. Consequently, they say, at least one of them was in error about a dogmatic fact. But this conclusion is not justified, for although the fathers of Chalcedon, after having expressly condemned Nestorianism, accepted Theodore and Ibas as members of the Council, they passed no explicit decision regarding the Three Chapters.(13)

Corollary
The Church does not usually pass judgment directly on the dogmatic fact itself; but on the proposition which, through the medium of a dogmatic fact, is deduced from a revealed premise (either through a true reasoning process or through a merely explanatory syllogism). Of course, whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the word of God; that Pius XII is head of the Church; that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore, … Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore, … Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore, … Since then, the Church's decision is concerned more directly with the conclusion deduced from revelation with the help of a dogmatic fact, rather than with the dogmatic fact itself (which is assumed in the decision rather than directly affirmed), dogmatic facts can rightly be called not only secondary but also indirect objects of infallibility.

It may help to mention that several theologians treat this question a bit differently. For they understand by the term “dogmatic fact” not a premise drawn from history, on which the conclusion would depend, as in the examples above, but the conclusion itself, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the word of God or that such and such a book is heretical. If one prefers this view of the matter, he will then define a dogmatic fact, in the words of the illustrious de Groot, as “a fact in which a doctrine is expressed.” (14)

One may wonder what name is to be given the conclusion, following the view proposed above. To answer that, a distinction is necessary. If the conclusion is the result of a real reasoning process, it is to be called a theological conclusion. But if the syllogism is merely explanatory, then it expresses a truth formally but implicitly revealed. The precise meaning of this distinction will be explained in the treatise on Faith (no. 200).

Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

Assertion 4: The Church's infallibility extends to the approval of religious orders. This proposition is theologically certain.

The religious state is essentially the observance, under obligation of a vow, of the evangelical counsels recommended by our Lord Himself. But every congregation or order follows its own constitution, its own laws for living the evangelical counsels and for attaining its own special purposes. The present discussion, therefore, has to do with the approval of this constitution, and furthermore, with that solemn and definitive approval which is reserved for the sovereign pontiff and by which a congregation is established as a religious order in the strict sense of the word.(18)

Practically the same thing is to be said about the approval of orders as was said about the general discipline of the Church: it is an indirect object of infallibility by reason of the doctrinal judgment which it implies. No one claims that the Church is infallible in the decree of practical judgment — as, for instance, whether, in view of the circumstances, it would be expedient to allow the foundation of the new order — but only in the doctrinal judgment — as, for instance, whether such and such a constitution is an apt instrument for the acquiring of Christian perfection.
Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might be forever a trustworthy teacher of Christian truth and perfection. But it would certainly not be, if it could approve, by a definitive decision, a constitution opposed to the gospel or to the natural law. It is useless to object that an error in this sort of affair would harm not the universal Church, but only the members of this particular order. Of course it would harm the latter immediately and most of all, but indirectly it would affect the whole Church; for when an order is solemnly approved, it is recommended to the whole Church as a fit means for acquiring perfection, so that no one may licitly impugn it from this point of view.

2. From the solid conviction of the Church, which, when approving orders, expresses itself in such a way as to make it sufficiently clear that it considers decisions of this type to be infallible. For an example of such a decision, see Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, I, 545.

Assertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today. (19)

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; (20) a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.

Proof:

1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.(21)

Corollory

Several considerations urge the conclusion that the Church's infallibility extends also to equivalent canonization, formerly quite common. By this means, without any formal decree of canonization, a deceased person gradually came to be venerated by the universal Church. However, formal and equivalent canonizations arc not at all on the same plane; in the latter the consent of the supreme pontiff can be taken as purely permissive, in much the same way as the veneration of a beatified person is sometimes permitted the universal Church. Some scholars are led by this observation to think that it is not absolutely impossible that someone who is not a saint might appear among those who, without being formally canonized, have a commemoration or even a full office in the Breviary. The papal approval of the Breviary, they say, as far as they who have not been formally canonized are concerned, amounts to nothing more than an order that no change be made therein. This is not a definitive decree, but rather permission to continue the traditional cult.(22)

Scholion: Is the fact of the Church's infallibility in matters related to revealed truth itself a revealed truth?
In each instance we have proved the infallibility of the Church's teaching office in matters related to the deposit of revelation from the express purpose of infallibility and from the mind of the Church. It is, consequently, clear that this infallibility is at least a conclusion from revelation; indeed a conclusion whose validity the Church itself has sanctioned at least by its practical attitude and mode of action. But serious reasons incline us to state that this extension of infallibility — not of course to each of the items considered individually above, but to related matters in general — is a formally revealed truth. There is no doubt that our Lord promised His Church the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17), who would teach “the whole range of truth” (John 16:13); the apostle calls the Church the pillar and bulwark of truth (I Tim. 3:15).(23) What, then, does the word “truth” or the phrase “the whole range of truth” mean in these texts: just revealed truth, or all the truth which the Church, in view of its special purpose, must know with certainty? The answer seems to be that since the terms are general, and the purpose of the Church militates against their being restricted to revealed truths, they must doubtless be understood as referring to all doctrines which concern Christian faith and morality either directly or indirectly. In other words, they must include also matters connected with revealed truth.

This is why Cardinal Franzelin could in the following way describe the general proposition of infallibility in related matters: this assertion, “as all theologians agree, is so certain that its denial would be an error, or even, in the opinion of many, a heresy, even though it has not as yet been explicitly condemned as heretical.”(24)

V. The Nature of Infallibility

1. The privilege of infallibility is not merely actual absence of error, but the impossibility of erring. It is of course a supernatural gift, and since it works not to the advantage of the recipients themselves but to that of the whole Church, it is a gratia gratis data or charism. It is often called “the charism of truth.”

2. Infallibility must not be thought of as a habit permanently residing in the minds of the Church's officio! teachers, a habit which would express itself in the making of a dogmatic definition, as e.g., the habit of faith expresses itself in an act of supernatural faith. It is rather a privilege which depends for its exercise on some objective external help. This privilege can be called habitual in the sense that it was promised by a definite divine decree. But it is in actual existence only when something is being defined.

3. The efficient cause of infallibility is the assistance of God or of the Holy Spirit. This assistance:

a. is a help inferior in nature to revelation and inspiration; furthermore,

b. it can involve any kind of influence which God may choose to use in order to turn away the teacher's mind from what is false and to lead him to a sure knowledge of the truth.

As for a: this assistance differs from revelation, through which some new doctrine is received from God. “For,” says the Vatican Council,(25) “the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter's successors [and the same holds good for the Roman Catholic episcopate] not that they might, as a result of His revelation, make known a new doctrine, but that with His assistance they might reverently safeguard and faithfully explain the revelation handed down by the apostles, i.e., the deposit of faith.”

It is different from inspiration, through which a document is written in such fashion as to be the Word of God and comes from the mouth of God in such a way that God is its principal author and man the instrumental author only. A decree issued under divine assistance, however, is the word of the Church, and its principal author is the pope or a council. It is a question here of inspiration in the strict sense, such as that which the sacred authors enjoyed; any divine assistance could be loosely referred to as inspiration.

As for b: God assists at least negatively by preventing an arrival at an erroneous definition. But it seems that we must go further and say that whenever, and to the extent that it is necessary, God also positively guides the Church's teachers to a correct knowledge and presentation of the truth He has entrusted to the Church. The means, natural or supernatural, which divine Providence selects for this purpose, can be quite varied, and can operate internally or externally.(26)

4. The divine assistance does not render at all superfluous the hard work and study of men, the investigation of the sources of revelation, etc.; it rather supposes and includes these elements. In actual practice, the usual preamble to doctrinal definitions includes not only the request for divine light, but also the most careful theological research. Consequently, those who object that the promise of divine assistance fosters indolence do so without justification. However, infallibility (or the inability to err) does not depend formally on human industry, but on divine assistance. And so no one can spurn a definition of the Church on the pretext that it is not backed up by adequate research; when a definition has once been issued, one can be sure that the Church's official teacher did not act precipitously, but did all the necessary preliminary research; or else, if he did act rashly, that his rashness did not adversely affect at least the truth of the definition. All this is, of course, only a supposition, for it seems much more reasonable to hold that the Holy Spirit would never allow the Church's rulers to act rashly in issuing doctrinal definitions.

5. The assistance promised the Church's rulers extends to the threefold function which they must fulfill with regard to religious truth. (a) They are infallible witnesses of revelation, in that they always reverently safeguard the deposit entrusted to the Church; (b) they are infallible teachers of religious truth, in that they always faithfully interpret and explain revealed doctrine; (c) they are infallible arbiters of controversies, in that they always decide without error questions which have arisen on matters of religion.

Sequel

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preach

ing was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)
2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.Notes.
1. See the decree Lamentabili, propositions 6, 62-64; encyclical Pascendi (DB 2093); Oath against Modernism (DB 2147).
2. See J. C. Fenton, “The Church and Catholic Dogma,” AER, 120 (1949), 123 ff.
3. Constitution Dc ecclesia, chap. 4,
4. It is with utter improbability that some have tried to interpret the words of John 14:16, “for all time to come” and those of Matt. 28:20, “as long as the world shall last” — as “to the end of this age,” i.e., the apostolic age.
5. In vain some Protestants, basing themselves on no good reasons, but forced by the need to holster their position, have tried to refer the words “the pillar and bulwark of truth” either to Timothy or to the mystery of the Incarnation. They would read as follows: “... the Church of the living God. The pillar and bulwark of truth and something clearly great is the sacrament of piety which has been manifested in the flesh.”
6. Adversus haereses iv. 26. 2; see iii. 24. 1.
7. De symbolo ad catechumenos 1. 6.
8. De ecclesia, Thesis 3, 2.
9. It was, then, not a question of this fact, viz., whether the five condemned propositions (DB 1092 ff.) can be found verbatim in the book Augustinus; much less whether Jansen maintained in the secret of his soul and intended to teach the doctrine expressed in the five propositions. Obviously the “mind of the author” which is condemned is nothing other than the meaning which the words of the author objectively express according to the usual norms of interpretation.
10, Session 4.
11. Session 22, chap. 4; and canon 6.
12. Constitution Vineam Domini of Clement XI (DB 1350).
13. See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (2nd ed.), II, 798 if.; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, I, 602 if. See P. Hughes, op. cit., I, 342 ff.; H. M. Diepen, O.S.B., Les trois chapitres au Concile de Chalcédoine (Oosterhout, 1953).
14. De ecclesia (3rd ed.), p. 318.
15. An example may help to clarify the matter. If the whole Christ were not present under the appearances of bread alone, the law forbidding lay people to drink from the chalice would offend against the faith. Or if the words increase and multiply (Gen. 1:28) constituted an ordinance binding every individual man, then the law of celibacy would be opposed to right morals. The same conclusion would hold if virginal purity were morally impossible for men.
16. The bull Auctorem fidei (DB 1578).
17. See Benedict XIV, De servorum Dei beatificatione, lib. IV, pars II, chap. 13, nos. 7-8. Very many bishops asked the Vatican Council for an appropriate revision of the Breviary on some points “which seem not at all square with established historical fact and sound scriptural exegesis” (Coll. Lac., VII, 874; see VII, 844, 882). There should be nothing surprising about this. At the time the Roman Breviary was edited, the critical apparatus now our disposal was simply not available.
18. On a lower plane than this solemn approbation, there are also: (a) episcopal approbation; (b) permissive papal approbation; (c) commendatory papal approbation. These are all treated in works on canon law.
19. See N. Scheid, “Die Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes bei der Heiligsprechung,” ZkTh (1890), p. 599; F. Spedalieri, Dc Ecclesiae infallibilitate in canonizatione sanctorum quaestiones selectae (Rome, 1949); for a critique of latter work see TS, 12 (1951), 249.
20. The names of canonized saints are inserted in the Roman Martyrology, but this work contains other names besides. That is why scholars, following the lead of Benedict XIV, warn us that the presence of a person's name in the Martyrology is not conclusive proof that that person is enjoying the bliss of heaven. See N. Paulus, “Martyrologium und Brevier als historische Quellen,” Der Katholik, I (1900), 355.
21. Absolute cult or worship is directed to a person; relative cult is directed to some object or other, not because it possesses any intrinsic worth in itself, as a person would, but because it is connected in some way with a sainted person. See A. Aldama, S.J., Sacrae theologiae Summa, III (Madrid, 1953), 469.
22. See N. Paulus, art. cit., p. 359; A. Spaldak, “Zur geplanten Emendation des romischen Breviers,” Der Katholik, I (1905), 290; Bainvel, De magisterio, p. 111.
23. See J. C. Fenton, “New Testament Designations of the Church and of its Members,” CBQ, 9 (1947), 286.
24. De Traditione et Scriptura (3rd ed.), p. 123.
25. Constitution De ecclesia, chap. 4.
26. See Heinrich, Dogmat. Theol. II, par. 90.
27. The Symbols (Creeds, i.e., those formulae in which the Church's teaching authority sums up the chief points of its preaching in view of the needs of different ages), are also called rules of faith. But they are material rules of faith, while the formal rule of faith is the preaching itself.
28. An appeal to John 5:39 is in vain: (a) from the context, the verb ereunate seems to be the indicative rather than the imperative (Kleist-Lilly: You have the Scriptures at your finger ends; Confrat. NT: You search the Scriptures); (b) even granting that it is the imperative, the text still proves nothing. From the fact that Christ refers the unbelieving Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees, to the sacred books of the Old Testament that they may learn therein of his divine mission, it does not at all follow that He intends every individual Christian to draw his faith directly from the Scriptures.

