On the Subject and Object of Infallibility (Franzelin, 1871)
Mar 21, 2018 22:02:45 GMT -5
Pacelli likes this
Post by Caillin on Mar 21, 2018 22:02:45 GMT -5
Cardinal Franzelin on the Subject and Object of Infallibility
Franzelin, Johann Baptist, S.J., “Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura.” The Dublin Review. Vol. XVII. July, 1871. pp.258-268.
--- Franzelin, Johann Baptist, S.J., “Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura.” The Dublin Review. Vol. XVII. July, 1871. Pp.258-268. <https://books.google.com/books?id=UGcVAQAAIAAJ>
Franzelin, Johann Baptist, S.J., “Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura.” The Dublin Review. Vol. XVII. July, 1871. pp.258-268.
F. FRANZELIN ON THE SUBJECT AND OBJECT OF INFALLIBILITY
(See notice in a previous page of F. Franzelin's treatise on Tradition and Scripture.)
WHAT has been so far discussed concerning the magisterial and ministerial means for preserving Tradition, seems to demand a more distinct statement of principles at least, concerning the Subject and Object of the power of infallibly teaching and judging. The full exposition and demonstration, however, of this most important point belongs to its own proper Treatise on the Church and the Roman Pontiff.
Principle I.—Indefectibility in the truth of that Faith which is one in Catholicity, or infallibility in believing has been, by God, promised to and conferred upon the Universal Church, which is "the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), " built upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. xvi. 18). Whatever, therefore, the universal Church believes as of faith, that by Christ's promise and ordaining is evidently infallibly true. Of this infallibility in believing, which is commonly called passive, the Subject is the universal Church herself.
The Church is kept in the unfailing truth of one Faith by the Holy Ghost by means of an authentic ministerial and magisterial power, thiough the Pastors and Doctors whom Christ has given for the building up of th? body of Christ (Eph. iv. 11, 12), to teach the Church of God with authority; to which was to be due from all the faithful, as corresponding effect, consent and "obedience of faith." Wherefore to this magisterium instituted, by Himself, Christ promised and upon it He conferred infallibility in teaching all that He himself and the Holy Ghost had taught.*
* Because the magisterium, furnished with this charisma of infallibility, by its ministerial action guards, proposes, developes, and protects revealed doctrine, and keeps all the faithful in unity of faith: hence infallibility in teaching is commpnly called active, and has for its end indefectibility in believing, which through the " obedience of faith " is the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Church.
The Subject then of this infallibility in teaching are all and only those, to whom has been entrusted by God the right and office of teaching with authority the Church Universal.
(a) Thus the Teaching Church.—that is the body of Pastors and Doctors in union, agreement, and subordination towards the visible head of the Church,—is infallible : and that () in her universal and consentient preaching of doctrine on faith or morals; () in her solemn judgments or definitions of the same doctrine. For to the Teaching Church so constituted has been said : "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth: go ye therefore and teach all nations; baptizing them .... teaching them to keep all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold l am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18, seq.). "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, to abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. .... He will teach you all things, and will suggest to you all things whatsoever I have told you (a ilirov iftiv[Greek])" (John xiv. 16, 26).
These promises do not appertain to the individual successors of the Apostles, because individually they do not succeed the Apostles in the office of teaching with authority the whole Church ; an office which in the Apostles (excepting only Peter, head of the Church, who was always to continue in his successors) was not ordinary, but extraordinary and personal to themselves: but the promises were made to the body of the Apostolic succession in common, in so far as they are the Teaching Church. But they are not the Teaching Church, except in so far as they remain united, consentient, and subordinated towards the visible head of the whole Church.
Wherefore the efficient cause of the infallibility of the teaching Church, whether in its universal preaching or in its solemn definitions and judgments, is without doubt the promised assistance of the Spirit of truth; but the condition without which the successors of the Apostles are not the Teaching Church, and the formal cause by which they are constituted as tho Teaching Church to which has been promised Christ's guardianship and the assistance of the Spirit of truth in teaching, is the visible head of the Church set up by Christ, and the union and agreement of the members with that head ; just as the form of the unity of the visible Church in general is the Church's visible head itself. Hence it is that the ordinary office of infallibly teaching,— that is, the office instituted in the case of the Apostles to be passed on to their Successors,—was explained by Christ our Lord in words which were addressed, never to the individuals, but always to the entire College in union with Peter.
(b.) For the opposite reason, the words of Christ by which the primacy and infallibility of magisterium included in the primacy is promised and granted to Peter, designate him alone not only as expressly distinct from the rest, but also in relation to the rest as who should confirm and shepherd them. "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona and I say to thee, thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt, xvi.). "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and do thou turn and (tjriorpti/iac[Greek]) confirm thy brethren" (Luke xxii.). "Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him: Feed my lambs feed my sheep" (John xxi.).*
* In the published Greek the reading is Sifiwv 'luiva ; in other unpublished Codices, 'Iuavvov, or 'Itoavov, or 'luavva, or Xiftuiv only. [Greek letters not accurately transferred from original article]
Thus Peter, as ordinary endowment for himself and for each of his Successors, received from Christ the power and office of feeding and teaching the Universal Church in faith and morals, in such sort that this very power, conferred in the person of Peter upon each of his Successors, demands by divine institution the obedience of faith and consent of the whole Church; and that hence the infallibility of the whole Church in believing cannot stand, except in so far as upon the head of the Church, successor of Peter, together with such right of exacting consent of faith, there has been simultaneously conferred infallibility in teaching; when (that is) he proposes a doctrine on faith or morals, with such a definitive sentence as binds the whole Church to consent. The Subject then of infallibility is Peter's Successor himself; through the divine assistance which has been promised to him per se, as teacher of the Church, and not on condition of the concurrent judgment or consent of the other pastors and doctors who, compared with the Pontiff so teaching the Church, are the most noble part of the Church so built upon this rock that the gates of hell may not prevail against it, are brethren to be confirmed, sheep to be shepherded; although, compared with the faithful they continue pastors and doctors, to propose to the faithful, to teach and to defend with authority the defined doctrine itself.
"It is a revealed dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of his office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is endowed, by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, with that infallibility with which our Divine Redeemer willed that the Church should be furnished in defining doctrine of faith or morals; and, therefore, that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not in virtue of the consent of the Church " ("Definition of Vatican Council," Constit. I., de Eccl. Christi, cap. 4).
Corollary A.—There is not a twofold adequately distinct Subject of the infallibility promised by Christ to definitions of doctrine on faith or morals; but [the Subject of infallibility] is both the visible head of the Church regarded per se; and the same visible head taken as ordering and informing the body of the teaching Church, which, thus constituted, is itself infallible by the assistance of the Spirit of truth. This inadequate distinction in the Subject of infallibility is pointed out in the Vatican definition itself just before cited.
Corollary B.—Whatever is to be believed with Catholic faith or is to be held with theological certainty, on the objective extent of infallibility [ec extensione quoad objectum] vested in the Church defining or in a general Council, the same, in the same way, is to be believed and held on the infallibility vested in the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. This is the very point defined by the Vatican Council.
Corollary C.—The antecedent consent of the Church may indeed be the objective means by which the Pontiff arrives at the knowledge of the definability of a doctrine: but it is not of itself and from the nature of the case the sole and necessary means of knowing; for doctrines on faith or morals may be recognized as definable from other sources and by other means as well, and questions hitherto doubtful and controverted even within the borders of the Church may be defined. And by no means is such consent of the Church or Bishops, whether antecedent, concomitant, or subsequent, necessary by way of authentic judgment concurring with the judgment or definition of the Pontiff. The Gallican opinion requiring this consent of the Church as necessary to the infallibility of the Pontiff's definitions,—in such sort that the sole Subject of infallibility should be the body of the teaching Church, namely the Pope with the bishops,—is now a heresy directly and explicitly condemned by the Vatican Council. The subsequent consent of the whole Church, however, is always the effect of the Pontiff's definition.
Corollary D.—According to the declaration of the Vatican Council itself, the Pontiff is said to speak ex cathedra " when in discharge of his office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians he defines, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church." For the Apostolic Chair is nothing else than the supreme authentic magisterium, whose definitive doctrinal sentence binds the universal Church to consent. This intention of defining doctrine, or of teaching with definitive sentence and with authority obliging consent of the universal Church, should be made plain and cognizable by clear signs. No settled form however, to be necessarily used by the Pontiff in making known this his will, is essential. For although there be certain solemn forms which of themselves express a speaking ex cathedra, and which accordingly the Pontiff uses only when speaking ex cathedra,—such as, for example, dogmatic Bulls,—yet this form is not so essential and exclusive, that without it the Pontiff cannot, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, define doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, condemn in the same way errors opposed to it, and make plain his will to that effect.
Corollary E.—In the documents themselves of Councils and Pontiffs in which it is without doubt proposed to publish definitions of doctrine, there may be, and usually are, contained many things which it is not intended to define: obiter dicta which are usually enunciated indirectly; mostly, also, the arguments brought to prove the definitive sentence itself, &c. Although these things are of weighty authority, yet they are not infallible definitions.
So also there may be and there are public Pontifical documents, in which certain matters connected with faith or morals are the subject of warning, recommendation, or blame, or whose purpose is to forbid the spread of any opinion or error, but whose scope is not to proclaim a definitive sentence binding the whole Church, and which, for that reason, are not pronouncements ex cathedra. "For the Pontiffs often reply to the private questions of this or that bishop, by explaining their own opinion on the matters set forth, not by passing a sentence by which they will the faithful to be bound in believing" (Melch. Canus, 1. vi., c. 8, ad. 7). To this category are justly referred, for instance, the two letters of Honorius I. to Sergius of Constantinople.*( In the Tract, de Incarnat. we have spoken of the (by no means heretical) sense of these letters.) That doubt may arise as to whether certain Pontifical documents contain a pronouncement ex cathedra and definition of doctrine, we do not deny: but the same thing occurs sometimes in respect of Conciliar documents also; a fact of which we have an example in the diverse opinions which have existed and still exist in some quarters on the Instructions for the Armenians published in the Council of Florence, on the point whether the teaching therein contained, especially on the matter and form of the Sacraments, is to be considered dogmatic or merely as practical instruction. Whenever such doubts occur, theologians properly warn us "that in discriminating these matters the judgment of wise men, and (more especially) the sense and consent of the Church, is of much force" (Tanner de Fide, q. 4, dub. 6, n. 262).
This will be sufficient for our scope on the Subject of infallibility. Our present treatise is more particularly concerned with the doctrine on the Object of infallibility.
Principle II.—The Deposit of the Christian Faith, strictly understood, embraces all and only those things, which have been explicitly or implicitly revealed to the human race by God to be believed, done, or followed ; in other words, which have been made known by Catholic revelation (as distinct from private divine revelations) for the eternal salvation of mankind.
Corollary A.—In the Deposit of the Faith are contained theoretical doctrines (and among these also truths which, in so far as they are cognizable by reason, are commonly said to appertain to natural religion)—practical laws (and among these also the natural law written in the hearts of men as reasonable beings), as also certain perpetual and fundamental institutions, such as the Church, its power, its form of government, &c. In other words, these are contained in the Deposit), revealed and supernatural dogmatics, ethics, politics (7roXirfia[Greek]).
Corollary B.—Only truths revealed by God, when duly proposed may and ought to be believed with divine faith; because faith is assent on account of the authority of God revealing.
Corollary C.—In the Deposit of Faith may be objectively contained truths, not yet duly proposed, so that all should be bound to believe them as revealed with divine faith.
Principle III.—With truths revealed and duly proposed are connected and related many things, without which those revealed truths themselves either could not, or could not so well, in all their fulness, be guarded, developed, and defended; although these [connected truths] are either not themselves revealed, or are not yet duly proposed to be believed with divine faith.
Such are many theoretical and practical truths in that triple order, dogmatic, moral, and (so to speak) constitutive, which we have pointed out; as truths theologically certain, e.g., on the procession of the Holy Ghost by way of love in connexion with the mystery of the Blessed Trinity; on the sanctification of the humanity of Christ by the created gifts also, on its [enjoyment of ] the Beatific Vision from the first moment of its existence, in connexion with the mystery of the Incarnation, &c.: then again certain circumstances bound up with revealed truths, when these are to be practically applied, e.g., if there is question of the genuine sense of texts in such and such books, in so far as they are agreeable or opposed to the Deposit of Faith; facts again of themselves historical, e.g., the legitimate celebration of a particular Council, &c.; furthermore, certain special dispositions of divine providence pertaining to the better estate and government of the universal Church, e.g., if there is question of the opportuneness or moral necessity of political independence and temporal dominion in the case of the Supreme Pontiff, in order to the [good] government of the Church, &c.
Corollary A.—The Deposit of Faith is violated; not only by direct denial of revealed truths and by heresy, but may also be attacked, and in the mind of the faithful exposed to dangers, by errors contrary to truths, not in themselves revealed, yet connected with revealed truths, and consequently theological or religious.
Corollary B—Although the Deposit of Faith strictly understood comprises revealed truth only, nevertheless the deposit to be guarded in its entirety, with all its outworks and modes of application, is of wider extent: "O Timothy, keep the Deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words" (1 Tim. vi. 20).
Principle IV.—The authority (infallible under the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost) of that authority to which Christ has entrusted the office of infallibly keeping the Deposit, and of guarding it against threatening errors, appertains in the first place to guarding, setting forth, and developing the truths which, in the strict sense, make up the Deposit itself of the Faith; that is to say, revealed truths: and by consequence, to warding off errors directly opposed to them,—in other words, to condemning heresies. This is the fundamental revealed dogma of the Catholic faith; and hence its denial is not a heresy only, but the very root of all heresies.