(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.)

On The Infallibility of the Pope, by Msgr. G. Van Noort

2012-01-09T12:25:00.001-05:00

Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church
by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.

Article III

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

I. The CatholicDogma
II. Explanation of the Dogma:
1. The meaning of papal infallibility
2. The efficient cause of papal infallibility
3. The person endowed with the prerogative of infallibility
4. The scope of papal infallibility
5. The conditions required for exercising papal infallibility

Proposition: When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible.
Proof:
1. from Christ's own words
2. from tradition

Objections: from history.

Epilogue: The Pope's Temporal Sovereignty

Article III

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

The infallibility of the Church's magisterium, viewed as a whole, has alreadybeen demonstrated (see nos. 79-99). Granted that fact, the primacy of the pope,since it comprises both teaching and ruling authority, must also include theprerogative of infallibility. If the Church's magisterium cannot err, and ifthe pope by himself possesses the full power of that magisterium, it followsinevitably that the pope in exercising that magisterium is preserved fromerror. In other words, he is infallible. Still, the matter is so serious itmust be discussed ex professo.

I. The Catholic Dogma

The Catholic dogma is expressed in the following words of the Vatican Council:
And so, faithfully holding on to that tradition recognized from the verybeginning of the Christian religion … with the approval of the sacred council,we teach and define as a dogma revealed by God: that the Roman pontiff whenspeaking ex cathedra, that is, when exercising his office of supreme shepherdand teacher of all Christians, defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolicauthority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universalChurch, he possesses, thanks to the divine assistance promised to him in theperson of St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed HisChurch to be endowed in defining doctrines on faith or morals; and consequentlythat definitions by the same pontiff are by their very nature, and not becauseof the consent of the Church, irreformable. – DB 1839.

II. Explanation of the Dogma

1. The meaning of papal infallibility. The notion of infallibility wasexplained earlier in this book (see nos. 77 and 79). Many non-Catholics,however, still have distorted notions about this matter. It may be helpful,therefore, to clear aside some misconceptions by stating the following points:(a) The pope was declared infallible in his teaching activity, not in his otheractivities. It would, then, be pure wantonness to confuse the notion ofinfallibility with impeccability. (1) How infallibility may have an indirectbearing on the Church's ruling power was explained above (see nos. 91 and 93).(b) The prerogative of infallibility does not make the pope's will the ultimatestandard of truth or goodness. (c) Infallibility is not omniscience. (d)Finally, infallibility does not imply inspiration. An infallible decree doesnot possess the same sort of dignity as Sacred Scripture.

2. The efficient cause of papal infallibility is God's assistance. Thatassistance was promised to the Roman pontiff in the person of St. Peter. Keepin mind, however, that the popes in preparing an infallible decree do notneglect normal means of inquiry, re-search, discussion, or deliberation:
The Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the condition of the times andcircumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils orsounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes throughregional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providencesupplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters asthey had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolictradition. – DB 1836; TCT 216.

3. The person endowed with the prerogative of infallibility is thecurrently-reigning Roman pontiff. That is why the Gallican theory could notpossibly be squared with the Vatican Council definition. The Gallicans make adistinction between the see and its occupant. Thus the individual popes coulderr, but God would prevent "error from taking deep root" in the Romansee or Roman Church. In other words, God would see to it that an errorcommitted by one pope would be swiftly repaired either by the same pope or atleast by his successor. Obviously this opinion is not reconcilable with thestatement of the council that "the Roman pontiff," is infallible whenspeaking ex cathedra; nor with the necessary conclusion of the same council:"and consequently definitions made by the same pontiff are of themselves,and not because of the consent of the Church, irreformable."

The Gallicans wrongly appeal to Leo the Great's epigram, "Sees are onething, those who sit upon them another" (Epistula 106. 6). By that saying,Leo simply meant that the rights of a see do not depend upon the holiness ofits occupant, "For even though those who occupy sees may differ at timesin their merits, still the rights of the sees remain" (Epistula 119. 3).

Notice, however, that only the pope himself personally enjoys infallibility;not other people to whom he may delegate some share in his teaching authority. Forexample, even though the Roman congregations are organs of the papacy, they arenot the pope himself. The reason for the restriction is this: the pope cannotcause the divine assistance, promised to himself personally, to come to the aidof other people. It should be clear, then, what is meant by saying thatinfallibility is a personal prerogative. It is personal insofar as it belongsto each individual pope and cannot be delegated to other people; it is notpersonal in the sense that it belongs to the pope as a private person, that is,in virtue of his personal qualifications.

4. The scope of papal infallibility is exactly the same as for the Church as awhole: "He possesses that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemerwilled His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines on faith or morals."The fathers of the Vatican Council did not mean to delineate the preciseboundaries of papal infallibility by the words: "doctrine on faith ormorals to be held by the entire Church," for it was their intention totake up this point later. Hence they indicated the scope of his infallibilityonly in a general way by the formula normally used by theologians. It was bydeliberate design, however, that they employed the phrase: “must be held”(tenendam) rather than the phrase: “must be believed” (credendam). They usedthe former phrase so that they might not appear to be restricting theprerogative of infallibility exclusively to those truths which have beenrevealed. (2)

5. The conditions for papal infallibility are summed up in the words:"when he speaks ex cathedra." A throne (cathedra-chair-judicialbench) is normally a symbol of authority and particularly of doctrinalauthority. (3) The consecrated formulae: "to speak ex cathedra," or "anex cathedra definition" were in use in theological schools long before theVatican Council. They designated the full exercise of the papal magisterium.The Vatican Council, however, added this precise explanation: "that is:when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians,he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine onfaith or morals must be held by the universal Church.”

Keeping in mind, then, what has already been explained in discussing the objectof infallibility (see nos. 85-96), "to speak ex cathedra" signifiestwo things: (a) the pope is actually making use of his papal office – ofsupreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians; (b) the pope is using his papalauthority at its maximum power. Both these facts must be made known clearly andindisputably. It makes no difference, however, whether they be made known bythe words the pope uses, or by the circumstances of the case. Briefly, no setformula, and no particular type of solemnity is required for an ex cathedrastatement.

For example, it is not inconceivable that some pope in the future might use themedium of television to broadcast a solemn definition to the world. It is thepope's office that guarantees him the divine assistance, and the pope'sdecision to make a definitive declaration that calls that assistance to hisaid, not any magical formula of words. Some literal-minded people wish that St.Peter had laid down some one introductory phrase, or clause for all popes tofollow in making infallible statements. They forget that phrases which inapostolic times might be very clear to apostolic contemporaries might be veryobscure to us; and that phrases which would be very clear to us might be veryobscure to future generations. The Church is always contemporary; itsmagisterium is a living magisterium and it knows how to make its message knownin any age.

In reference to point a:– A man holding public office does not always act inhis official capacity. Again, if the same person holds several offices simultaneously,he does not have to be constantly exercising his highest function. We must keepthese points in mind when discussing the pope's infallibility, for he fulfillsseveral positions simultaneously. He is not only the pope of the whole CatholicChurch, he is also the local bishop of the diocese of Rome, metropolitan of itssurrounding sees, and temporal sovereign of the Vatican state. Consequently, ifthe pope speaks merely as a private individual, or as a private theologian, oras a temporal sovereign, or precisely as ordinary of the diocese of Rome, orprecisely as metropolitan of the province of Rome, he should not be looked onas acting infallibly. He may, for example, as a private individual air hisprivate views – political, economic, or spiritual. As a private theologian hemight write a book on some aspects of the spiritual life. As temporal sovereignof the Vatican state, he might issue decrees on taxes, or economic reform, ormight set up a law granting religious liberty to non-Catholic worship in returnfor territory restored to himself and so on. Speaking precisely as ordinary ofthe diocese of Rome he might give a series of instructions or a retreat to thepeople of some definite parish in the city. (4)

What is required for an infallible declaration, therefore, is that the pope beacting precisely as pope; that is, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of allChristians so that his decision looks to the universal Church and is given forthe sake of the universal Church. It is not necessary, however, for thedocument containing an infallible decision to be addressed directly to theuniversal Church. A decision, intended for the whole Church can be immediatelyad-dressed, for example, to the bishops of a particular region in which acondemned error is flourishing.

With reference to point b: – A man who acts in an official capacity does notalways make use of his full power, of the whole weight of the authority whichhe possesses by his very position. A president may, for example, disagree witha bill of Congress, and express his disapproval and yet not take the step ofvetoing the bill. Thus the pope, even acting as pope, can teach the universalChurch without making use of his supreme authority at its maximum power. Nowthe Vatican Council defined merely this point: the pope is infallible if heuses his doctrinal authority at its maximum power, by handing down a bindingand definitive decision: such a decision, for example, by which he quiteclearly intends to bind all Catholics to an absolutely firm and irrevocableassent.

Consequently even if the pope, and acting as pope, praises some doctrine, orrecommends it to Christians, or even orders that it alone should be taught intheological schools, this act should not necessarily be considered an infallibledecree since he may not intend to hand down a definitive decision. The sameholds true if by his approval he orders some decree of a sacred congregation tobe promulgated; for example, a decree of the Holy Office, in which thecongregation itself condemns some doctrine. It is one thing to be willing toallow a decision of a congregation to be published – a decision which is by itsvery nature revocable – but quite another matter for the pope himself to makethe final decision.

For the same reason, namely a lack of intention to hand down a final decision,not all the doctrinal decisions which the pope proposes in encyclical lettersshould be considered definitions. In a word, there must always be present andclearly present the intention of the pope to hand down a decision which isfinal and definitive.

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add afew points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the popewhen he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope canmake a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either byproposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocentlydiffering from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however,over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornlyclinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable andrespectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds thatjust as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so toohe never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, somecompetent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedracould fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papalheresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by asubsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law a forfeit hisjurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Churchif he ceased to be even a member of the Church.

PROPOSTITON: When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible.

This is of faith, from the Vatican Council. The proposition can be proved bothby Christ's own words and by the witness of tradition. Tradition makesunmistakeably clear the position the infallible Church has always held in thismatter.

Proof:

1. From Christ's own words:
" . . . And I, in turn, say to you: You are Peter, and upon this rock Iwill build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Iwill give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earthshall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven." – Matt. 18:18-19. (A full exegetical discussion of this text isgiven in the appendix at the end of this volume.)

Peter – and his successors – was established as the rock, or unshakeablefoundation, which would make the Church perpetually indestructible. Now nothingpertains so much to the stability of the Church as immunity from error inmatters of doctrine. Peter, then, was to be the means by which the Church wouldalways uphold the faith in its purity and integrity. But if Peter is to be madeequal to that task, two things are necessary: first, he must always have thepower to bind all Christians absolutely to believe this doctrine and to rejectthat; second, in taking such action Peter must himself be necessarily immunefrom error.

If Peter could not bind all Christians in an absolute fashion, he would not bea foundation. On the other hand, if in binding all Christians he himself wereliable to error, he would not be an unshakeable foundation, but a very shakyone. That Christ clearly intended to lay an unshakeable foundation is evidentfrom the metaphor of the rock, and especially from the conclusion He drew:"and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter – and his successors – received the keys of the kingdom of heaven withsuch full power to bind and to loose that whatever Peter bound would also bebound by God. Usually the keys of the kingdom are listed as two: the key ofknowledge (teaching power – magisterium) and the key of power (ruling power –jurisdiction). Consequently Peter can also bind absolutely by a doctrinaldecision, and this decision by the very fact of its utterance is ratified byGod. Now if this is the way matters stand, one is forced to conclude: eitherthat a pope cannot err when making a definitive decision, or else that GodHimself could at some time ratify a false doctrine.

Again:
After they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Simon, son of John, doyou love me more than these others do?" "Yes, my Master," hereplied; "you know that I really love you." "Then," Jesussaid to him, "feed my lambs." He asked him a second time:"Simon, son of John, do you love me?" "Yes, Master," hereplied, "you know that I really love you." "Then," he saidto him, "be a shepherd to my sheep." For the third time he put thequestion to him: "Simon, son of John, do you really love me?" Itgrieved Peter that he had asked him the third time: "Do you really loveme?” and he replied: "Master, you know everything; you know that I reallylove your "Then," Jesus said to him, "feed my sheep.” – John21:15-17.

Peter – and his successors – clearly received the task and the full power tofeed the entire flock of Christ. Before anything else, then, he is bound tonourish the entire flock, both bishops and the ordinary faithful, on healthydoctrine and to keep them away from poisonous pasture. This task itselfnecessarily implies infallibility on the part of the pope, in the sense alreadyexplained. Suppose a pope were to make a mistake in defining Christian doctrine.What would happen? Either the entire Church would accept the pope's decision –and that would be the end of the infallibility and indestructibility of theChurch; or, the Church would rebel against the pope's decision and wouldcorrect his doctrine – and that would be the end of the arrangement set up byChrist Himself, for the flock would be feeding the shepherd!

Again:
“Simon, Simon, mark my words: Satan has demanded the surrender of you all inorder to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you personally, that yourfaith might not fail. Later on, therefore, when once thou hast turned again, itis for you to strengthen your brethren” (su pote epitrepsas sterison tousadelphous sou). – Luke 22:31-32.

Now we must show that this text implies infallibility in the sense alreadyexplained; and, furthermore, that it implies infallibility not only for Peterhimself but also for his successors.

a. That Christ's words here guarantee Peter real indefectibility in faith, orinfallibility, seems quite clear. First of all, Christ's unqualified prayerthat Peter's faith might not fail, could not possibly go unanswered. Second, bythe force of this prayer and the assistance begged for in it, Peter was to bemade equal to the task of strengthening or stabilizing his brothers in thefaith. If Peter were to be made equal to this task, the very minimum requiredwas that he be necessarily free from error at least at such times was he wouldbe actually instructing his brothers in the faith with the maximum of hisauthority.

b. That this text refers to Peter in his official capacity, and consequently toPeter living in his successors is clear: first, from the very nature of theoffice entrusted to him. Strengthening in the faith is no less necessary forlater generations: in fact it is even more necessary for them than for theapostles and the first Christians. Second, that this text refers to Peter inhis official capacity is clear likewise from the real parallelism between thispassage and those of Matt. 16 and John 21. If the office of acting as afoundation for the Church and of being shepherd to the Church is somethingperpetual, how could the office of confirming in the faith be not alwaysperpetual since it is already contained in those other two functions? But ifthis office is perpetual, so must the aid Christ prayed for be perpetual. (6)

2. From tradition.

Even though the fathers of the Church do not discuss the pope's infallibilityin absolutely explicit and unmistakeable terms, his infallibility wasnonetheless acknowledged from the very earliest days. It was acknowledged bothin theory and in practice. This fact is clear from: (a) the statements of thefathers; (b) the practice of the popes; (c) the statements of ecumenicalcouncils.

a. The statements of the fathers.

St. Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202) not only admits that the Roman Church possesses"a more powerful authority" (potiorem principalitatem) but heexplains the reason for this authority. It stems from the fact that the RomanChurch is the standard of faith for the rest of the churches. Irenaeus teachesthat to have a sure knowledge of the Christian truth all one has to do isconsult the faith of the Roman Church, because the faithful throughout theworld are obliged to agree with this Church in matters of belief (see no. 64).Now if the faith of the Roman Church is the standard and norm for all the otherchurches, this very fact presupposes the infallibility of the Roman Church, orwhat amounts to the same thing both objectively and also in the mind ofIrenaeus, the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.

St. Cyprian (c. 200–258) praises: "the Romans whose faith was extolled inthe very preaching of the apostle [Rom. 1:9] men to whom perversion of faithcould have no access" (see no. 65).

St. Ephiphanius [sic] (c. 315–403) states: "The faith receives itsstability in every way from him who received the keys of the kingdom and wholooses things on earth and binds them in heaven. For from him may be found out[the answer] to even the deepest problems of the faith" (Ancoratus 9).

St. Jerome (c. 342–419) when a great dispute was raging in the East over thequestion of whether one should acknowledge one or three "hypostases"in the Trinity, sought the answer from Pope Damasus, "Therefore, I thoughtI ought to consult the chair of Peter and that faith recommended by the mouthof the Apostle. For by you people alone is preserved incorrupt the tradition ofthe fathers" (Epistula 15. 1).

St. Augustine (354–430) says of the Pelagian controversy, "For this reasontwo deputations were sent to the Apostolic See, and that see has sent back theanswers. The case is finished" (Sermo 131. 10).

In another place, Augustine writes, "All doubts about this matter werecompletely removed by the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory"(Contra duas Epistulas Pelagianorum. ii. 3. 5).

St. Peter Chrysologus wrote to Eutyches, "In all ways we implore you,honorable brother, to heed obediently the directions written by the blessedpope of the city of Rome; because St. Peter who lives in and presides over thishis own see offers to all who seek it the truth of the faith" (Among theEpistulae of St. Leo 25).

St. Leo the Great (390?–461): "The firmness of that faith, which wasrecommended in the prince of the apostles, is something perpetual" (Sermo3[1]. 2).

John, bishop of Jerusalem (572–92), after citing Matthew 18:18-19 concludes,"Now in the heads of that holy, first, and venerable see his [Peter's]successors are sound in the faith and according to our Lord Himself,infallible." (7)

b. The practice of the popes:

At the beginning of the third century, Pope Callistus by a peremptory decreerejected Montanism. (Montanism was a heresy of an ascetical nature, placingmore emphasis on a rigorous mode of life than on doctrine. It dates from about170 AD. Its founder, Montanus, thought he had been inspired by the Holy Spiritto start a more rigid Christianity, prohibiting second marriages, advocatingprolonged fasts, fierce physical mortifications, etc. Its most famous convertwas Tertullian who succumbed to its austere appeal and died as a hereticoutside the Church. See Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, p. 195–6.)

At the beginning of the fifth century, Innocent I, by confirming the decrees ofthe councils of Carthage and Mileve in the year 418 definitely condemned theerrors of Pelagius and Celestius. That the entire Church accepted his decisionas binding irrevocably is clear, for example, from the testimony of St.Augustine mentioned above.

Pope Celestine I (422-432) condemned Nestorius. A brief time later his legateswent to the Council of Ephesus (431) to see that the decisions he hadpreviously laid down should be executed (see no. 87). The fathers of thecouncil humbly accepted the pope's decision: "Constrained by the sacredcanons and the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine, the bishopof the church at Rome ... we have necessarily reached this painful decisionagainst him [Nestorius].” (8)

The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451) received in the same Way the Tomeof St. Leo I to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, in which he condemned thedoctrines of Eutyches (see no. 87). The fact that Leo intended his decision tobe accepted as definitive is clear from his letter to the Council of Chalcedon:"It is not permissible to defend what is not allowed to be believed, sincein accord with the authority of the gospels, the words of the prophets, and thedoctrine of the apostles, what is the true and holy doctrine about the mysteryof the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was stated fully and clearly in theletter which we sent to Bishop Flavian" (Epistula 93. 2).

In the seventh century Pope Agatho condemned Monotheletism even before theThird Council of Constantinople (680–681) did. At the same time in a letter toConstantine Pogonatus, he greatly extolled the apostolic see, "Which hasnever turned aside from the road of truth to any sort of error ... and hasnever become depraved and surrendered to heretical novelties, but in the truefaith known from the very beginning remains unpolluted to the very end"(Epistula ad Augustos Imperatores). The fathers of the council applauded* thedecision of Pope Agatho: "The paper and ink were seen and Peter spokethrough Agatho." (9)

*Philip Hughes describes the incident briefly and vividly; To this council thepope – Agatho – sent a letter setting out the traditional Catholic teaching onthe dogmatic point at issue, viz. whether in Our Lord there were one or twowills, as St. Leo had sent the like kind of letter to Chalcedon. As atChalcedon so now the 174 eastern bishops present received the pope's teachingwith acclamations, crying out: 'It is Peter who speaks through Agatho.' Thedoctrine defined, the council turned to condemn the authors of the heresy, andwith them it condemned Pope Honorius, not indeed as an author of the heresy but'because in his reply to Sergius he followed in all things that wicked man'sopinion, and confirmed his impious teaching.' – A Popular History of theCatholic Church (New York, 1947), pp. 46-7.

In the fourteenth century Clement VI (1342–52) required the Armenian church tobelieve "that only the Roman pontiff can, when doubts arise about Catholicfaith, by a guaranteed decision impose that faith which must be adhered towithout qualification; and that whatever he, by the authority of the keyshanded over to him by Christ, decides is true is the true and Catholicdoctrine; and that what he decides is false or heretical must be judged to beso" (DB 570q).

c. The Testimony of ecumenical councils:

Three ecumenical councils "in which the East and the West united in aunion of faith and charity" (DB 1833), even if they did not declare thepope's infallibility in explicit terms, did declare it in equivalent terms.

The fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (870) sub-scribed to thefollowing solemn profession of faith: °

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and inno way deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it isimpossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, "Thou artPeter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" (Matt, I6:18) should notbe verified. And their truth has been proven by the course of history, for inthe Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. …
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things andproclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters whichPope St. Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I maydeserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic Seeproclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christianreligion resides. –DB 171 f.; TCT 147 f.

° This profession of faith stems back to Pope St. Hormisdas who, in dealingwith the Acacian Schism, included it in a letter to the bishops of Spain in theyear 517. For the authenticity of the text see BLE (1904), p. 152 and (1905),p. 333.

In the Second Council of Lyons (1274) the Greeks who returned to the unity ofChurch made the following profession:

The holy Roman Church has supreme and full primacy and jurisdiction over thewhole Catholic Church. This it truly and humbly recognizes as received from theLord himself in the person of St. Peter, the Prince or head of the Apostles,whose successor in the fullness of power is the Roman Pontiff. And just as theholy Roman Church is bound more than all the others to defend the truth offaith, so, if there arise any questions concerning the faith, they must bedecided by its judgment. –DB 1834; TCT 214.

In the Council of Florence (1439) the Greeks as well as the Latins definedthat:

The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church,the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him, in the person of St.Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling,and governing the whole Church. –DB 1835; TCT 215.

If the Roman pontiff is the teacher of all Christians, so much so that hepossess the full power of feeding – and hence of teaching – the universalChurch, which cannot fall into error, it follows inescapably that he is himselfinfallible.

There you have the mind of the Church. Fourteen hundred years of unswervingtradition. Unfortunately, the frightful Western Schism at the end of thefourteenth century caused near chaos in Christendom. With three rivals claimingto be the legitimate pope, people were bewildered during a period of some fortyyears. (10) This schism was the occasion also of causing confusion in the mindsof some western theologians. Not only did it obscure for them the doctrine of papalsupremacy in governing the Church, it also cast its shadow over the relateddoctrine of the pope's infallibility. Actually, it was particularly at the timeof the Council of Constance (1414-1418) that the pope's infallibility began tobe seriously questioned and attacked.* Gallicanism and Josephinism vehementlysupported the opinion denying papal infallibility.