Herein it is contained and hence it immediately follows, that the infallibility promised for guardianship of the Deposit reaches to the whole extent of the Deposit to be guarded; that is, to truths even in themselves not revealed, in so far as they are in contact with revealed truths, and are needed to the custody, proposition, development, and defence of the latter. This extension of infallibility, by consent of all theologians, is a truth so certain in theology that its denial would be most grave error, or even, according to many, heresy : although up to the present time it has not been explicitly condemned as heresy. (Vide Card, de Lugo de Fide, disp. xx., n. 106, 114; Baiiez, 2, 2, q. 11, a. 2, concl. 2 ; Suarez de Fide, disp. v., sect. 6, n. 4, 5, 8 ; sect. 8, n. 4.)
Corollary A.—Not only revealed truths, but also truths connected with revealed, in so far as the connexion extends, may be infallibly defined by the infallible magisterium; and similarly, not only heresies may be condemned, but minor censures may be pronounced with infallible authority under the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Because therefore a doctrine is not defined as in itself revealed; or because errors are not one by one condemned with the note of heresy, but are proscribed with no particular censure or with minor censures, or with several censures in globo; for these causes, taken by themselves, it cannot be affirmed without grave error that a definition is not infallible, or is not a pronouncement ex cathedra.
Corollary B.—No Catholic may deny that [the quality of] infallible definitions [belongs to] the dogmatic Constitutions of the Council of Constance ag. inst the articles of Wycliffe and John Hus, confirmed by Martin V.; of Leo X. against Luther (" Exsurge"); of Clement XI. against the Jansenists (" Unigenitus "), &c., in which propositions are condemned under different censures in globo; as also the Constitution of Pius VI. against (the synod of) Pistoja (" Auctorem Fidei"), in which a very large number of propositions are severally proscribed under minor censures. And this Corollary, which is certain on other grounds also, in turn demonstrates the truth of the Principle laid down, because without it the present Corollary itself could not stand.
Corollary C.—A quality which is defined to belong to a proposition, infallibly belongs to it in the sense and way intended in the definition. Hence those who are of opinion, for instance, that a proposition is said to be temerarious which is asserted against strong reasons and weighty authority without due foundation, also affirm that it is this quality, and not per se the falsehood of the proposition, which is defined in the censure of temerity. This same thing, —viz. that the definition does not touch the falsehood of the proposition, but some other quality worthy of condemnation,—they more especially affirm in the case of censures, by which propositions are branded as scandalous, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears. (Vide Card, de Lugo de Fide, disp. xx., n. 114 ; Canum, 1. xii., c. 11, ad finem.) And at all events, when the Council of Vienne considered that an opinion (that about the infusion of grace and the virtues in the case of infants) was to be chosen as the more probable" this per se is not a definition of the truth (of the opinion), but only of its greater probability. (Cf. de Lugo, 1. c. n. 115-129.)
Corollary D.—The Infallibility of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff is believed with divine faith, on the authority of God revealing; an opinion proposed by the infallible definition of the Church or the Pontiff as true but not as revealed, is believed on the revealed authority of the proponent. Whence we may call mediately divine that faith, which some call ecclesiastical.
Principle V.—If the Church is infallible in guarding the Deposit of Faith at least in the strict sense, and therefore in declaring the true sense of revealed dogmas,—she is, by this very fact, infallible in judging of the true sense, the import and extent (intensione et extensione), of her own authority and infallibility; or, which comes to the same thing, in judging of the conditions and objects on which authority belongs to her by divine right and on which the assistance of the Spirit of truth has been promised her. For this authority and infallibility is undoubtedly a revealed dogma.
Corollary.—It involves a contradiction, to admit the infallibility of the Church in revealed dogmas, and at the same time to deny the authority of a definition admitted actually to exist, on the ground that the point defined is not a dogma of the Faith.*
* In order that I may not seem, in a plain matter, to be fighting against shadows, here is a proof of this contradiction, openly published in our own day by schismatical priests (presbyteris sectariis). "The conditions therefore required for the judgment of the Pope to be certainly infallible are two: 1st, that the judgment turns upon matter revealed; 2nd, that it be accompanied by the consent of the Episcopate. Failing this second condition, it is not certain that the judgment is infallible; failing the first, it is certain that it is not infallible However unanimous (which they are not) the Pope and the bishops might be in deciding that the Church has need at this time of the temporal power of the Pope, and in declaring excommunicate all who think otherwise, this decision, as coming not from the teachers of the Church and the custodians of revealed truth but from private doctors, would have no authority to bind consciences.''—Mediatore, August 9,1862.
Principle VI.—As it is certain from the principles of revelation itself, as they are understood and proclaimed by the Church, that truth appertains to her infallible magisterium, and errors are subject to her infallible judgment, for no other end than the custody of the Deposit of the Christian religion, and its protection and advancement among the faithful;—so is it equally certain that in most sciences, as they are, and ought to be, cultivated by mankind on principles purely natural and from sources non-revealed, in philosophy especially, theoretical and practical, in history, geology, ethnography, &c. there are found truths, which are likewise revealed or are connected with revealed truths. The reason is, because revelation contains not only superrational truths, but many cognizable by reason also and from natural sources; in other words, because revelation and natural sciences have in many points a common object-matter. Equally is it evident, that in these sciences, not indeed by right use of reason, but by its abuse and through ignorance, hypotheses may be laid down as principles, and conclusions may be deduced, opposed, directly or indirectly, to truths of revelation, rational or superrational; and consequently (since truth cannot contradict truth) containing errors cognizable and capable of condemnation on revealed principles.*
* "As theology (sacra doctrina) is founded on the light of faith, so is philosophy on the natural light of reason. Whence it is impossible that the truths of philosophy should be contrary to the truths of faith And whatever in the sayings of philosophers is found contrary to the Faith, that does not belong to philosophy, but is rather an abuse of philosophy arising from defect of reason."—S. Thom. in Boeth. Trin. Proleg., q. 2, a. 3.
The Church's magisterium therefore teaches truths of this sort, and may infallibly judge of errors of this sort, not by teaching human sciences on their principles, but by judging of them on hers.t Wherefore the infallible Church never judges, and in virtue of her promised infallibility the Holy Ghost can never even permit her to pass a definitive judgment, on truths or errors, except in order to the custody of the Deposit and in virtue of her divinely-imposed office of guarding the Deposit.
t "The proper knowledge of this science (theology) is that which comes from revelation, and not that which comes from natural (objective) reason. And hence it does not appertain to it to prove the principles of the other sciences, but only to judge of theln. For whatever in other sciences is found to contradict truths of this science, is wholly condemned as false."—S. Thom,, i. q. 1, a 6, ad 2.
Corollary A.—Although philosophy and the other natural sciences rest on their own proper principles, which are known or so far as they are known, not from revelation and the authentic magisterium of the Church, but by reason and from natural sources ;—nevertheless the magisterium of the Church can, and indeed ought, from revealed principles, point out for avoidance errors opposed to the integrity and safety of the Deposit to be guarded. Catholic scientific men, therefore, should keep this standard before their eyes. Reason prescribes this course, lest they fall into error; faith prescribes it, lest they fall into error contrary to the truths thereof.