* "This council which met at Constance (November, 1414) is the strangestin all Church history from its composition, its procedure, and the nature ofwhat was effected through it. The full effect of the chaos of forty years wasnow seen. All the wildest theories about the source of ecclesiastical authorityseemed likely to be realized when there descended on the town (in addition tothe 185 bishops) 300 doctors in theology and law, 18,000 other ecclesiastics,and a vast multitude of lay potentates, of princes, and of representatives oftowns and corporations, to the number of more than a hundred thousand…. Thissame council that had brought the schism to an end had sown the seeds of muchfuture dissension. Whatever the niceties of Canon Law that had safe-guarded thelegitimacy of its liquidation of a complex problem, the fact remained that theCouncil of Constance had judged two claimants to the papacy and condemned them,and that it had also elected a new pope, And it had also declared, in explicitterms, that General Councils were superior to popes, and it had provided thatevery five years this General Council should reassemble and the pope, in somemeasure, give to it an account of his stewardship. As far as the wishes of theCouncil of Constance went, a revolution had been achieved, and the Church forthe future was to be governed in a parliamentary way, and not by the absolute,divinely given authority of its head, the Vicar of Christ. The forty years thatfollowed the Council were to see the successive popes – Martin V, Eugene IV,and Nicholas V – wholly taken up with the effort to destroy this new theory andto control the councils which it bred and inspired. The full fruits of themischief were only reaped in the long-drawn-out dissensions of the Council ofBasle (1431-1449)" (Hughes, Popular History, op. cit., p. 141-3),

But how startlingly this negative opinion departed from Catholic mentality andtradition, Gerson himself (d. 1419) admitted at the very beginning of thecontroversy: "Before the Council of Constance that traditional teaching[of the pope's infallibility] was so completely accepted by most Catholics thatif any one had tried to teach an opposite opinion he would have been eithercensured or condemned for heretical depravity.” (11)

And Tournely admitted the same thing at the beginning of the eighteenth centurywhen he stated:

One should not disguise the fact that it is difficult in the face of the vastamount of evidence which Bellarmine and others have assembled, not to recognizethe unquestionable and infallible authority of the Apostolic See or of theRoman Church: but it is even more difficult to reconcile that testimony withthe Declaration of the Gallican Clergy with which we are not allowed todisagree. (12)

Ruard Tapper of Enkhuizen (d. 1559) has excellently summed up the whole historyof the dogma of papal infallibility in these remarks:

But whether this head [of the Church – the pope] can make an error when hemakes a decision concerning the faith and morals of the faithful … began to becontroverted and disputed pro and con about 150 years ago … For from the timeof the councils of Constance and Basle some doctors teach that only anecumenical council enjoys the privilege of infallibility … But the olderwriters unanimously argue from the Scriptures that this privilege of infallibledecision belongs to Peter and to the Roman pontiff and his see, since he is thesupreme vicar of Christ on earth in Peter's place and, as such, has alonereceived the keys of binding and loosing everything. (13)

As a final point, note that the Roman pontiffs did not refrain from handingdown definitive decisions in matters of faith even during the period of thecontroversies; (14) and all the churches, even those among whom the new opinionhad more or less made head-way, in practice accepted these decisions as beingof themselves irrevocable and infallible.

Objections:

Many facts from the Church's history are adduced as objections to theinfallibility of the pope. Here, only the main ones will be considered. Indealing with these facts, we are interested in one point only: whether the popeever made a mistake when speaking ex cathedra.

1. Against St. Peter himself two objections are raised. First, he denied Christon the night of His passion; secondly, he forced Gentile converts to adoptJewish religious practices (see Gal. 2:11-14).

At the time of the passion Peter was not yet the supreme shepherd and teacherof the Church. Obviously, then, he could not act in that capacity at that time.As a private individual he sinned seriously, but he did not lose the faith.

The second objection is closer to the point, for Peter was then head of the Church.It is, however, a rather superficial argument against infallibility. When Peterdeliberately separated himself from the Gentile way of life – so not to shockJudaic-Christians – he did act imprudently. He did cause some harm to theprogress of the faith. (That is why St. Paul scolded him for it: he knew howmuch Peter's example meant.) Whether Peter was acting in good conscience or notis not here our concern. One fact is abundantly clear: Peter by no means handeddown any doctrinal decision on the matter. That is why Tertullian could write,"It was indeed a fault of conduct, but not of teaching" (Depraescriptione 23).

2. Pope Liberius (352-366) is alleged to have betrayed St. Athanasius and thewhole Catholic faith by signing the formula of Sirmia which was either Arian orsemi-Arian in doctrine.

a. For the sake of argument let us grant that Liberius did actually sign thisheretical document (some historians dispute the point). The mere signing of thedocument could not possibly be considered an ex cathedra decision. Evenanti-Catholic critics admit that the pope, after two years of exile andcaptivity, only finally signed to release himself from persecution. Suchcircumstances,* far from showing that the pope intended to hand down a decisionbinding the universal Church, exclude any such intention.

* Basil of Ancyra the leader of a group which, though Catholic, disliked theterm homoöusion, because of its misuse in a third century controversy, gainedthe emperor's favor. He then endeavored to unite all the Catholics on the basisof a non-Nicene (but not anti-Nicene) formula. In the Catholic sense in whichthis was offered, and with an explanation making clear what he was doing,Liberius, still a captive, signed this. The forgeries of Arian pamphleteers areprobably the original cause of the confusion around which the discussioncenters. – Hughes, Popular History, op. cit., p. 53.

b. Even in the supposition that Liberius did sign his name to one of theformulae at Sirmia, the one he signed would have been the third formula (in theyear 358). This formula was not in itself heretical. Even though the formula,by omitting the term homoousios made sacrosanct by the Council of Nicaea,contained a less accurate formulation of the Catholic faith and was consequentlymore acceptable to the semi-Arians; strictly speaking it was not erroneous.

c. Finally, a number of historians think there can be some real doubt whetherLiberius actually signed or not. (15)

3. Pope Vigilius (537-555) is accused of first condemning "The ThreeChapters," (16) then of forbidding their condemnation, and finally of oncemore condemning them.

Vigilius did not change in the slightest his decision about the doctrinalmatter in question. He always and clearly rejected the Nestorianism with which"The Three Chapters" were infected (see no. 89). But the pope wasunder extremely difficult circumstances (as Justinian's prisoner), and,surrounded by deceit and political intrigue, hesitated to make a prudentialjudgment. He did hesitate about the wisdom of condemning, at that time, thosewritings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas, bishop ofEdessa, which were called the Tria Capitula (the authors themselves werealready in their graves). The writings did deserve censure, but since theirauthors, after explicitly rejecting Nestorianism, had been welcomed back by thefathers of the Council of Chalcedon, condemnation of the writings would havebeen a stumbling block to many people, particularly the Westerners. These peoplewould have taken the condemnation as a slap at the authority of the Council ofChalcedon.° Consequently, even if the pope acted a bit imprudently in thismatter, he definitely made no error in matters of faith. For a fuller treatmentof this extremely complicated matter, consult the historians cited in no. 89above. [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (2nd ed.), II, 798 if.;Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, I, 602 if. See P. Hughes, op. cit., I,342 ff.; H. M. Diepen, O.S.B., Les trois chapitres au Concile de Chalcédoine(Oosterhout, 1953).]

° The Roman objection to issuing the condemnation was that since Theodoret andIbas had been solemnly reinstated at Chalcedon any attack on them must have aprima facie appearance of a move away from Chalcedon. And indeed this was thefirst and immediate reading in the west of the very qualified condemnationissued by the pope in 548. There were passionate scenes everywhere, but inAfrica especially, where the pope was excommunicated.

The pope's position was all the more delicate – and his acts open tomisinterpretation – from the fact that he was at this time Justinian'sprisoner, having been kidnapped in 545 and shipped to the capital when hisfirst hesitancy about complying with the imperial will had shown itself.

Between the condemnation of 548, which the pope withdrew, and the meeting ofthe council – May 553 – there were a succession of crises, and the council metwith the pope refusing to take any part in it. There were thus separatecondemnations. One, by the pope, of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, theother, by the council, of the Three Chapters – or rather an acceptance by thecouncil of Justinian's condemnation of them.

It remained to win the pope's assent, and after six months more of bullying, ofisolation and imprisonment, Vigilius, an old man past eighty years of age,yielded. He was then allowed to leave for Rome, whence he had been absentnearly ten years. – Hughes, Popular History, op. cit., pp. 43-4.

4. It is alleged of Pope Honorius I (625-38) that: (a) in two letters toSergius, bishop of Constantinople, he taught Monotheletism † and, did so,indeed, so clearly that (b) he was afterwards for this very reason condemned asa heretic by the sixth ecumenical council (Third Constantinople) in the year680.

† Monotheletism (from manas "single" and thelo "I will") isthe last of the great Christological heresies and an offshoot of Monophysitism.It maintained that Christ had only one will – a divine will – and consequentlydenied to Christ's human nature that which is connatural to it – a human will.See Parente, Dictionary, op. cit., p. 194-5.

a. The letters of Honorius do not contain any ex cathedra statement. The popemade no doctrinal decision; he approved the request of Sergius that silence shouldbe observed in the question of "a single or double operation" inChrist, "Exhorting you that avoiding the use of the newfangled term of asingle or double operation…" (Kirch 1064); and again, "It is notnecessary for us to give a definitive decision on this matter of one or twooperations" (Kirch 1068).

But to urge silence on a matter is just the reverse of a peremptory definition!

The letters of Honorius do not contain any doctrinal error. Even though thepope does refrain from using the term of a double will or double operation, hedoes teach in equivalent terms the existence of two wills and a twofoldoperation by asserting that Christ possesses two complete, unconfused natures,which operate and are sources of operation, and one operator.

The phrase: "We confess that there is one will of our Lord JesusChrist" (Kirch 1073) in nowise prevents this conclusion. In the context inwhich the clause occurs, the meaning is simply this: In Christ's human naturethere is perfect harmony between His rational will and His sensitive appetite(for the latter is perfectly subject to the former), hence there is in Christ'shumanity but one will, one that is to say, not physically but morally. (17)Pope John IV (640-42) ratified this orthodox meaning in his Apologia proHonorio coauthored, it is interesting to note, by the same John Sympon who hadcosigned the letters of Honorius himself.

It must be admitted, however, that the clause "we confess one will,"even though it did not have a Monotheletic meaning in Honorius' mind and doesnot have such a meaning objectively – provided the context be consideredcarefully, not casually – could be easily twisted to give it a perverted sense.(18)

b. Before anything else, this much is absolutely sure: Honorius was notcondemned as guilty of preaching heresy in his official capacity (ex cathedra).Something more, he was not even condemned as being privately a heretic.Strictly speaking, he was condemned for being a helper of heresy. Whatevermight have been the intention of the fathers of the sixth ecumenical council,this much is certain: the decree of the council would be of no value exceptinsofar as it was ratified by the Apostolic See. Now Leo II, who had succeededAgatho as pope before the end of the council, in his ratification of thefathers' decree either explained the decree in such fashion or so mitigated itthat the upshot was that Honorius was to be stigmatized not as a heretic, butas a helper of heresy.

Here are Leo's words to Constantine Pogonatus ratifying the council's decree:"We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodosius,Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter . . . and also Honorius who did notenlighten this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, butallowed its immaculate faith to be soiled by profane betrayal" (Kirch1085). (19) A short time later, Leo wrote to the bishops of Spain explainingthe matter. Honorius was condemned along with the others: "because insteadof extinguishing the incipient flame of heretical doctrine, as befits theholder of apostolic authority, he rather fanned it by his negligence."

Was, then, Honorius actually a helper of heresy? Prescinding from the questionof serious subjective guilt, from which many authors excuse the pope, this muchmust be said: Honorius was a bit gullible in relying so readily on Sergius'advice and he acted unwisely in persuading people not to preach about thetwofold operation – which he himself, nonetheless, personally admitted. Heacted still more unwisely by adding that odd-sounding clause about "onewill in Christ." Because of these imprudences he did (unwittingly) help tofan the rising blaze of the Monotheletic heresy. Instead, he should have combattedthe heresy energetically with a clear and distinct explanation of apostolicdoctrine as befitted his apostolic office. Finally, it seems probable that theonly reason the Apostolic See acquiesced in this grave censure of Honorius wasto prevent even further damage by making some concessions to the Greeks whowere quite incensed about the condemnation of some of their leaders. (20)

All this explanation is offered on the hypothesis that both the letters ofHonorius and the acts of the sixth council are completely authentic. Quite afew scholars – whose opinion has not won wide acceptance, however – have triedto show that a number of interpolations have been inserted in either theletters of Honorius or the acts of the council.

5. Pope Zacharias (741-752) is said to have erred by condemning St. Virgiliusfor teaching the existence of the antipodes.

We still do not know much about this case of Virgilius. Nothing about the casehas been handed down to posterity except this reply of the pope to St. Boniface:

as for that perverse and evil doctrine in which he has spoken against God andagainst his own soul – if he has actually taught that there is another worldand other men under the earth or another sun and moon – after convening acouncil throw this man out of the Church and deprive him of the priestly honor.But we ourselves in writing to the aforesaid duke [Otilo, duke of Bavaria, anddefender of Virgilius] have sent summoning letters to the aforesaid Virgilius:that he should come before us for careful questioning and if he should be foundin error, he shall be condemned in accord with the canonical sanctions. (21)

a. It was the commonly accepted opinion of earlier ages that to make a journeyto the other side of the earth was absolutely impossible. Consequently anyonewho would subscribe to such an impossibility and at the same time accept theexistence of the antipodes would be implicitly asserting that some men on thisearth are not descended from Adam. This assertion, since it negates the universalityof original sin, is contrary to the Catholic faith. It should be clear, then,that the pope called that doctrine "perverse and evil" not in thesense that there should actually exist antipodes, but in the sense that thereshould exist antipodes not descended from Adam.

b. This censure of the pope does not bear the earmarks of an ex cathedradecision. The replies of the pope to some bishop who asks for advice on aparticular matter are not usually ex cathedra decisions. Again, perversity ofdoctrine is rather implied than declared ex professo: the pope considered thatfurther investigation was necessary. It is hardly probable that Pope Zachariaswished to make subtle inquiries as to whether Virgilius admitted the existenceof the antipodes; what he wanted to know was precisely in what way Virgiliusaccounted for them.

Finally, even though we do not know precisely how he did so, it seems clearVirgilius gave the pope a satisfactory answer, for he soon received thecathedral of Salzburg and his name was added by Gregory IX to the catalogue ofthe saints. (22)

6. Finally, we have the widely publicized case of Galileo whose teaching on themotion of the earth and the immobility of the sun was condemned as "falseand completely opposed to Divine Scripture."

a. It should be candidly admitted, we think, that the sacred congregation didcondemn Galileo's teaching by what was actually a doctrinal decree. The opinionof some theologians that the decree of March 5, 1818 was a purely disciplinarydecree, merely forbidding the reading of books containing Galileo's theory andnothing more than that, is, in our opinion, difficult to square with the factsof the case. Likewise it should be frankly admitted that the Congregations ofthe Inquisition and of the Index committed a faux pas in this matter. Eventhough that mistake is easily understandable in the circumstances of the time,it cannot be completely excused. °

° Monsignor Journet feels that the authors of the decrees of 1818 and 1833committed a fault against prudence due to a failure of nerve. They failed toact quickly enough and resolutely enough in detaching the scriptural questionfrom the scientific one:
Where precisely were the authors of these fallible decrees at fault? Theylacked the courage to detach the question of Scripture at once from the disputeover the geocentric issue. That, it seems, would have been the prudent thing todo. "Cardinal Baronius," wrote Galileo to the Grand Duchess ofTuscany, "used to say that God did not wish to teach us how the heavensgo, but how we are to go to heaven." One wishes that all the theologiansof that day had spoken like Cardinal Baronius! Then they would not haveinvolved the fallible magisterium of the Congregations in a prudential anddoctrinal error. – Church of the Word, op. cit., I, 356-7.

b. It is beyond question that in the whole case of Galileo no ex cathedradecision was ever handed down. The pope was aware of the decree of thecongregation, and approved it as a decree o f the congregation, even though (aswas customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found inthe decree itself. But the pope himself in his capacity as pope did not handdown any decision. Neither did he make the congregation's decision his own inany special way. In the Galileo case, therefore, we have a decision which is byits very nature revocable and nothing more. As a matter of fact, both the moresensible theologians of the time and a fair number of the scientists of the dayunderstood the matter in exactly that light. †

† See, for example, the statements by the theologian, St. Robert Bellarmine,and the astronomer, Laplace, cited in Journet, loc. cit. A recent work,detailing all the intrigues surrounding the Galileo incident, is now availableto English readers: George De Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1955).Unfortunately, the multitudinous Latin and Italian footnotes are, for the mostpart, untranslated.

Likewise, the decree of July 22, 1833 which ordered Galileo to abjure hiserrors and, furthermore, did so under pain of certain penalties – even thoughit was sent to all the bishops by order of Urban VI – possesses no otherauthority than the authority of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition.This is quite clear from the ending of a decree of this type:– And so, we, theundersigned cardinals, pronounce . . . "; there then follows a list oftheir names without any mention made of the pope.

Since in this whole question, he who occupied the chair (sedebat in cathedra)never handed down a decision, there is simply no ex cathedra decision in theGalileo case.* Consequently it is futile to adduce it as an objection to papalinfallibility.

° Since the other objections against Catholicism in general that arise at themention of the word "Galileo' (v.g., that a scientific mind isirreconcilable with acceptance of religious teaching by authority) have noprecise bearing on the question of papal infallibility, they cannot be goneinto at this point. They come into focus under the more generic question of therelationship obtaining between faith and reason and will be discussed in thenext volume of this series, Sources of Revelation and Divine Faith. It isimpossible to discuss such a question intelligently until one understandsprecisely the various types of assent required by the ecclesiasticalmagisterium and in precisely what matters. These points are all discussed exprofesso in the next volume.

The actual proceedings of the case of Galileo have been edited by A. Navarro,Il processo di Galilei (1902) and A. Favarro, Galileo e L'Inquizione. Documentidel Processo (1907).
Among the best treatments of the Galileo case are the following:. H.Grisar, Galilei-Studien (1882); Funk, Manual of Church History, vol. II;Linsmeijer, "Riccioli's Stellung im Galileistreit;" Natur andOffenbarung (1901); A. Miller, Der Galilei-prozesz 1632 nach Ursprung, Verlaufund Folgen; R. Maiocchi, Galileo e la sua condamna (1919); J. Stein,"Galilei an zijn tijd," Studien, 85 (1916), 392.

Notes

1. Because the word "infallibility" when rendered into otherlanguages might possibly leave the door open to misinterpretations of thissort, the fathers of the Vatican Council took the fourth chapter which had beententatively titled "On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff" and re-entitledit, "On the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff." See Coll.Lac., VII, 408.

2. See Granderath, op. cit., p. 190 ff. The importance of this distinction willbe seen in the controversy over "ecclesiastical faith"; see volumeIII of this series, nos. 248-50.

3. See, for example, Matt. 23:2: "The Scribes and the Pharisees occupy thechair [cathedram] of Moses."

4. So, John XXII in sermons preached at Avignon stated three times that thesouls of the saints do not enjoy the intuitive vision of the Divine Essenceprior to the General Judgment. See Hefele, op. cit., VI, 299. The matter hadnot yet been defined.

5. Pertinent to this point are the words of Innocent III: "He [the Romanpontiff] can be judged by men, or rather can be shown to be already judged, iffor example he should wither away into heresy; because he 'who does not believeis already judged" (Sermo 4); see Decreta Gratiani, III, d. 40, c. 8.

6. We have changed the Kleist-Lilly translation in this instance:
Some scholars maintain that this text refers exclusively to the time of ourLord's Passion and consequently cannot be used in favor of Peter's successors.They base their stand on a double argument:

(1) By supposing that Luke 22:31 is a parallel passage with Matthew 28:31 andMark 14:17, they conclude that the sifting Luke was talking about must refer tothe scandal which all the apostles were to undergo on the night of the Passion.

But this hypothesis is not terribly convincing since all the apostles and Peterin particular actually succumbed to scandal on that night; whereas the siftingspoken of in Luke seems to indicate that the brethren will come through itunscathed; Peter first of all, and then, because of Peter, the other apostles.As a matter of fact later events confirmed the distinction between the twotypes of danger: for there is no shred of probability for maintaining thatPeter "strengthened" the rest of the apostles on the night of thePassion. He failed even more than the others.

(2) Opponents of our interpretation state: there is a restrictive sense to thepassage implied from the fact that Peter is ordered to confirm his brethrenafter his own conversion from the fall of the denial: "and do thou, whenonce thou hast turned again" (aliquando conversus – su pote epitrepsas).

But: a. It is not certain that the word, "turned" (conversus) shouldbe understood in this sense, since Christ had not yet predicted Peter's denial.Consequently, many scholars render the word (conversus) this way: "but youin your turn (vicissim) confirm," or, "You turn yourself to yourbrethren and confirm them."

b. Even if the word conversus may be understood of a conversion from a fall, itdoes not follow at all that the task of strengthening the brethren should befulfilled immediately after the conversion, and at that time exclusively.Furthermore, the particle (pote) seems to indicate a time-period that is moreremote (see Palmieri, De Romano pontifice, 2nd ed., p. 353). At all events,even if the explanation proffered by our opponents might seem to have someprobability to it, considering Sacred Scripture alone, the interpretation oftradition is of such a kind that "for men who follow the Church'sinterpretation of Scripture, there can and should be no doubt at all about thetrue meaning of the passage” (Relat. Ep. Brixin. in Coll. Lac., VII, 282).

Now if the text in question, at least from the viewpoint of tradition simplymust be understood of Peter as the foundation and supreme pastor of the Church,obviously the quibblings of Jos. Langen fall apart; for he contended that theindefectibility promised Peter does not prevent him from innocently fallinginto error in matters of faith, but only prevents him from losing the virtue offaith by sinful apostasy from Christ. It would certainly not be much help ifthe one who holds the office of strengthening his brethren in the faith couldnot become a "formal heretic;" but could in some circumstances goastray from the truth (see Palmieri, loc. cit.).

A recent, excellent article on this subject by a Scripture scholar is to befound in Edmund F. Sutcliffe, "Et Tu Aliquando Conversus" CBQ, 15(July 1953), 305-310. This study corroborates the interpretation given here; itadds to the theological reasoning here employed, some cogent exegetical andphilological arguments.

7. Epistula ad Abatem albanorum catholicum; see H. Hurter, "Ein Zeugnisaus dem 6. Jahrhunderte fur die Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes," ZkTh (1910),p. 219.

8. See Hefele, op. cit., II, 188.

9. Conc. Constantinop. III, act. 18; cited in Labbe, VI, 1053.

10. Philip Hughes describes their confusion neatly in the following words: Allthe cardinals – with one exception – recognized Clement VII as pope [i.e., in asecond election attempting to disqualify the legitimately elected Urban VI].What was Christendom to do? How was it to decide between the conflictingaccounts of the rivals? And how was it to judge on which occasion this samebody of cardinals had really, by its unanimous vote, elected a pope, in Aprilor September? Christendom speedily divided, along lines more or less political,according as its sympathies were French or anti-French. And both camps wereequally representative of the Church, holy people, since canonized, being foundamong the supporters of the Avignon pope as well as among those of his Romanantagonist. Was the Church divided? On one point only, the point of fact, wasUrban truly pope or was Clement? On all points of doctrine, on the point ofpapal powers and the obedience due to the pope, all were in agreement. Therewas nowhere any rebellion against an admittedly lawful pope. The division wasnot a schism in any real sense of the word. But it was a very real division,and it lasted for just short of forty years. – Popular History, op. cit., p.139.

11. De potestate ecclesiae, constit. 12; in Opera omnia (Paris, 1606), I, 135.

12. De ecclesia Christi, q. 5, a. 3 (Paris, 1727), II, 134.

13. Orat. theol., 3, no. 7. Then the illustrious theologian mentions hispersonal opinion, stating that the privilege of papal infallibility, "is,in our judgment, certain because of the teaching of the fathers end thecouncils" (no. 8).