Corollary B..—Those who profess themselves Catholics and consequently acknowledge the authentic magisterium of the Church, and yet affirm that philosophy, in the mode explained, is not subject to this norm, that the progress of science is impeded by the same, that the Church should let philosophy correct her own mistakes (Syllab. Pontif., propp. x., xi., xii., xiv.),— such men demand liberty to embrace error by an abuse of philosophy, and deny the Church's right and duty of providing for the integrity and soundness of the doctrine of faith.—Vide Con. Vatic. Constit. de Fide, cap. 4, can. 2.
Principle VII.—The Holy Apostolic See, which has had committed to it the custody of the Deposit, the power of shepherding the universal Church for the salvation of souls, may prescribe theological opinions or opinions bearing on theology as to be followed, or proscribe them as to be avoided, not solely with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by definitive sentence, but also without such intention; from the need and with the intention of looking to the security, absolute or relative, of Catholic doctrine. In such declarations, although there is no infallible truth of the doctrine, because by the supposition there is no intention of deciding such truth; yet there is infallibly security :* security, I mean, both objective of the doctrine declared (absolute or relative), and subjective in so far as it is safe for all to embrace it, and unsafe and incompatible with the submission due to the divinely-constituted magisterium to reject it.
* That these two things, infallible truth and infallible security, do not coincide, is clear even from the fact that otherwise no probable or more probable doctrine could be called sound and secure.
Corollary A.—The authority of the magisterium instituted by Christ in the Church is to be regarded, in the present matter, from a twofold point of view :—a, as in individual acts it is aided by the Holy Ghost to define the truth infallibly,—in other words, as it is the infallible authority; , as the same magisterium acts ; with the pastoral authority indeed divinely entrusted to it, but not with all its intensity (if we may say so), nor as defining the truth in the last resort, but so far as shall have seemed needful or opportune and sufficient for security of doctrine; and the magisterium in this point of view we may perhaps call the authority of universal ecclesiastical provision.
Corollary B.—The authority of infallibility cannot be communicated by the Pontiff to others, as his ministers acting in his name. If at any time, therefore, an infallible definition is published by any sacred Congregation at Rome, the Congregation itself merely performs the function of consultor and ministerial promulgator, while the Pontiff alone defines. Here then must be found those tokens which, we have said above, make clear the Pope's intention.
The authority of universal ecclesiastical provision, as we have termed it, not indeed independently but in dependence upon the Pontiff, is communicable, and is by the Pope himself communicated with greater or lesser extension, to certain sacred Congregations of Cardinals.
Corollary C.—It is a mistake (to suppose) that the only authority to which intellectual assent is due, is that of divine revelation or of an infallible definition of the Church or the Pope. There are manifold degrees of religious assent. For our present purpose [it is sufficient to ] distinguish assent of faith properly and immediately divine, on the authority of God revealing ; assent of faith which we called above mediately divine on the authority of him who infallibly defines a doctrine as true, but not as revealed; religious assent, on the authority of universal ecclesiastical provision in the sense explained.
This very doctrine has been clearly set forth by the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX., in his letter of December 21st, 1863, to the Archbishop of Munich, beginning, "Tuas libenter accepimus." "We wish to believe that [those who attended the literary Congress at Munich] were not desirous of restricting the undoubted obligation of Catholic teachers and writers to those points only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all . . . . For, even though the question concerned that submission which is to be yielded in an act of divine faith, yet that would not have to be confined to points defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils or of Roman Pontiffs and this Apostolic See, but to be extended to those things also which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world, and are accordingly held to appertain to the faith by the universal and consistent consent of Catholic theologians. But since the question concerns that submission by which all Catholics are bound in conscience who apply themselves to the speculative sciences with a view to conferring new benefits on the Church by their writings, hence the members of the same Congress should recognize that it is not enough for learned Catholics to receive and revere the aforesaid dogmas, but that they must also submit themselves to the doctrinal decisions put forth by Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine held by common and consistent consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions opposed to those heads of doctrines, though they cannot be called heretical, yet deserve some other theological censure."
Further, although the authority of universal ecclesiastical provision (as we have called it, resides primarily and directly in no individual except the pastor of the whole Church, yet a particular [power of] provision, subordinated to the Chief Pastor, belongs to each bishop in his own diocese. Nay, in foro interno, and in order to the direction of the spiritual life, it belongs in a way to the directors of souls. And this example (as in general the evangelical counsel of obedience, not only of the will but also of the intellect) is perhaps the easiest way of explaining, how infallibility in him who gives a command is not a necessary condition [for the propriety] of intellectual submission and obedience.
Corollary D.—The infallible authority and supreme magisterium of the Pontiff defining, had never anything whatever to do with the case of Galileo Galilei, and with the Abjuration of opinions enjoined him. For not only did not even a shadow of a Pontifical definition enter into that case, but in the whole of that decree of the Cardinals of the Holy Office, and in the form of Abjuration, the name even of the Pontiff is never found expressed. The documents may be read in full in "John Baptist Riccioli Almagist," Nov., p. 11, 1. ix., sect. 4, c. 40, p. 496, seqq. Nevertheless, in the then state of the question, the matter not having been yet cleared up, since the truth of the astronomical system, at that date by no means proved, supplied no foundation for interpreting the passages of Scripture in any other than the obvious sense, and since the most learned men of that time in physics and astronomy, as Tycho Brahe, Alexander Tasso, Christopher Scheiner, Antonio Delfino, Justus Lipsius (vide Riccioli, 1. c. p. 495), judged Galileo's opinion contrary to Scripture, it was certainly the business of the authority of ecclesiastical provision to take care that the interpretation of Scripture was not injured by conjectures and hypotheses, which seemed by no means likely to most people at the time. No examination of doctrine was instituted preparatory to its definition for the universal Church, for no one thought of such a thing; but a criminal process was held in the year 1633, in which, under these circumstances, no other judgment could be come to, than that which is contained in the final sentence of the judges. "In order that your serious and harmful error and transgression* may not remain altogether unpunished, and that you yourself may become more cautious for the future and be an example to others to abstain from such faults, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be forbidden by public edict, and yourself we condemn to the common (formalem) prison of this Holy Office for a period to be fixed at our will; and as a wholesome penance we command that for the next three years you recite once in the week the seven penitential psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, changing, or taking away, wholly or in part, the aforesaid pains and penalties." t—Vide "Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques," 2C serie, t. iii., pp. 105 seqq. 217 seqq.
* Galileo had broken the command enjoined him in 1616, which he had promised to obey, to the effect that " for the future he should not be allowed to defend the aforesaid false opinion, or teach it any way by word or writing." —Vide "Riccioli," 1. c. p. 498.
t This is not the place to speak of the falsehoods by which, long after the affair was finished and after Galileo's death, imaginary tales began (to be spread) about threats and tortures used against him. To refute them, it will be enough to read merely the narration of Vincenzo Viviani, Galileo's pupil and friend, in "Opp. Galilei, ed. Ticini," 1744., t. i., p. 64. See also "Marino Marini Galileo e 1' Inquisizione." Roma. 1850. "La Verite" sur lc Proces de Galilee," (" Melanges Scientifiques, etc., de M. Biot." Paris. 1858, tom. iii. pp. 1, seqq.