14. This is obvious, for example, from the condemnations of Baius (DB 1001ff.); Jansenius (DB 1092 ff. ); Quesnel (DB 1351 ff. ); and Synod of Pistoia(DB 1501 ff.), and so forth.

15. See Hefele, op. cit., I, 681 ff.; Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte,I, 374; BLE (1905), p. 223; (1907), p. 279; A. Feder, "Neue Literatur zurLiberiusfrage," ThR (1910); F. di Capua, ll ritmo prosaico nelle Ietteredei Pape, I (1937), p. 236-47.

18. See below p. 336, note. .

17. Others give a different explanation, namely that Honorius was referring toa kind of moral unity between the divine and human wills in Christ; seaHefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, III, 376 ff.

18. See Hefele, op. cit., III, nos. 296-8; Hergenröther-Kirsch, op. cit., I,625.

19. In Greek: Te bebelo prodosia mianthenai ten aspilon parexoresen. Thus,certain versions err by translating the text as, “he tried to stain,” ratherthan, “he allowed to be stained.”

20. See Hefele, op. cit., III, no. 324.

21. Jaffé, Monumenta moguntina, p. 91.

22: See Hefele, op, cit., III, 557; Barthélemy, Erreurs et mensongeshistoriques (1873), I, 269-86; Kirchenlexikon, XII, col. 1002; Gilbert in Revuedes questiones scientifiques (1882); Krabbo in Mitteilungen des Institut furOesterreichisch Geschichtsforschung, 24 (1902), 1.

Epilogue: The Pope's Temporal Sovereignty *

* For a lively, unbiased, historical presentation of this whole matter by anon-Catholic, see: Pio Nono, by E. E. Y. Hales (New York, 1954): "ThePrisoner in the Vatican," pp. 313-331. The whole book, indeed, iscommendable for its balanced, scholarly assessment of the struggles between thepapacy and nineteenth century liberalism.

After the middle of the nineteenth century the Italian states burned with adesire for political unity. When they were finally coalesced into “One Italywith Rome as its Capital” even the ecclesiastical state, which the popes hadruled over as kings for long centuries, was, first of all vastly diminished interritory and then, in the year 1870, completely subjugated by military might.The following year the new government through its “law of grants” decided tobestow upon the pope a personal privilege of sovereignty and inviolability,free commerce with foreign nations, and an annual pension. But since all thesethings depended exclusively on the good pleasure of the Italian government thepope could not accept the arrangement.

First, Pius IX and then the succeeding popes protested strongly against theinjury done to the Holy See and the resultant shameful and intolerableconditions forced upon the pope. (1) They did not recognize the Italiangovernment with Rome as its capital until Feb. 11, 1929 when “the RomanQuestion” was definitively settled by a solemn concordat. By this concordat theHoly See recognized: “the kingdom of Italy under the dynasty of the house ofSavoy together with Rome, the capital of the Italian nation”; and at the sametime Italy recognized: “Vatican City as a state under the supreme sovereigntyof the supreme pontiff.” (2)

To understand why the popes insisted so strongly and so unwaveringly: (1) thatthey should not be deprived of their temporal sovereignty; (2) that the plundercommitted should be repaired, at least to the degree that the head of theuniversal church might cease to find himself in that deplorable condition towhich he had been reduced in the year 1870, we mention the following points:
The protests of the popes always reiterated the same point: it is of immenseconcern to the entire Christian world that the pope in ruling the Church shouldnot only be free, but should be clearly seen to be free and subject to noearthly government:

the individual faithful all over the world and various nations would nevercease suspecting, or at least fearing, that the pope might bend his actions tomeet the whims of the prince or government on whose bounty he lived. As aresult, various peoples might not hesitate to refuse to obey his decisions onthis pretext. (3)

But the pope will always be the citizen of some government, unless he has aterritory of his own. Consequently some sort of temporal sovereignty is anecessity for the pope.
The pope's need of temporal sovereignty, then, is viewed in relation to theexercise of his spiritual power. Obviously this necessity of temporalsovereignty is not an absolute necessity. Since the Church in the earlycenturies lacked all temporal sovereignty, it is clear that she could, strictlyspeaking, exist without it. In other words, the popes could exercise the dutiesand rights of their primacy in some fashion without that temporal sovereignty.The necessity for temporal sovereignty, therefore, is a moral necessity. Itamounts to this: the pope's spiritual power cannot be exercised in suitablefashion and with unhampered fruitfulness without such temporal sovereignty.

Since from very ancient times, viz., the collapse of the Roman Empire: "itcame about by the very striking plan of Divine Providence that the Romanpontiff should be possessed of civil sovereignty," (4) the popes did notfeel free to simply abandon at whim this guarantee of their liberty which theyhad justly acquired and possessed peacefully throughout so many centuries. Thatexplains why the popes who succeeded Plus IX took an oath to strive to the bestof their power to restore the temporal sovereignty.

In this constant demand the popes quite reasonably prescinded from the questionof whether perhaps some other guarantee might be found to safeguard and makeplain to the world the complete liberty of the Roman pontiff. Since up to thistime "neither Divine Providence has pointed out, nor have humansuggestions hit upon anything similar which might suitably compensate for theprotection brought about [by ones own sovereignty],” (5) the popes rightlydemanded the restitution of that one safeguard which throughout so manycenturies had suitably guaranteed their liberty – a safeguard which wasdestroyed by obvious injustice and military might.

In demanding restitution for the territory that had been stolen from them, thepopes refrained from laying down the exact amount of restitution to be made.Since the freedom of the head of the Church does not necessarily depend uponthe size of the papal territory, and since it is up to the popes alone todecide how much territory would suffice for their purpose, Pius XI deservesgreat praise for his wise generosity. He was content with the tiny state ofVatican City and decided to leave all the rest of the papal territory to Italyso that the Roman Question might be finally and definitively brought to an end.

Notes

1. See DB 1775-6 and the statements of Pius IX cited in 1776a; Leo XIII,encyclical Inscrutabili (April 21, 1878) in Allocutiones Leo XIII (Descléeed.), I, 10; Pius X, allocution of Nov. 9, 1903 in Civ. Catt. S. 18, vol. 12,p. 386; Benedict XV, encyclical, Ad beatissimi (Nov. 1, 1914) in AAS (1914), p.511. Pius XI, encyclical, Ubi arcano (Dec. 23, 1922) in AAS (1922), p. 699.

2. See AAS (1929), p. 221.

3. Pius IX, allocution, Quibus quantisque (April 20, 1849 ).

4. Pius IX, apostolic letter, Cum catholica (March 28, 1860).

5. Pius XI, encyclical, Ubi arcano, loc. cit., p. 699.

(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church,Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & WilliamR. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp288-315.)

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE

2012-01-09T10:18:00.000-05:00

In the following Bull, Pope St. Pius X attached an ipso fact excommunication to anyone who adhered to the errors of the Modernist as annunciated in the encyclical Pascendi, the syllabus of errors Lamentabili, and the replies of the Biblical Commission from his day.

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE

Motu proprio of Our Most Holy Lord Pius X., by Divine Providence Pope, on the decisions of the Pontifical Commission on the Bible and on the censures and penalties against those who neglect to observe the prescriptions against the errors of the modernists:

In his encyclical letter "Providentissimus Deus," given on November 18, 1893, our predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory, after describing the dignity of Sacred Scripture and commending the study of it, set forth the laws which govern the proper study of the Holy Bible; and having proclaimed the divinity of these books against the errors and calumnies of the rationalists, he at the same time defended them against the false teachings of what is known as the higher criticism, which, as the Pontiff most wisely wrote, are clearly nothing but the commentaries of rationalism derived from a misuse of philology and kindred studies. Our predecessor, too, seeing that the danger was constantly on the increase and wishing to prevent the propagation of rash and erroneous views, by his apostolic letters "Vigilantes studiique memores," given on October 30, 1902, established a Pontifical Council or Commission on Biblical matters, composed of several Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church distinguished for their learning and wisdom, to which Commission were added as consulters a number of men in sacred orders chosen from among the learned in theology and in the Holy Bible, of various nationalities and differing in their methods and views concerning exegetical studies. In so doing the Pontiff had in mind as an advantage most adapted for the promotion of study and for the time in which we live that in this Commission there should be the fullest freedom for proposing, examining and judging all opinions whatsoever, and that the Cardinals of the Commission were not to reach any definite decision, as described in the said apostolic letters, before they had examined the arguments in favor and against the question to be decided, omitting nothing which might serve to show in the clearest light the true and genuine state of the Biblical questions under discussion. Only after all this had been done were the decisions reached to be submitted for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff and then promulgated.

After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred authority.

All these things we will and order to be sanctioned and established by our apostolic authority, aught to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given at Rome in Saint Peter's, the 18th November, 1907, the fifth year of our Pontificate.

Pius PP. X.

Be Thou Peter, by Fr. Depauw

2011-12-27T22:11:00.000-05:00

BE THOU PETER!

By FATHER GOMMAR A. DePAUW, J.C.D.

The following letter was originally sent, without any publicity, as a private communication between a priest and the Supreme Pontiff who, two years earlier, had blessed and commissioned him as leader of the CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT.

Only when, after waiting for three months, the C.T.M. was informally notified that no formal "fatherly reply" could be expected, was it decided to make the letter public, both in print and on tape, under the title "Be Thou Peter."

Soon translated worldwide into Dutch, French, German, Italian and Spanish, the 1967-letter soon became, and still stands today, as the unequalled "anguished cry" of the post-Vatican II "Suffering Church."

Sent August 15, 1967,
by C.T.M. President, to Pope Paul VI

Your Holiness:

I still vividly remember that December 1, 1965 evening when Your Holiness personally blessed me and my work with the traditionalist Catholics who selected me to be their spokesman. I shall never forget the crushing handshake of Your Holiness after I had candidly stated that we, traditionalist Catholics, were ready to collaborate most loyally with Pope and bishops for the implementation of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, but would continue to oppose the false interpretations of those decisions which were already then causing so much confusion in the minds and hearts of our Catholic people.

I equally remember how Your Holiness literally begged me to urge the Catholics I was to lead in their fight for "TRUTH and TRADITION" not to lose faith in the Church. And Your Holiness justified that request by stating: "Once the dust stirred up by the recent Ecumenical Council will have settled down, the Church will come out of all this with renewed strength and vigor."

May I humbly submit that during this past year and a half I have labored as hard as any human individual could to do precisely what Your Holiness asked me to do: to keep the faith in our Church alive among those Catholics who had justifiedly become alarmed to the point of publicly asking themselves and others: "What, in the name of God, is happening to our Catholic Church?!" And may I add that one of the principal aspects of my efforts to keep that faith in our Church alive has consistently been the stressing of belief in the divine foundation of the Roman Papacy and respectful loyalty to its present incumbent, Your Holiness, Paul VI.

Already then, December 1, 1965, Your Holiness asked me to realize that our Church was going through "one of the gravest crises in its history." If such a description of our Church's condition was true then, how much more can the same be said of our Church today! To say that it has gone from bad to worse would be the understatement of the century.

Today's condition of the Catholic Church is beyond the point of doctrinal heresy, factual schism and even apostasy. It is in a state of chaos and utter collapse resulting from the systematic destruction of first our liturgical and other traditions, and now our very beliefs and morals.

In 1965 we respectfully petitioned Your Holiness to ensure that our American bishops correctly implement the newly promulgated Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and to permit the retention of at least one Latin traditional Mass a day for the millions of Catholics of the "Latin" Rite who continued to find much deeper spiritual satisfaction in the traditional Mass than in any of the novelties now made available in their churches.

We also begged Your Holiness to urge the greatest moderation upon certain members of the post-conciliar Liturgical Commission in Rome, and to prevent the unbelievably radical and useless changes which they were then fanatically preparing and which were bound, we pointed out, to increase the confusion and despair which the first liturgical changes had already produced among the Catholics, priests as well as lay persons.