(See notice in a previous page of F. Franzelin's treatise on Tradition and Scripture.)
WHAT has been so far discussed concerning the magisterial and ministerial means for preserving Tradition, seems to demand a more distinct statement of principles at least, concerning the Subject and Object of the power of infallibly teaching and judging. The full exposition and demonstration, however, of this most important point belongs to its own proper Treatise on the Church and the Roman Pontiff.
Principle I.—Indefectibility in the truth of that Faith which is one in Catholicity, or infallibility in believing has been, by God, promised to and conferred upon the Universal Church, which is "the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), " built upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. xvi. 18). Whatever, therefore, the universal Church believes as of faith, that by Christ's promise and ordaining is evidently infallibly true. Of this infallibility in believing, which is commonly called passive, the Subject is the universal Church herself.
The Church is kept in the unfailing truth of one Faith by the Holy Ghost by means of an authentic ministerial and magisterial power, thiough the Pastors and Doctors whom Christ has given for the building up of th? body of Christ (Eph. iv. 11, 12), to teach the Church of God with authority; to which was to be due from all the faithful, as corresponding effect, consent and "obedience of faith." Wherefore to this magisterium instituted, by Himself, Christ promised and upon it He conferred infallibility in teaching all that He himself and the Holy Ghost had taught.*
* Because the magisterium, furnished with this charisma of infallibility, by its ministerial action guards, proposes, developes, and protects revealed doctrine, and keeps all the faithful in unity of faith: hence infallibility in teaching is commpnly called active, and has for its end indefectibility in believing, which through the " obedience of faith " is the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Church.
The Subject then of this infallibility in teaching are all and only those, to whom has been entrusted by God the right and office of teaching with authority the Church Universal.
(a) Thus the Teaching Church.—that is the body of Pastors and Doctors in union, agreement, and subordination towards the visible head of the Church,—is infallible : and that () in her universal and consentient preaching of doctrine on faith or morals; () in her solemn judgments or definitions of the same doctrine. For to the Teaching Church so constituted has been said : "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth: go ye therefore and teach all nations; baptizing them .... teaching them to keep all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold l am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18, seq.). "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, to abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. .... He will teach you all things, and will suggest to you all things whatsoever I have told you (a ilirov iftiv[Greek])" (John xiv. 16, 26).
These promises do not appertain to the individual successors of the Apostles, because individually they do not succeed the Apostles in the office of teaching with authority the whole Church ; an office which in the Apostles (excepting only Peter, head of the Church, who was always to continue in his successors) was not ordinary, but extraordinary and personal to themselves: but the promises were made to the body of the Apostolic succession in common, in so far as they are the Teaching Church. But they are not the Teaching Church, except in so far as they remain united, consentient, and subordinated towards the visible head of the whole Church.
Wherefore the efficient cause of the infallibility of the teaching Church, whether in its universal preaching or in its solemn definitions and judgments, is without doubt the promised assistance of the Spirit of truth; but the condition without which the successors of the Apostles are not the Teaching Church, and the formal cause by which they are constituted as tho Teaching Church to which has been promised Christ's guardianship and the assistance of the Spirit of truth in teaching, is the visible head of the Church set up by Christ, and the union and agreement of the members with that head ; just as the form of the unity of the visible Church in general is the Church's visible head itself. Hence it is that the ordinary office of infallibly teaching,— that is, the office instituted in the case of the Apostles to be passed on to their Successors,—was explained by Christ our Lord in words which were addressed, never to the individuals, but always to the entire College in union with Peter.
(b.) For the opposite reason, the words of Christ by which the primacy and infallibility of magisterium included in the primacy is promised and granted to Peter, designate him alone not only as expressly distinct from the rest, but also in relation to the rest as who should confirm and shepherd them. "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona and I say to thee, thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt, xvi.). "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and do thou turn and (tjriorpti/iac[Greek]) confirm thy brethren" (Luke xxii.). "Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him: Feed my lambs feed my sheep" (John xxi.).*
* In the published Greek the reading is Sifiwv 'luiva ; in other unpublished Codices, 'Iuavvov, or 'Itoavov, or 'luavva, or Xiftuiv only. [Greek letters not accurately transferred from original article]
Thus Peter, as ordinary endowment for himself and for each of his Successors, received from Christ the power and office of feeding and teaching the Universal Church in faith and morals, in such sort that this very power, conferred in the person of Peter upon each of his Successors, demands by divine institution the obedience of faith and consent of the whole Church; and that hence the infallibility of the whole Church in believing cannot stand, except in so far as upon the head of the Church, successor of Peter, together with such right of exacting consent of faith, there has been simultaneously conferred infallibility in teaching; when (that is) he proposes a doctrine on faith or morals, with such a definitive sentence as binds the whole Church to consent. The Subject then of infallibility is Peter's Successor himself; through the divine assistance which has been promised to him per se, as teacher of the Church, and not on condition of the concurrent judgment or consent of the other pastors and doctors who, compared with the Pontiff so teaching the Church, are the most noble part of the Church so built upon this rock that the gates of hell may not prevail against it, are brethren to be confirmed, sheep to be shepherded; although, compared with the faithful they continue pastors and doctors, to propose to the faithful, to teach and to defend with authority the defined doctrine itself.
"It is a revealed dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of his office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is endowed, by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, with that infallibility with which our Divine Redeemer willed that the Church should be furnished in defining doctrine of faith or morals; and, therefore, that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not in virtue of the consent of the Church " ("Definition of Vatican Council," Constit. I., de Eccl. Christi, cap. 4).
Corollary A.—There is not a twofold adequately distinct Subject of the infallibility promised by Christ to definitions of doctrine on faith or morals; but [the Subject of infallibility] is both the visible head of the Church regarded per se; and the same visible head taken as ordering and informing the body of the teaching Church, which, thus constituted, is itself infallible by the assistance of the Spirit of truth. This inadequate distinction in the Subject of infallibility is pointed out in the Vatican definition itself just before cited.
Corollary B.—Whatever is to be believed with Catholic faith or is to be held with theological certainty, on the objective extent of infallibility [ec extensione quoad objectum] vested in the Church defining or in a general Council, the same, in the same way, is to be believed and held on the infallibility vested in the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. This is the very point defined by the Vatican Council.
Corollary C.—The antecedent consent of the Church may indeed be the objective means by which the Pontiff arrives at the knowledge of the definability of a doctrine: but it is not of itself and from the nature of the case the sole and necessary means of knowing; for doctrines on faith or morals may be recognized as definable from other sources and by other means as well, and questions hitherto doubtful and controverted even within the borders of the Church may be defined. And by no means is such consent of the Church or Bishops, whether antecedent, concomitant, or subsequent, necessary by way of authentic judgment concurring with the judgment or definition of the Pontiff. The Gallican opinion requiring this consent of the Church as necessary to the infallibility of the Pontiff's definitions,—in such sort that the sole Subject of infallibility should be the body of the teaching Church, namely the Pope with the bishops,—is now a heresy directly and explicitly condemned by the Vatican Council. The subsequent consent of the whole Church, however, is always the effect of the Pontiff's definition.
Corollary D.—According to the declaration of the Vatican Council itself, the Pontiff is said to speak ex cathedra " when in discharge of his office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians he defines, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church." For the Apostolic Chair is nothing else than the supreme authentic magisterium, whose definitive doctrinal sentence binds the universal Church to consent. This intention of defining doctrine, or of teaching with definitive sentence and with authority obliging consent of the universal Church, should be made plain and cognizable by clear signs. No settled form however, to be necessarily used by the Pontiff in making known this his will, is essential. For although there be certain solemn forms which of themselves express a speaking ex cathedra, and which accordingly the Pontiff uses only when speaking ex cathedra,—such as, for example, dogmatic Bulls,—yet this form is not so essential and exclusive, that without it the Pontiff cannot, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, define doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, condemn in the same way errors opposed to it, and make plain his will to that effect.
Corollary E.—In the documents themselves of Councils and Pontiffs in which it is without doubt proposed to publish definitions of doctrine, there may be, and usually are, contained many things which it is not intended to define: obiter dicta which are usually enunciated indirectly; mostly, also, the arguments brought to prove the definitive sentence itself, &c. Although these things are of weighty authority, yet they are not infallible definitions.
So also there may be and there are public Pontifical documents, in which certain matters connected with faith or morals are the subject of warning, recommendation, or blame, or whose purpose is to forbid the spread of any opinion or error, but whose scope is not to proclaim a definitive sentence binding the whole Church, and which, for that reason, are not pronouncements ex cathedra. "For the Pontiffs often reply to the private questions of this or that bishop, by explaining their own opinion on the matters set forth, not by passing a sentence by which they will the faithful to be bound in believing" (Melch. Canus, 1. vi., c. 8, ad. 7). To this category are justly referred, for instance, the two letters of Honorius I. to Sergius of Constantinople.*( In the Tract, de Incarnat. we have spoken of the (by no means heretical) sense of these letters.) That doubt may arise as to whether certain Pontifical documents contain a pronouncement ex cathedra and definition of doctrine, we do not deny: but the same thing occurs sometimes in respect of Conciliar documents also; a fact of which we have an example in the diverse opinions which have existed and still exist in some quarters on the Instructions for the Armenians published in the Council of Florence, on the point whether the teaching therein contained, especially on the matter and form of the Sacraments, is to be considered dogmatic or merely as practical instruction. Whenever such doubts occur, theologians properly warn us "that in discriminating these matters the judgment of wise men, and (more especially) the sense and consent of the Church, is of much force" (Tanner de Fide, q. 4, dub. 6, n. 262).
This will be sufficient for our scope on the Subject of infallibility. Our present treatise is more particularly concerned with the doctrine on the Object of infallibility.
Principle II.—The Deposit of the Christian Faith, strictly understood, embraces all and only those things, which have been explicitly or implicitly revealed to the human race by God to be believed, done, or followed ; in other words, which have been made known by Catholic revelation (as distinct from private divine revelations) for the eternal salvation of mankind.
Corollary A.—In the Deposit of the Faith are contained theoretical doctrines (and among these also truths which, in so far as they are cognizable by reason, are commonly said to appertain to natural religion)—practical laws (and among these also the natural law written in the hearts of men as reasonable beings), as also certain perpetual and fundamental institutions, such as the Church, its power, its form of government, &c. In other words, these are contained in the Deposit), revealed and supernatural dogmatics, ethics, politics (7roXirfia[Greek]).
Corollary B.—Only truths revealed by God, when duly proposed may and ought to be believed with divine faith; because faith is assent on account of the authority of God revealing.
Corollary C.—In the Deposit of Faith may be objectively contained truths, not yet duly proposed, so that all should be bound to believe them as revealed with divine faith.
Principle III.—With truths revealed and duly proposed are connected and related many things, without which those revealed truths themselves either could not, or could not so well, in all their fulness, be guarded, developed, and defended; although these [connected truths] are either not themselves revealed, or are not yet duly proposed to be believed with divine faith.
Such are many theoretical and practical truths in that triple order, dogmatic, moral, and (so to speak) constitutive, which we have pointed out; as truths theologically certain, e.g., on the procession of the Holy Ghost by way of love in connexion with the mystery of the Blessed Trinity; on the sanctification of the humanity of Christ by the created gifts also, on its [enjoyment of ] the Beatific Vision from the first moment of its existence, in connexion with the mystery of the Incarnation, &c.: then again certain circumstances bound up with revealed truths, when these are to be practically applied, e.g., if there is question of the genuine sense of texts in such and such books, in so far as they are agreeable or opposed to the Deposit of Faith; facts again of themselves historical, e.g., the legitimate celebration of a particular Council, &c.; furthermore, certain special dispositions of divine providence pertaining to the better estate and government of the universal Church, e.g., if there is question of the opportuneness or moral necessity of political independence and temporal dominion in the case of the Supreme Pontiff, in order to the [good] government of the Church, &c.
Corollary A.—The Deposit of Faith is violated; not only by direct denial of revealed truths and by heresy, but may also be attacked, and in the mind of the faithful exposed to dangers, by errors contrary to truths, not in themselves revealed, yet connected with revealed truths, and consequently theological or religious.
Corollary B—Although the Deposit of Faith strictly understood comprises revealed truth only, nevertheless the deposit to be guarded in its entirety, with all its outworks and modes of application, is of wider extent: "O Timothy, keep the Deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words" (1 Tim. vi. 20).
Principle IV.—The authority (infallible under the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost) of that authority to which Christ has entrusted the office of infallibly keeping the Deposit, and of guarding it against threatening errors, appertains in the first place to guarding, setting forth, and developing the truths which, in the strict sense, make up the Deposit itself of the Faith; that is to say, revealed truths: and by consequence, to warding off errors directly opposed to them,—in other words, to condemning heresies. This is the fundamental revealed dogma of the Catholic faith; and hence its denial is not a heresy only, but the very root of all heresies.
Herein it is contained and hence it immediately follows, that the infallibility promised for guardianship of the Deposit reaches to the whole extent of the Deposit to be guarded; that is, to truths even in themselves not revealed, in so far as they are in contact with revealed truths, and are needed to the custody, proposition, development, and defence of the latter. This extension of infallibility, by consent of all theologians, is a truth so certain in theology that its denial would be most grave error, or even, according to many, heresy : although up to the present time it has not been explicitly condemned as heresy. (Vide Card, de Lugo de Fide, disp. xx., n. 106, 114; Baiiez, 2, 2, q. 11, a. 2, concl. 2 ; Suarez de Fide, disp. v., sect. 6, n. 4, 5, 8 ; sect. 8, n. 4.)
Corollary A.—Not only revealed truths, but also truths connected with revealed, in so far as the connexion extends, may be infallibly defined by the infallible magisterium; and similarly, not only heresies may be condemned, but minor censures may be pronounced with infallible authority under the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Because therefore a doctrine is not defined as in itself revealed; or because errors are not one by one condemned with the note of heresy, but are proscribed with no particular censure or with minor censures, or with several censures in globo; for these causes, taken by themselves, it cannot be affirmed without grave error that a definition is not infallible, or is not a pronouncement ex cathedra.
Corollary B.—No Catholic may deny that [the quality of] infallible definitions [belongs to] the dogmatic Constitutions of the Council of Constance ag. inst the articles of Wycliffe and John Hus, confirmed by Martin V.; of Leo X. against Luther (" Exsurge"); of Clement XI. against the Jansenists (" Unigenitus "), &c., in which propositions are condemned under different censures in globo; as also the Constitution of Pius VI. against (the synod of) Pistoja (" Auctorem Fidei"), in which a very large number of propositions are severally proscribed under minor censures. And this Corollary, which is certain on other grounds also, in turn demonstrates the truth of the Principle laid down, because without it the present Corollary itself could not stand.
Corollary C.—A quality which is defined to belong to a proposition, infallibly belongs to it in the sense and way intended in the definition. Hence those who are of opinion, for instance, that a proposition is said to be temerarious which is asserted against strong reasons and weighty authority without due foundation, also affirm that it is this quality, and not per se the falsehood of the proposition, which is defined in the censure of temerity. This same thing, —viz. that the definition does not touch the falsehood of the proposition, but some other quality worthy of condemnation,—they more especially affirm in the case of censures, by which propositions are branded as scandalous, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears. (Vide Card, de Lugo de Fide, disp. xx., n. 114 ; Canum, 1. xii., c. 11, ad finem.) And at all events, when the Council of Vienne considered that an opinion (that about the infusion of grace and the virtues in the case of infants) was to be chosen as the more probable" this per se is not a definition of the truth (of the opinion), but only of its greater probability. (Cf. de Lugo, 1. c. n. 115-129.)
Corollary D.—The Infallibility of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff is believed with divine faith, on the authority of God revealing; an opinion proposed by the infallible definition of the Church or the Pontiff as true but not as revealed, is believed on the revealed authority of the proponent. Whence we may call mediately divine that faith, which some call ecclesiastical.
Principle V.—If the Church is infallible in guarding the Deposit of Faith at least in the strict sense, and therefore in declaring the true sense of revealed dogmas,—she is, by this very fact, infallible in judging of the true sense, the import and extent (intensione et extensione), of her own authority and infallibility; or, which comes to the same thing, in judging of the conditions and objects on which authority belongs to her by divine right and on which the assistance of the Spirit of truth has been promised her. For this authority and infallibility is undoubtedly a revealed dogma.
Corollary.—It involves a contradiction, to admit the infallibility of the Church in revealed dogmas, and at the same time to deny the authority of a definition admitted actually to exist, on the ground that the point defined is not a dogma of the Faith.*
* In order that I may not seem, in a plain matter, to be fighting against shadows, here is a proof of this contradiction, openly published in our own day by schismatical priests (presbyteris sectariis). "The conditions therefore required for the judgment of the Pope to be certainly infallible are two: 1st, that the judgment turns upon matter revealed; 2nd, that it be accompanied by the consent of the Episcopate. Failing this second condition, it is not certain that the judgment is infallible; failing the first, it is certain that it is not infallible However unanimous (which they are not) the Pope and the bishops might be in deciding that the Church has need at this time of the temporal power of the Pope, and in declaring excommunicate all who think otherwise, this decision, as coming not from the teachers of the Church and the custodians of revealed truth but from private doctors, would have no authority to bind consciences.''—Mediatore, August 9,1862.
Principle VI.—As it is certain from the principles of revelation itself, as they are understood and proclaimed by the Church, that truth appertains to her infallible magisterium, and errors are subject to her infallible judgment, for no other end than the custody of the Deposit of the Christian religion, and its protection and advancement among the faithful;—so is it equally certain that in most sciences, as they are, and ought to be, cultivated by mankind on principles purely natural and from sources non-revealed, in philosophy especially, theoretical and practical, in history, geology, ethnography, &c. there are found truths, which are likewise revealed or are connected with revealed truths. The reason is, because revelation contains not only superrational truths, but many cognizable by reason also and from natural sources; in other words, because revelation and natural sciences have in many points a common object-matter. Equally is it evident, that in these sciences, not indeed by right use of reason, but by its abuse and through ignorance, hypotheses may be laid down as principles, and conclusions may be deduced, opposed, directly or indirectly, to truths of revelation, rational or superrational; and consequently (since truth cannot contradict truth) containing errors cognizable and capable of condemnation on revealed principles.*
* "As theology (sacra doctrina) is founded on the light of faith, so is philosophy on the natural light of reason. Whence it is impossible that the truths of philosophy should be contrary to the truths of faith And whatever in the sayings of philosophers is found contrary to the Faith, that does not belong to philosophy, but is rather an abuse of philosophy arising from defect of reason."—S. Thom. in Boeth. Trin. Proleg., q. 2, a. 3.
The Church's magisterium therefore teaches truths of this sort, and may infallibly judge of errors of this sort, not by teaching human sciences on their principles, but by judging of them on hers.t Wherefore the infallible Church never judges, and in virtue of her promised infallibility the Holy Ghost can never even permit her to pass a definitive judgment, on truths or errors, except in order to the custody of the Deposit and in virtue of her divinely-imposed office of guarding the Deposit.
t "The proper knowledge of this science (theology) is that which comes from revelation, and not that which comes from natural (objective) reason. And hence it does not appertain to it to prove the principles of the other sciences, but only to judge of theln. For whatever in other sciences is found to contradict truths of this science, is wholly condemned as false."—S. Thom,, i. q. 1, a 6, ad 2.
Corollary A.—Although philosophy and the other natural sciences rest on their own proper principles, which are known or so far as they are known, not from revelation and the authentic magisterium of the Church, but by reason and from natural sources ;—nevertheless the magisterium of the Church can, and indeed ought, from revealed principles, point out for avoidance errors opposed to the integrity and safety of the Deposit to be guarded. Catholic scientific men, therefore, should keep this standard before their eyes. Reason prescribes this course, lest they fall into error; faith prescribes it, lest they fall into error contrary to the truths thereof.
Corollary B..—Those who profess themselves Catholics and consequently acknowledge the authentic magisterium of the Church, and yet affirm that philosophy, in the mode explained, is not subject to this norm, that the progress of science is impeded by the same, that the Church should let philosophy correct her own mistakes (Syllab. Pontif., propp. x., xi., xii., xiv.),— such men demand liberty to embrace error by an abuse of philosophy, and deny the Church's right and duty of providing for the integrity and soundness of the doctrine of faith.—Vide Con. Vatic. Constit. de Fide, cap. 4, can. 2.