Not only have our 1965 requests been ignored, but those of us who dared to publicly submit them have been ridiculed, maligned, defamed, ostracized, and, yes, persecuted. (I need not remind Your Holiness of what I personally have suffered at the hands of our "liberal" Church Establishment under the leadership of the same Baltimore archbishop whom your advisors placed on your list of new cardinals at the very time he was being investigated by your Holy Office on charges of heresy.)

In open violation of all past and present liturgical directives, the Roman Catholic Liturgy, once the envy of all other religions, has for all practical purposes been destroyed. And it gives us very little personal satisfaction to know that all those responsible for this destruction were in advance irrevocably anathematized by the still valid solemn decree of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be cursed." (Canons of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, n. 9.)

Coercive changes have subrogated our traditional practices with the "litniks" of our Church Establishment daily intensifying their attempts to subjugate the "people of God" to becoming "Protestant" Catholics.

Our churches are no longer Catholic in appearance, atmosphere or aim. Tables looking like butcher blocks or ironing boards have replaced our altars in perfect harmony with the 16th century Protestant Reformation directives bent on destroying the belief in the dogma of Transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Mass and replacing it with a symbolical transignification-communal meal.

Our Holy Mass has disappeared an in its place our people are offered a holy mess of vernacularized vacuum stripped of the surety, serenity, uniformity, and dignity of our traditional Latin liturgy.

Hymns associated with the anti-Catholic rebellions of Luther, Calvin and Wesley have unceremoniously uprooted our cherished Catholic hymns to our God and the Blessed Mother, while our uniquely Catholic Gregorian and polyphonic music has been discarded for sounds and instruments sometimes borrowed from the decadent milieu of young human animals.
Communion rails are ripped out and Holy Communion is refused to the "people of God" unless they stand (not kneel) to receive Him at the mention of Whose name all knees should bend, if one is still to trust the text of the "unrevised" New Testament we were given at one time in our Catholic institutions.

The Most Blessed Sacrament, to be reserved in "the central place of honor" according to the legitimate liturgical directives, is relegated to an obscure shoe box-type niche, playing much less than second fiddle to the throne-type chair of the presiding clerical Buddha set up in dead center of a religious flavored discotheque-barn from which the traditional statues and Stations of the Cross have been shipped to the nearest auction gallery or antiques shop.

A steadily increasing number of once unsuspecting Catholics are suddenly realizing that, as we predicted more than two years ago, they are gradually, first with subtle and then with increasing bold changes in the liturgy, being ushered into a humanistic rite of a universal brotherhood meal expressive of the existentialist pantheistic concepts of an illuminated "one-world-religion" preparing the way for a communist controlled "one-world-government."
But, not only our liturgical traditions have been destroyed. The very beliefs and morals of our Catholic heritage are now up for grabs in our so-called "Church of the Aggiornamento." Steadily, day in and day out since Vatican II, silt has subversively been shunted in to the minds of the Roman Catholics in America.

Our "Catholic" universities, seminaries, and colleges are bluntly rejecting the religious character that justifies their existence, and their teachers of the "new theology" are calling into question, if not outright rejecting, every tenet of our doctrinal heritage. Not only are they now ridiculing the objective and historical value of both Scripture and Tradition, but they are even eliminating such fundamental Christian beliefs as the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, His virgin-birth, as well as the belief in the Blessed Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost now very nonchalantly replaced with the unholy trinity of Marx, Freud and Teilhard de Chardin.

Sunday after Sunday our traditional dogmas and moral precepts are denigrated with pseudo-modern preachments of Socialism or worse emanating from our pulpits occupied by "new breed" clergymen whose pathological obsession with sex has brought them to the low point of not only advocating the end of clerical celibacy, but even of condoning fornication, homosexuality, trial marriages, artificial birth control, divorce, and abortion.

Our Church Establishment's press and radio and television presentations are totally captured by the same heretical forces. And our once respected nuns not only have become nonentity "nones" with absurdity of demeanor and dress, but are sabotaging the religious instruction of our youngsters and children by replacing our traditional catechisms with brain-washing religion (?) books subtly poisoning the minds of our coming generations into gradual acceptance of first a unitarian, then a pantheistic, and finally an atheistic philosophy of life.

While some of our American cardinals and bishops are way in front of these apostatic hordes of religious rioters, the rest of our hierarchy are burying their heads in the sand, rocking their consciences to sleep with the proverbial "Everything will be O.K.!" or trying to compensate for the trust and respect they no longer command among their own Catholic people by hob-nobbing with those outside-the-fold merely to produce nothing but a superficial inter-faith harmony built on the swift sand of doctrinal compromise and false hopes.

Your Holiness, we traditionalist Catholics, see the evil visibly extant and reject any portion of that evil!

Your Holiness knows better than any other person how we of the C.T.M have bent backwards to remain loyal and obedient to both the spirit and the letter of the recent Ecumenical Council, including those of its non-doctrinal decisions of which we could understand neither the necessity nor the usefulness. However, taking a closer look at the "Conciliar" church forced upon us in the name of Vatican II, and simply judging the tree by its fruits, we are tempted to agree with one of your own immediate collaborators in Rome who has been quoted as characterizing the recent Vatical Council as "a sinister farce acted out by a number of good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin."
Your Holiness, we were, we are, and we intend to remain members of the CATHOLIC Church, and we refuse to become absorbed into any new CONCILIAR church! WE CONDEMN AND REJECT THE CONCILIAR CHURCH!

In spite of all the gigantic and expensive promotional techniques used to "sell" it, the "Conciliar" church fails to fascinate the public, and refuses to spiritually refresh the individual. Instead it is repugnant to the point of rejection so tragically evident in the all-time low of our conversion rate and religious vocations, and the pathetic trek of our most loyal and devout Catholics transferring the almost snuffed out candle of traditional Catholic beliefs and practices from our desecrated churches to the underground sanctuary of their hearts and homes.

Your Holiness, if no IMMEDIATE ACTION is taken by YOU, the public reality of the Catholic religion will phase out very soon. Already the memory of a "real" Mass is fading away from the minds of our younger generation, while their elders are growing indifferent or bitter over a Church which, if all her former beliefs and practices were so irrelevant as to be replaced so quickly and drastically, they prefer to forget as the biggest hoax ever on record.

Your Holiness, take one last, hard look at the dying embers of your Church and ours! And decide, bluntly and honestly, whether you wish to be a POPE, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the one true Church, or to perpetuate your current image of the BISHOP of Rome, the first among equals, with a place of HONOR but without authority within the ranks of a so-called "college" of bishops.

With no personal offense meant, we must truthfully confess that we are not the least interested in Bishop or even Patriarch Montini. The true affection and obedient respect
which we still have for you goes to you only as Pope Paul VI, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, with true power of JURISDICTION over all Catholics, including patriarchs, cardinals, and bishops. Only a POPE who is willing to exercise his God-given prerogatives can save the Church now from further disintegration!

Does Your Holiness remember how you enthusiastically took my hands in your that December 1, 1965, when I respectfully but candidly told you that we, traditionalist Catholics, do not believe in two thousand five hundred little popes but rather in two thousand five hundred bishops and one Pope?

This statement of policy of our C.T.M. still holds today with this difference: But for a few exceptions which we can count on the fingers of one hand, WE NO LONGER BELIEVE IN OUR BISHOPS WHO BETRAYED YOU AND US, but we still believe in a Pope! We even still believe in Pope Paul VI if he starts doing immediately what he failed to do so far: ACT LIKE A POPE!
Your Holiness, may I most respectfully but with the candidness of a grown-up son who loves his father deeply tell you, that, contrary to what your entourage of flatterers tells you, your image to the traditionalist Catholics, your most loyal sons and daughters, has been one of a very weak Pope who contradicts today what he affirmed yesterday, and wastes his energy in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable: water and fire, error and truth, modernism and traditionalism.
We of the C.T.M. still refuse to join the increasing number of Catholics all over the world who accuse you of being part of the team out to destroy the Church we once knew, and of being less interested in remaining the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's one true Church than in becoming the Chief-Chaplain of a new one-world religion in the service of a one-world government.
We of the C.T.M. still have pent up in the reserve of our hearts the enthusiastic loyalty we, traditionalist Catholics, exclusively set apart for our Supreme Pontiff. And we would like nothing better than to forget the past four years and shower our loyalty on a Paul VI turned into a new Saint Pius X who had the courage to face the reality of enemies within our own ranks and the integrity to condemn them. The first four years of your pontificate, Your Holiness, have been disappointing to the most loyal of your sons and daughters. But, late as it is, you still have the opportunity to once more be capable instead of culpable.

May we, the traditionalist Catholics whose unworthy spokesman I am, help Your Holiness out of the impasse your enemies cornered you into, by humbly submitting to you the following two requests:

Publicly announce via all available international public media that you are again exercising the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff of Christ's One True Church, and that the interregnum of Vatican II is over.

Let the world know that the Second Vatican Council started as an honest try on the part of a wonderfully sincere but shamefully abused old man, the unforgettable "good Pope John," but turned out to be a horrible mistake.

Maybe it was precisely the fear of this horrendous possibility that caused the Holy Ghost to have Pope John declare from the very start that Vatican II, unlike all previous Ecumenical Councils, was not a DOCTRINAL Council but simply a PASTORAL one, thus leaving the door open for any future Pope to eradicate it from the records.

Your Holiness, when honest people commit a blunder they admit it and try to undo it as quickly as possible. Vatican II has so far produced nothing but confusion and disunity among the people of God's Church. It takes humility and courage to admit that even a Pope, outside the realm of his infallible ex cathedra definitions, can commit a blunder. But it is this kind of humility that endears a truly great leader to his subjects. Even so, you know better than all of us together that to lose face is nothing compared to losing souls.

Rescind that falsely interpreted and abused "Collegiality" decree IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY. The burden of the Papacy cannot be shared and was never intended to be. To Peter and to him alone were given the keys of the Kingdom. Peter and Peter ALONE was appointed to strengthen the faith of "his brethren," the first bishops who governed the primitive Church not just WITH but UNDER Peter. Stop wearing that bishop's mitre and place the papal tiara back on your anointed head where it was placed the day you accepted to serve as Christ's Vicar and Supreme Pontiff. You accepted the job; you have tasted the privileges -- now, taste the responsibilities; they are the two sides of the same coin. Give us another opportunity to let the world know once again that: "HABEMUS PAPAM! We have a Pope!"

Stop accepting decisions made by your alleged "advisors." Stand on your own two feet! These advisors have led you and the Church into the abyss of their anti-Christ activity. They have forced you into a world position of being apparently at ease in such impossible situations as your praying at the pantheistic monstrosity of the United Nations' "meditation room," your denying to the favorite visionary child of Fatima the favor granted to publicly known, unrepentant examples of degraded womanhood, your hobnobbing and exchanging symbols of religious authority with leaders of what still are heretical or schismatic sects, and above all, your lending respectability to the leaders of international Communism, which is still out to destroy our Church and all other religious bodies for that matter.

Stop listening to the politically attuned and diabolical-oriented "advisors" who have infiltrated the highest echelons of our Church, exactly as Our Lady foretold in her last message of Fatima which has been unjustifiedly withheld from our Catholic people for seven years now.
Stop listening to the red and purple-clad crypto-atheists who are readying your Alitalia jet for another melodrama in Moscow, of all places!

Listen instead to the genuine Roman Catholic, the traditionalist "man and woman in the pew" who want their Pope to act like a Pope; the same Catholic who continues to kneel when receiving his living God in Holy Communion; who still prays the Rosary to his Mother in Heaven; who still genuflects at the words "And the Word was made flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man"; who still reads the Last Gospel of St. John in his or her worn-out missal; who still says the Leonine prayers after Mass for the conversion of Russia; who still abstains from meat on Fridays; who still goes to church on Sundays instead of Saturdays; in one word, the traditionalist Catholics who refuse to turn their backs on the Son of God for any son of man, despite the red or purple he proudly preens.

Establish a new "Vernacularist Rite" for those interested in it, and publicly revitalize our now dormant centuries-old Latin Rite by eliminating from it the prelates and priests who planned its destruction.