Principle VII.—The Holy Apostolic See, which has had committed to it the custody of the Deposit, the power of shepherding the universal Church for the salvation of souls, may prescribe theological opinions or opinions bearing on theology as to be followed, or proscribe them as to be avoided, not solely with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by definitive sentence, but also without such intention; from the need and with the intention of looking to the security, absolute or relative, of Catholic doctrine. In such declarations, although there is no infallible truth of the doctrine, because by the supposition there is no intention of deciding such truth; yet there is infallibly security :* security, I mean, both objective of the doctrine declared (absolute or relative), and subjective in so far as it is safe for all to embrace it, and unsafe and incompatible with the submission due to the divinely-constituted magisterium to reject it.
* That these two things, infallible truth and infallible security, do not coincide, is clear even from the fact that otherwise no probable or more probable doctrine could be called sound and secure.
Corollary A.—The authority of the magisterium instituted by Christ in the Church is to be regarded, in the present matter, from a twofold point of view :—a, as in individual acts it is aided by the Holy Ghost to define the truth infallibly,—in other words, as it is the infallible authority; , as the same magisterium acts ; with the pastoral authority indeed divinely entrusted to it, but not with all its intensity (if we may say so), nor as defining the truth in the last resort, but so far as shall have seemed needful or opportune and sufficient for security of doctrine; and the magisterium in this point of view we may perhaps call the authority of universal ecclesiastical provision.
Corollary B.—The authority of infallibility cannot be communicated by the Pontiff to others, as his ministers acting in his name. If at any time, therefore, an infallible definition is published by any sacred Congregation at Rome, the Congregation itself merely performs the function of consultor and ministerial promulgator, while the Pontiff alone defines. Here then must be found those tokens which, we have said above, make clear the Pope's intention.
The authority of universal ecclesiastical provision, as we have termed it, not indeed independently but in dependence upon the Pontiff, is communicable, and is by the Pope himself communicated with greater or lesser extension, to certain sacred Congregations of Cardinals.
Corollary C.—It is a mistake (to suppose) that the only authority to which intellectual assent is due, is that of divine revelation or of an infallible definition of the Church or the Pope. There are manifold degrees of religious assent. For our present purpose [it is sufficient to ] distinguish assent of faith properly and immediately divine, on the authority of God revealing ; assent of faith which we called above mediately divine on the authority of him who infallibly defines a doctrine as true, but not as revealed; religious assent, on the authority of universal ecclesiastical provision in the sense explained.
This very doctrine has been clearly set forth by the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX., in his letter of December 21st, 1863, to the Archbishop of Munich, beginning, "Tuas libenter accepimus." "We wish to believe that [those who attended the literary Congress at Munich] were not desirous of restricting the undoubted obligation of Catholic teachers and writers to those points only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all . . . . For, even though the question concerned that submission which is to be yielded in an act of divine faith, yet that would not have to be confined to points defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils or of Roman Pontiffs and this Apostolic See, but to be extended to those things also which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world, and are accordingly held to appertain to the faith by the universal and consistent consent of Catholic theologians. But since the question concerns that submission by which all Catholics are bound in conscience who apply themselves to the speculative sciences with a view to conferring new benefits on the Church by their writings, hence the members of the same Congress should recognize that it is not enough for learned Catholics to receive and revere the aforesaid dogmas, but that they must also submit themselves to the doctrinal decisions put forth by Pontifical Congregations, and to those heads of doctrine held by common and consistent consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions so certain that opinions opposed to those heads of doctrines, though they cannot be called heretical, yet deserve some other theological censure."
Further, although the authority of universal ecclesiastical provision (as we have called it, resides primarily and directly in no individual except the pastor of the whole Church, yet a particular [power of] provision, subordinated to the Chief Pastor, belongs to each bishop in his own diocese. Nay, in foro interno, and in order to the direction of the spiritual life, it belongs in a way to the directors of souls. And this example (as in general the evangelical counsel of obedience, not only of the will but also of the intellect) is perhaps the easiest way of explaining, how infallibility in him who gives a command is not a necessary condition [for the propriety] of intellectual submission and obedience.
Corollary D.—The infallible authority and supreme magisterium of the Pontiff defining, had never anything whatever to do with the case of Galileo Galilei, and with the Abjuration of opinions enjoined him. For not only did not even a shadow of a Pontifical definition enter into that case, but in the whole of that decree of the Cardinals of the Holy Office, and in the form of Abjuration, the name even of the Pontiff is never found expressed. The documents may be read in full in "John Baptist Riccioli Almagist," Nov., p. 11, 1. ix., sect. 4, c. 40, p. 496, seqq. Nevertheless, in the then state of the question, the matter not having been yet cleared up, since the truth of the astronomical system, at that date by no means proved, supplied no foundation for interpreting the passages of Scripture in any other than the obvious sense, and since the most learned men of that time in physics and astronomy, as Tycho Brahe, Alexander Tasso, Christopher Scheiner, Antonio Delfino, Justus Lipsius (vide Riccioli, 1. c. p. 495), judged Galileo's opinion contrary to Scripture, it was certainly the business of the authority of ecclesiastical provision to take care that the interpretation of Scripture was not injured by conjectures and hypotheses, which seemed by no means likely to most people at the time. No examination of doctrine was instituted preparatory to its definition for the universal Church, for no one thought of such a thing; but a criminal process was held in the year 1633, in which, under these circumstances, no other judgment could be come to, than that which is contained in the final sentence of the judges. "In order that your serious and harmful error and transgression* may not remain altogether unpunished, and that you yourself may become more cautious for the future and be an example to others to abstain from such faults, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be forbidden by public edict, and yourself we condemn to the common (formalem) prison of this Holy Office for a period to be fixed at our will; and as a wholesome penance we command that for the next three years you recite once in the week the seven penitential psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, changing, or taking away, wholly or in part, the aforesaid pains and penalties." t—Vide "Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques," 2C serie, t. iii., pp. 105 seqq. 217 seqq.
* Galileo had broken the command enjoined him in 1616, which he had promised to obey, to the effect that " for the future he should not be allowed to defend the aforesaid false opinion, or teach it any way by word or writing." —Vide "Riccioli," 1. c. p. 498.
t This is not the place to speak of the falsehoods by which, long after the affair was finished and after Galileo's death, imaginary tales began (to be spread) about threats and tortures used against him. To refute them, it will be enough to read merely the narration of Vincenzo Viviani, Galileo's pupil and friend, in "Opp. Galilei, ed. Ticini," 1744., t. i., p. 64. See also "Marino Marini Galileo e 1' Inquisizione." Roma. 1850. "La Verite" sur lc Proces de Galilee," (" Melanges Scientifiques, etc., de M. Biot." Paris. 1858, tom. iii. pp. 1, seqq.