If there are still persons who prefer to continue in the now de facto existing "non-Latin" rite, we certainly do not wish to deprive them of that satisfaction. We would only suggest to them that they in turn request Your Holiness to do some spiritual cleaning in their non-Latin sector of your Church, and clean house of such cancer spots as Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Atlanta, Oklahoma, San Diego and other Worcesters which coercively infect the whole. Friends on the surface, the heretical pseudo-cardinals and bishops in command of those dioceses are your enemies behind your back, Your Holiness.

We, traditionalist Catholics, however, can no longer have ANYTHING to do with an Establishment that has completely betrayed the traditions and the beliefs of the Church of our Fathers.

We have received information that the upcoming Synod of Bishops scheduled for next month in Rome is at last willing to recommend the celebration of one mass in Latin each Sunday in each parish for the benefit of those of us described as older Catholics who failed to adapt themselves to the so-called "aggiornamento."

While we might have gratefully accepted this arrangement two years or even one year ago, today we must sorrowfully label such proposal as "too little and too late!" WE ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT, and no belated Latin Mass left-overs can now satisfy the spiritual hunger of the traditionalist Catholics. We just could not stand the smell of a dwelling where we would have to live again under the same roof with the Shehans, the Deardens and other Codys of an Alfrinkitis-infected Conciliar church which has "entered into a league with death, and made a covenant with hell." (Isaias, 28, 15.)

Your Holiness, I fully realize how presumptuous it would be for me to approach Your Holiness on matters of this nature in simply my own personal behalf. However, may it please Your Holiness to accept the following concrete proposals as coming from the millions of distressed and suffering loyal Roman Catholics whose spokesman I have become in the United States of America, as well as from the countless other Catholics with whom our Movement has coordinated its efforts in twenty-eight other countries.

It is in the name of those millions of loyal Roman Catholics that I now formally request Your Holiness to establish a new "vernacularist rite" for those interested in it, and publicly revitalize our now dormant centuries-old Latin Rite by eliminating from it the prelates and priests who planned its destruction.

This rejuvenated Latin Rite will, of course, incorporate the doctrines of the traditional "Profession of Faith" as well as its concomitant Anti-Modernistic oath, and will live by the laws and liturgy that existed on October 9, 1958, the day the saintly Pope Pius XII went to his eternal reward.

The Mother that generously allows some of her children to keep their Abyssinian, their Alexandrian, their Antiochian, their Armenian, their Byzantine, their Chaldean and other rites, should do no less for her LATIN Rite children, who are tired of being treated as the proverbial stepchildren and feel equally entitled to this public acknowledgement of their maturity and love of our Faith.

We respectfully request that Your Holiness personally and immediately, without going through any of the customary red-tape delays, allocate to the "vernacularists" certain churches, rectories, schools, convents, and seminaries to fill their needs, while at the same time solemnly reaffirming the established property rights of the Traditionalist Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite over all other Roman Catholic church buildings and properties in the U.S.A.

We respectfully request that Your Holiness appoint the Moderator of the C.T.M., the Most Reverend Bishop Blaise Kurz, the principal Ordinary of the Traditional Latin Rite in the U.S.A., and empower him to proceed with the immediate consecration of new bishops selected from the list of one hundred and fifty-six American priests who have joined me in this last all-out effort to save our Church.

May I also inform Your Holiness that these priests, the cream of the crop, have also been joined by fifteen Sisters, eleven Brothers, eleven seminarians, and two thousand one hundred and twenty-eight American families, who are ready to immediately organize and support our renovated centuries-old Latin Rite for the spiritual benefits of millions of other Catholics who have secretly expressed their support to us and are only waiting for Your Holiness' public seal of approval to publicly join our ranks.

Your Holiness! In the name of Jesus Christ, your and our Lord and Saviour, have the courage to disperse the false shepherds and listen to your own conscience! Prove once again to friend and foe alike that the Gates of Hell did indeed not prevail. Stir the embers of a dying Church and, with gallant despair, make her once more a House of Refuge in lieu of a house of refuse. Bind instead of grind the gnawing wounds of Christ's Mystical Body.

Holy Father! We beg you to leave the dead-end Appian way into which your advisors steered you. We do not want you to grace the pages of future history books as one of our weak Popes and your picture in them captioned with "Paul, the Weak" rather than "Paul, the Great." Let history recount Paul VI as the Pope who put the Church on G-U-A-R-D again, the Pope who, after one of the gravest crises in her history, gave back to the Church her attributes of Greatness, Uniformity, Authority, Respect, and Dignity.

Your Holiness! It would indeed be most inconsistent for the spokesman of loyal traditionalist Roman Catholics to become the sender of ultimata in his dealings with the Supreme Pontiff of his Church. However, I would be remiss in my responsibilities to you, our Pope, and to the people I represent, if I did not state unequivocally that the patience of the traditionalist Catholics has reached the breaking point.

We can no longer remain part of an Establishment ready for the final ravishment of our Holy Mother the church. We must and will break the chains that still keep us forcibly tied to a system of negating Christ, trampling on sacred traditions, lampooning once-revered liturgical and penintential practices, destroying the faith and morals of future generations, and perpetuating a hierarchy and clergy publicly committed to replacing once voluntarily accepted responsibilities with a life of fulfilled personal ambitions and moral duplicity.

Your Holiness! If we do not receive a satisfactory answer from Your Holiness or at least are given an opportunity to discuss our requests and proposals with Your Holiness personally-within the next month, we shall consider our requests denied and our proposals
rejected, and draw the sad and tragic conclusion that Our Mother the Church has temporarily abandoned the best ones of her children.

I pray to God and to His blessed Mother whose Assumption we commemorate today -- and millions all over the world are joining me in this prayer -- that such a dark and tragic day will never come. But, if we have no other choice, we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual "Resistance" movement without the hoped-for papal approval.

I owe it to Your Holiness to herewith honestly state that, in the full realization of our responsibility to God, to our Church and to the souls entrusted to our care, we are ready for any eventuality to the point of having taken the measures necessary to guarantee the valid apostolic succession within our ranks.

Holy Father! Do no reject the best and most loyal ones of your sons and daughters! But, even if Paul VI would close his soul and heart to us -- Quod Deus avertat! -- We will not reject the papacy!

Abandoned by you, we would sorrowfully pray and wait for the day a new successor of St. Peter would open his arms again to those of his children whose only crime it was to live up to the admonition of your patron saint: "Even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be cursed." (GAL. 1, 8), or of those other early Church leaders who taught us: "We ought to obey God rather than men." (ACTS 5, 29).

Dear Holy Father, at one time I was warned by my friend-turned-traitor, your former Delegate in Washington -- now Cardinal Vagnozzi! -- that you could well be swayed by your "advisors" into replacing your 1965 blessing to me and the C.T.M. with even the sternest of disciplinary measures. He was unable to scare me because I still have enough of the simple faith of a child to believe that no Vicar of Christ could ever capitulate into that kind of abyss.

Meanwhile I shall continue to resist any self-styled "little pope" who tries to intimidate me into surrender, and continue to cite to him the words of St. Thomas More who forfeited his earthly life in defense of the true Church. When the prosecuting Shehan of his days asked this man for all seasons: "Come on, More! Do you wish to be considered wiser and of better conscience than all the bishops and nobles of the realm?" St. Thomas replied: "My Lord, for one bishop of your opinion I have a hundred saints of mine; and for one parliament of yours, and God knows of what kind, I have all the general councils of the Church for a thousand years!"

Dear Holy Father! Permit me to summarize this long letter to Your Holiness by redirecting to YOU the anguished cry you directed to US, the loyal traditionalist Catholics, on September 1, 1963: "The day is growing late. Become convinced that it is necessary to work today, immediately, that not an hour can be lost. The need is immense and most urgent. Come and help us to tell the world where is truth and where is error!"

Prayerfully expecting Your Holiness' fatherly reply to this final anguished cry of today's "Suffering Church" I beg to remain.

Your loyal and devoted son in Jesus Christ,

(s) Father Gommar A. DePauwPriest since 1942 -- President, C.T.M.
For more on Father Depauw, click here: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04May/may24ttt.htm

Was Jesus born on December 25th?

2011-12-25T08:32:00.001-05:00

In a post earlier this week, we examined a biblical argument from the chronology of Saint Luke's Gospel for identifying the birth of Christ our Lord in late December.

See: Was Jesus Really Born on December 25? Yes - A Biblical Argument for the Birth of Christ in Late December.

Today, let us take a look at the same subject from the perspective of Sacred Tradition.

The argument for Christ's historical birth on December 25 has two parts. The first part relates to the Blessed Virgin Mary's role in the Apostolic Tradition. The second part explores the the early Fathers regarding the date of Christ's birth. By the way, I'm preparing another post that will briefly look at Pope Benedict XVI's argument for the Divine Nativity having taken place on December 25. Look for that on Christmas Day.

Immaculate Mary: Mothers Never Forget

Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, he length of the baby, and a number of other details. I'm the father of six blessed children and while I sometimes forget these details (mea maxima culpa), my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget these details.

Now ask yourself this: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She new from the moment of His divine Incarnation in her womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?*

Next, ask yourself this: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course! Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, "And the Word was made flesh" was not interested in the minute details of His birth?

Whenever I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask "How old is he?" or "When was he born?" Don't you think people asked this question of Mary?

So the exact birthday (Dec 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Matthew and Luke chronicle for us.

We Americans have a federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr on January 16. We also celebrate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. If Americans so regard the birthday of a man who ended racial segregation, would not the Apostles regard the birthday of Christ our Savior?

In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Chistians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.

The Church Fathers Testify to December 25

In the previous post, we showed that Christmas could not have been a Christian attempt to replace a pagan holiday with a newly minted Christian holiday. Further testimony reveals that Catholics claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire.

For example, Saint Hippolytus writes in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on a Wednesday on December 25. Saint Hippolytus wrote this sometime between A.D. 200 and 211! Here's the quote:

"The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls." - Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel

Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was seen to correspond to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 - the traditional date of crucifixion).**

Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day (March 25). In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C. Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as:

the Creation date of the World
the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ
the date of the Death of Christ our Savior

In the Syrian Church March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it - so important was the day in the Syrian tradition! It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.

Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ's birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).

Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:

“For Christ is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.” - Saint Augustine, De trinitate, Book 4, 5.

In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25th as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6 since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311.

Look for the third and final part tomorrow on Christmas (Pope Benedict on December 25 and Christmas).

In the meantime, since it is December 24, let us contemplate Joseph and Mary arriving in Bethlehem walking about looking for shelter for the coming night. Then they are allowed to use the stable cave and around noon Saint Joseph begins to prepare the place for the miraculous event. Joseph and Mary must have been full of quiet expectation. May they pray for us as we also eagerly await the Christ Child.

Godspeed and Merry Christmas,

Taylor Marshall

* A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe for bringing the "memory of Mary" argument to my attention.

** There is some discrepancy in the Fathers as to whether Nisan 14/March 25 marked the death of Christ or his resurrection. Regarding this problem, here is an external post on Julius Africanus and the dating of Christmas and the meaning of March 25.

Quid Est Veritas?

PIUS X AND CARDINAL PIE

Laws forbidding Catholics to associate with false religions

The Sacrament of Order

Distinctions Between Priest and Bishop.

Is the Bishop Ordained or Consecrated?

God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural

God the Author of Nature and the SupernaturalPart Two: Creation as a Divine Fact

Section Two: Supernatural Anthropology

THESIS VIIIBefore the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Graceand the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge.

Terminology

Adversaries

Dogmatic Value

Theological Proof

Part One: “Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace."

Part Two: "Adam Possessed the Gift of Integrity"

Part Three: "Adam Possessed the Gift of Bodily Immortality"

Part Four: “Adam Possessed the Gift of Infused Knowledge,”

Kerygmatic Development

Study Questions

Q & A on Salvation by Fr. Muller, C.SS. R.

Msgr. G. Van Noort on Infallibility

On The Infallibility of the Pope, by Msgr. G. Van Noort

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE

In the following Bull, Pope St. Pius X attached an ipso fact excommunication to anyone who adhered to the errors of the Modernist as annunciated in the encyclical Pascendi, the syllabus of errors Lamentabili, and the replies of the Biblical Commission from his day.

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE

Be Thou Peter, by Fr. Depauw

Was Jesus born on December 25th?

God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural
Part Two: Creation as a Divine Fact

THESIS VIII
Before the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace
and the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge.