2. The Infallibility of the Church

The Infallibility of the Church

 

Table of contents

 

1. Introduction

 

1.1. Identity of mission

 

1.2. Power to teach infallibly

 

1.3. Assistance of the Spirit of truth

 

1.4. Always until the end of the world

 

1.5. Promise to Saint Peter

 

1.6. Transmission

 

2. Preliminary notions on the Magisterium

 

3. Definition of infallibility

 

4. Distinctions in infallibility

 

4.1. Positive and negative aspects

 

4.2. Modes

 

4.2.1. Extraordinary and Universal Magisterium (EUM)

 

4.2.2. Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (OUM)

 

4.2.3. Corollary: The infallibility of the Church during the vacancy of the Apostolic See

 

4.2.4. Counter-arguments

 

4.2.5. Complementarity of the modes

 

4.2.6. Commonitorium of Saint Vincent of Lérins: Infallibility of the Church as a whole: “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus”

 

5. Institution of the authentic and infallible Magisterium

 

6. Subject of the infallible Magisterium

 

7. Object of the infallible Magisterium

 

7.1. Primary object of the Magisterium

 

7.2. Secondary object

 

7.3. Infallibility in dogmatic facts

 

7.3.1. What is a dogmatic fact?

 

7.3.2. Scriptural and traditional proof

 

7.3.3. Universal peaceful acceptance (UPA) as an infallible criterion

 

8. Refutation of counter-arguments

 

9. Conclusion

 

List of sources

 

 

 

1. Introduction

 

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the expected Messiah, come to announce good news to the poor, to console the afflicted, to announce liberty to prisoners and to give liberty to the oppressed (Luke IV, 18): he who believes in Him will know the truth that gives true liberty (Jn VIII, 31-32), while he who will not believe will be condemned (Mk XVI, 16).

 

That, in summary, is the mission Our Lord received from the Father (Jn VI, 38); and on several occasions He demands faith in His teaching (Mk I, 15; Jn VI, 29). That is why He accepted being called Master (Jn XIII, 13), and He even stressed that He is the only true Master (Mt XXIII, 8-10), who not only teaches the truth, but is the Truth (Jn XIV, 6).

 

Other teachers deserve the title of master insofar as they participate in His truth: Our Lord, on the contrary, teaches as one who has authority (Mk I, 22).

 

1.1. Identity of mission

 

The mission Our Lord exercised, He communicated entirely to His Apostles. The doctrine and the institution of the College of the Apostles (and by apostolic succession: of the college of bishops) are the proof of this: after having spent a night in prayer, He chose the Twelve and gave them the name of “Apostles” (that is, sent ones) (Lk VI, 12-13). Throughout His public life He instructed them and prepared them for the mission they were to receive.

 

Finally He entrusted to them the same mission He had exercised on earth: “As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world” (Jn XVII, 18). “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (Jn XX, 21). “He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. And he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Mt X, 40; Lk X, 16).

 

The Apostles constituted in a certain way the same moral person as Our Lord; the Church is in fact the Mystical Body of Jesus, who is its invisible Head; Peter and the college of apostles are its visible summit; they had a charge and a power almost equal to His in fullness and in extent. The idea is massively biblical: Christ possesses all power, then He communicates to the Apostles His mission, His doctrine, His ministerial priesthood, the power to remit sins, the power to bind and loose, the power to preach, baptize, govern, judge and fight demons.

 

Yet with this nuance that Christ remains their invisible Head and the source of their power.

 

This identity of mission is a truth of divine faith because it is contained in Holy Scripture, and it is the Catholic doctrine taught by the First Vatican Council (DS 3050), by Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (§§ 4 and 8) and by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (§ 27).

 

1.2. Power to teach infallibly

 

Thus Our Lord gave to the Apostles and to their successors the charge of continuing His mission as infallible Master, that is, the power to teach infallibly.

 

As we see in the Gospels (Mk XVI, 16), He demands absolute obedience to this Magisterium, to such a point that “he that believeth not shall be condemned”.

 

This threat would be absurd if there were not harmony between His Magisterium and that of the Apostles and of their successors.

 

1.3. Assistance of the Spirit of truth

 

These will in fact have the assistance of the Spirit of truth; they will constitute one thing with Our Lord; they will be the authentic witnesses and interpreters of His doctrine: “I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth… But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth” (Jn XIV, 16-17; XVI, 13).

 

1.4. Always until the end of the world

 

The infallible Magisterium will remain always in the Church: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt XXVIII, 19-20).

 

1.5. Promise to Saint Peter

 

He made to Saint Peter a particular promise: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Mt XVI, 18-19).

 

From this promise one can deduce that Our Lord gave to Saint Peter and to his successors the same mission and the same privileges as those given to the Church (DS 3058, 3074-75).

 

1.6. Transmission

 

The Apostles were conscious of their infallibility and transmitted their powers to their successors.

 

The Fathers closest to the Apostles repeated the same teaching.

 

Saint Ignatius of Antioch († 107) affirms that Jesus Christ, “our inseparable life”, is the will of the Father, that the bishops established everywhere even to the ends of the earth are so by the will of Jesus Christ, and he exhorts the faithful to walk in accord with the will of their bishop (Epistle to the Ephesians, III-IV).

 

For Saint Irenaeus, the apostolic doctrine, which comes to us by the succession of bishops, is the criterion for discerning truth from heresy.

 

“Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church also” (Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 24, 1; PG 7, col. 966; SC 211, pp. 472-474).

 

This doctrine, taught always by the whole Church, has been denied by the Gnostics, the Protestants, the rationalists, the modernists.

 

These heresies, which deny ecclesial infallibility, contradict the very logic of Revelation: without an infallible Magisterium, the faith would be delivered over to human arbitrariness, which is contrary to divine wisdom as Saint Thomas Aquinas sets it forth in his Summa Theologica, where Saint Thomas teaches expressly: “The universal Church cannot err, because she is governed by the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of truth” (II-II, q. 1, a. 9, sed contra).

 

2. Preliminary notions on the Magisterium

 

When you seek to know a truth, you must first of all have recourse to the Magisterium of the Church, which is the rule of faith.

 

If the doctrine set forth by the Magisterium is not clear, it is fitting to have recourse to other documents in which the Magisterium has expressed itself on this question. If you wish to arrive at greater clarity, you will also have to seek the texts that prepared the declaration of the Magisterium: for that you have recourse to certain explanations of the Fathers of the Vatican Council. Finally, you will have to refer to the theologians, and where they are not in agreement, you will have to follow preferably the doctrine held as unanimous by the theologians or the thesis considered as the most probable.

 

The Magisterium is an institution destined to instruct persons: at school, at the University, in formation courses, in seminaries, everywhere there is someone who teaches and hearers who are there to be instructed, there is a Magisterium. The Master par excellence is Our Lord who possesses the truth and teaches it with authority.

 

The authentic Magisterium (from the Greek authentia = authority) is the duty that the legitimate authority has of transmitting the doctrine, to which corresponds for the disciple the obligation and the right to receive the instruction.

 

It is subdivided into:

 

– Broad sense: it does not of itself have the force to require of the disciple the assent of the intelligence (a professor who teaches a personal theory).

 

– Strict sense: it has the force to impose the doctrine in such a way that the disciples are bound to give the assent of their intelligence because of the authority of the master who is the representative of God.

 

The authority of the Magisterium of the Church is founded on the mission it has received from God.

 

The infallible Magisterium: it has the supreme degree of authority.

 

One distinguishes:

 

– Infallibility of fact: it is pure inerrancy, simply the absence of error (in saying any truth whatever, one does not err even if it is neither of faith nor of morals: 2+2=4).

 

– Infallibility of right: it is the impossibility of erring by principle: the infallibility of the Church comes from the assistance of the Holy Ghost and therefore cannot err.

 

The Magisterium is then subdivided into:

 

1. a) Written: even after the death of the author it is exercised by his writings (for example the writings of the popes).

 

1. b) Living: it is exercised by living men and it can be:

 

– Traditional: it must only keep, declare, explain, defend the deposit.

 

– Inventive: it adds objectively new truths: in the Church it does not exist and revelation stopped at the death of the last apostle, Saint John (+ ca. A.D. 100).

 

3. Definition of infallibility

 

Infallibility is that gift by which the Church enjoys such a privilege that, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Ghost, she cannot err in what concerns faith and morals, either in what she teaches, or in what she believes.

 

– Gift:

 

the Church is infallible not ex natura sua (by her nature), but because she participates in the infallibility of Our Lord who is the Head of the Church.

 

– Assistance of the Holy Ghost:

 

the Holy Ghost does not dwell in the soul in a special way but there is an operation of God attributed to the Holy Ghost. It is a special and efficacious help of God, which governs the mind of him who teaches in such a way that the latter, when he proposes a doctrine, is always preserved from error.

 

This does not exclude human research which is even indispensable: the assistance presupposes cooperation.

 

– Faith and Morals: the object of infallibility is constituted by the truths of faith and of morals as well as by those connected with them.

 

– Either in the truths to be taught, or in the truths to be believed: one distinguishes a double infallibility, active and passive.

 

– The active (in docendo) concerns the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens), the body of pastors who cannot err when they transmit a doctrine of faith or of morals.

 

– The passive (in credendo) concerns the ensemble of the faithful (Ecclesia discens), insofar as submitted to the pastors to the extent that their unanimous consent cannot err in what concerns faith or morals. Passive infallibility can exist only in union and submission to the legitimate pastors.

 

– The Church cannot err:

 

infallibility not only signifies immunity from error of fact, called rather inerrancy, but further entails the impossibility of erring, as J. V. de Groot O.P. teaches: the Church “not only does not err, which is a fact, but further cannot err, which pertains to right”: “Ecclesia non solum non errat, quod est factum, verum etiam errare non potest, quod ad jus pertinet.” (J. V. de Groot O.P., Summa apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis, Pars I, q. VIII, art. III, Ratisbonae, Institutum Librarium pridem G. J. Manz, 1890, p. 241.)

 

Likewise, Cardinal Louis Billot S.J. teaches that, according to the divinely established order, the immediate proposition of the truths to be believed depends not on private judgment nor on the private examination of Scripture, but on the authority of the living Magisterium, instituted by Christ with a perpetual charism of infallibility.

 

“De Ecclesia Christi”, tome I, quaestio X:

 

“Thesis XVI. The means by which, according to the divine ordinance, the immediate proposition of the things to be believed depends is not the private mind nor the private examination of Scripture, but the authority of the living magisterium. Now this authority Christ instituted in his Church with the charism of infallibility so that it might remain perpetually, in order that it might be in her the immobile principle both of the incorruptibility and of the unity of the faith. And yet he did not will that the benefit of this authority should extend only to the faithful or even to the catechumens, but he raised the ecclesiastical chair above the summit of the mountains, so that even for those who are far off, in many ways the reason of this magisterium might radiate its light, and also so that it might lead to its perfection what from the beginning had been publicly provided for the diffusion of revealed truth among the human race.”

 

4. Distinctions in infallibility

 

4.1. In infallibility we can distinguish two aspects:

 

– one that we could call positive when the Magisterium positively affirms a truth that until then was only a matter of opinion (e.g. Leo XIII established that Anglican ordinations are invalid) or else when it gives a solemn definition of a truth (which was not yet or was already of faith). These decisions are irreformable.

 

– The aspect that we call negative consists simply in the non-existence of error or of harmfulness with regard to Faith and morals, in everything that the Church teaches as being revealed or connected to Revelation: e.g., when Pius XI promulgated the Mass and the Office of the Sacred Heart, all Catholics were sure that in celebrating this Mass and in reciting this Office they would run no risk of error contrary to faith or morals, or that there was nothing harmful to eternal salvation.

 

These decisions are not irreformable; for this reason the same Pontiff or another can change or annul the Mass and/or the Office: likewise this change would be infallible in a negative sense, that is, there would be no error against Faith or morals or any danger for eternal salvation.

 

Cardinal Franzelin establishes here an important distinction between the infallibly defined truth and doctrinal security. The Magisterium can act, not by an act of infallibility ultimately defining a truth, but in virtue of the authority that Franzelin calls the authority of universal ecclesiastical providence or of doctrinal providence, when it judges it necessary or opportune to provide for the security of doctrine. One must therefore, according to Franzelin, carefully distinguish “the infallible truth” from “the security of doctrine”: “Diligenter vero distinctio inter veritatem infallibilem et inter securitatem doctrinae animadvertatur.” — “The distinction between the infallible truth and the security of doctrine must be carefully noted.”

 

Reference: J.-B. Franzelin, S.J., Tractatus de Divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., Rome, Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875, Latin, p. 128.

 

Franzelin gives precisely as example the reply of the Holy Office of 18 September 1861 concerning seven ontologist propositions. To the question whether these propositions could be taught in all security, the reply was negative. Franzelin specifies that no theologian would consider this decision as an ex cathedra definition; nevertheless it is truly a doctrinal decision declaring that these propositions contain a doctrine “not safe” (doctrinam non tutam). The obedience due to this doctrinal authority requires, according to him, not only that one speak in conformity with this decision, but further that one conform one’s judgment: “non solum loquendum sed etiam sentiendum est” — “one must not only speak thus, but also think thus”.

 

Reference: ibidem, p. 131.

 

It follows that the assent of the intelligence is not exclusively required when God reveals a truth or when the Church or the Pontiff defines it infallibly. Franzelin affirms expressly that there exist several degrees of religious assent, corresponding to the different degrees of doctrinal authority: “Falsum est, auctoritatem propter quam debeatur assensus intellectus, solam esse auctoritatem Dei revelantis vel Ecclesiae aut Pontificis infallibiliter definientis; sunt enim gradus assensus religiosi multiplices.” — “It is false that the authority by reason of which the assent of the intelligence is due is only the authority of God revealing, or that of the Church or of the Pontiff defining infallibly; there are in fact several degrees of religious assent.”

 

Reference: ibidem, Corollarium III, p. 129.

 

4.2. Modes:

 

One distinguishes finally the species of exercise of infallibility according to the modes of the Magisterium.

 

The infallible Magisterium is exercised in two principal manners: the Extraordinary and Universal Magisterium (EUM) and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (OUM).

 

4.2.1. The EUM is solemn and formal:

 

it comprises the ex cathedra definitions of the Roman Pontiff and the decisions of ecumenical Councils in union with the Pope. These acts are solemn judgments that define dogmatically a truth of faith or of morals, rendering the proposition irreformable and obliging to the assent of divine and Catholic faith (DS 3074).

 

For example, the definition of pontifical infallibility at the Vatican Council (DS 3073-3075) is an act of the EUM.

 

This mode is rare, but it is the most striking testimony of the divine assistance, refuting the modernist objections that pretend that the Church can err in her solemn definitions – rejected by the affirmation of the contrary by Pius IX in Pastor Aeternus, 1870, DS 3070–3075.

 

4.2.2. The OUM is continuous and habitual:

 

it is exercised by the unanimous teaching of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, in communion with the Pope, when they propose a doctrine of faith or of morals as definitively to be believed.

 

It does not require a solemn form, but rests on the persistence and the universality of the teaching (DS 3011: “by her ordinary and universal Magisterium”).

 

For example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was taught by the OUM before its solemn definition in 1854.

 

Saint Robert Bellarmine had set forth with particular clarity the theological reason of this infallibility. The Roman Pontiff, as pastor and doctor of the whole Church, cannot teach the universal Church an error against the faith: otherwise the entire Church, bound to listen to him as her supreme pastor, could be drawn into error. Pontifical infallibility is thus inseparably linked to the doctrinal indefectibility of the universal Church.

 

Reference: Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, cap. III; in Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Engl. trans. Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press, Post Falls, Idaho, 2015, English.

 

This mode does not require a solemn judgment. Billot teaches expressly that the obligation of faith is not limited to the truths defined by explicit decrees of the ecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs, but extends also to those that are transmitted as divinely revealed “by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world”: “ordinario totius Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata traduntur” (L. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XVIII, Prati, Giachetti, 1909, p. 421). This doctrine corresponds to the dogmatic formula of Vatican I: “either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Dei Filius, chap. III; DS 3011).

 

4.2.3. Corollary: The infallibility of the Church during the vacancy of the Apostolic See

 

In time of Sede vacante the Pope does not exist; the Church persists without him during the interregnum.

 

Nevertheless the Church herself – mystical body of Christ, assisted by the Holy Ghost – cannot fail, under pain of contradicting the promise of the Lord: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16, 18).

 

The vacancy of the Apostolic See does not however suppress either the existence of the Church or the divine assistance promised to her mission.

 

Cardinal Louis Billot teaches that the assistance of Christ granted to the Apostles and to their successors is “continua et nusquam interrupta”, that is “continuous and never interrupted”, and that the apostolic Magisterium remains until the end endowed with the charism of infallibility.

 

Reference: Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. X, th. XVI, Prati, Giachetti, 1909, p. 381. The text says notably:

 

“Promittitur autem apostolis eorumque in perpetuum successoribus assistentia Christi continua et nusquam interrupta… Ergo magisterium apostolicum in finem usque charismate infallibilitatis donatur”

 

Translation: “There is promised to the Apostles and to their successors forever an assistance of Christ continuous and never interrupted… Therefore the apostolic Magisterium is endowed until the end with the charism of infallibility.”

 

Wernz and Vidal confirm that the residential bishops are the successors of the Apostles and that they constitute, with the Roman Pontiff, the college of bishops, which, in virtue of the promises of Christ, is furnished with the prerogative of infallibility and represents the universal teaching and governing Church. He expressly attaches this constitution of the episcopal college to the institution of Christ, who willed to govern ordinarily and generally his Church not only by the successors of Saint Peter, but also by the bishops established as proper pastors in their dioceses.

 

Reference: F. X. Wernz, S.J. – P. Vidal, S.J., Ius Canonicum, t. II, De Personis, 3rd ed., Rome, Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, § 11, p. 531, Latin: “Episcopi imprimis sunt successores Apostolorum, qui una cum Romano Pontifice constituunt collegium Episcoporum, quod ex Christi promissionibus praerogativa infallibilitatis munitum est atque universam Ecclesiam docentem et regentem repraesentat.”

 

Literal translation of the cited passage:

 

“The bishops are first of all the successors of the Apostles; with the Roman Pontiff they constitute the college of bishops, which, in virtue of the promises of Christ, is furnished with the prerogative of infallibility and represents the universal teaching and governing Church.”

 

Bellarmine likewise attaches the visible constitution of the Church to the existence of a visible head. Although Christ remains the supreme head of the whole Church, his absence as to visible presence requires that a man hold his place in order to keep the visible Church in unity. The Roman Pontiff is therefore not an accidental element added to the Church: the visible primacy belongs to her constitution willed by Christ.

 

“Although the head of the whole Church is Christ, nevertheless, since he is absent from the Church militant as to his visible presence, it is necessary that a man be established in the place of Christ, in order to maintain this visible Church in unity.”

 

Reference: Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. I, cap. IX; in Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Engl. trans. Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press, Post Falls, Idaho, 2015, English, p. 74 of the PDF.

 

This passage must not serve to deny the possibility of a temporary vacancy. It demonstrates the constitutional necessity of the papacy, not the necessity that there exist at every instant a currently reigning titular.

 

Billot further admits expressly that a vacancy of the See can be prolonged: “Permittere potest Deus ut aliquando vacatio sedis diutius protrahatur” — “God can permit that, sometimes, the vacancy of the See be prolonged longer.”

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621.

 

As Cardinal Billot teaches, the Church cannot cease to be what she is essentially: a visible, hierarchical and indefectible society, endowed with the infallibility that Christ promised her (De Ecclesia Christi, q. X and XI).

 

The ordinary and universal Magisterium comprises the truths that are transmitted as divinely revealed “by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world”: “ordinario totius Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata traduntur”.

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XVIII, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 421.

 

Vatican I teaches expressly in Dei Filius that the divinely revealed truths can be proposed to faith “either by a solemn judgment, or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Dei Filius, chap. III; DS 3011).

 

4.2.4. As to possible counter-arguments

 

For example, those who pretend that without a Pope there is no longer possible communion and therefore no longer infallibility, this objection cannot mean that the Church herself would disappear or become fallible during every vacancy of the See. Billot teaches in fact that the assistance promised by Christ to the Apostles and to their successors is “continua et nusquam interrupta”, “continuous and never interrupted”, and concludes: “Ergo magisterium apostolicum in finem usque charismate infallibilitatis donatur” — “Therefore the apostolic Magisterium is endowed until the end with the charism of infallibility”.

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. X, th. XVI, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 381.

 

– The indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church subsist necessarily during the vacancy of the Apostolic See. The promise of Christ remains in fact made to his Church: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt XVI, 18).

 

And “it” is the Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail means that error will never reign in the Church (entire).

 

– The First Vatican Council affirms dogmatically the existence of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it teaches in Dei Filius:

 

“Now all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”

 

Reference: First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, chap. III, De fide, DS 3011.

 

The permanence of the Church and of the divine assistance promised to her must therefore not be confused with the permanent presence of a currently reigning Pontiff. A vacancy of the See abolishes neither the Church nor the episcopate; it suspends however the acts that, by divine institution or by law, necessarily require the intervention of the Roman Pontiff, notably the existence of a true ecumenical council.

 

References:

 

– Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XVI, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 381; ibid., th. XXIX, p. 621.

 

– F. X. Wernz, S.J. – P. Vidal, S.J., Ius Canonicum, t. II, De Personis, 3rd ed., Rome, Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, § 11, p. 530.

 

Cf. Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 8, a. 3, where he sets forth that Christ is the head of all those who belong to the Church. This text establishes the relation of Christ-Head with the Church; the infallibility of the Church must however be established by the texts that treat directly of her doctrinal assistance.

 

It is therefore certain that the vacancy of the See does not entail the disappearance of the Church nor the cessation of the divine promises made to her. Billot admits expressly a prolonged vacancy of the See, while teaching elsewhere that the assistance of Christ to the Church is continuous and never interrupted.

 

References: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. X, th. XVI, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 381; ibid., th. XXIX, p. 621.

 

Fathers Wernz and Vidal S.J. further envisage expressly an extraordinary situation in which there exists no certainly recognized Roman Pontiff. They teach that, in certain exceptional cases, the cardinals or, if they refuse to act, the bishops could convoke one another. Such an assembly would not however constitute a true ecumenical council, since the latter “cannot exist without the Pope” (sine Papa existere nequit), but a “general assembly of bishops” (congregatio generalis Episcoporum), notably “if the Roman Pontiff has been doubtfully elected or if, after an election regularly accomplished, he falls into heresy”.

 

Reference:

 

1. X. Wernz, S.J. – P. Vidal, S.J., Ius Canonicum, t. II, De Personis, 3rd ed., Rome, Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, § 11, p. 530, Latin: “Cardinales vel, ipsis renuentibus, Episcopi mutuo hortatu convocarent […] non haberetur Concilium vere oecumenicum, quod sine Papa existere nequit, sed congregatio generalis Episcoporum, si Romanus Pontifex aut dubie fuerit electus aut post electionem rite factam incidat in haeresim.”

 

Translation:

 

“The cardinals or, if they refuse, the bishops would convoke themselves by mutual exhortation […] there would not be a true ecumenical Council, which cannot exist without the Pope, but a general assembly of bishops, if the Roman Pontiff had been doubtfully elected or if, after an election regularly made, he fell into heresy.”

 

This text does not however mean that such an assembly of bishops would possess, without Roman Pontiff, the authority of an ecumenical council or could exercise as such the infallibility proper to the ecumenical council. Wernz and Vidal affirm expressly the contrary: a true ecumenical council “cannot exist without the Pope”. The passage establishes only that, in a crisis touching precisely the identity or the certain possession of the pontificate, the bishops can still constitute a general assembly destined to examine this situation.

 

Reference:

 

1. X. Wernz, S.J. – P. Vidal, S.J., Ius Canonicum, t. II, De Personis, 3rd ed., Rome, Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1943, § 11, p. 530: “non haberetur Concilium vere oecumenicum, quod sine Papa existere nequit, sed congregatio generalis Episcoporum”.

 

In these times of grave crisis, where the See has been vacant since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964, the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church oblige us to adhere to the immaculate Tradition, without concession to novelties. It is thus that the faithful Catholics discern the eternal truth.

 

For the general doctrine of infallibility, see First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, chap. III-IV, DS 3011, 3020; Pastor Aeternus, chap. IV, DS 3074.

 

The Protestant objections, which deny this mode by invoking “Sola Scriptura”, are refuted by the very logic of Revelation: without the OUM, Scripture would be obscure and subject to private interpretation, which contradicts the promise of Christ (Jn XVI, 13).

 

4.2.5. These two modes complement each other:

 

the EUM precises and defines what the OUM already proposes in a continuous manner.

 

Both assure the perpetuity of infallibility, against the liberal errors that imagine a fallible Church.

 

4.2.6. The infallibility of the Church as a whole: “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus”

 

However, infallibility is not limited to these exercises of the teaching Magisterium: the Church as a whole is infallible, in virtue of her organic unity under the headship of Christ.

 

As Saint Vincent of Lérins teaches in his Commonitorium (II, 6):

 

“[…] id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum.”

 

“Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all; for that is truly and properly Catholic.”

 

This criterion expresses a traditional rule of discernment of the catholicity of a doctrine: universality, antiquity and consent constitute signs permitting one to recognize what belongs to Catholic Tradition. It does not however constitute, by itself alone, a technical definition of a distinct mode of infallibility.

 

Thus, not only the OUM and the EUM, but the entire Church, in her doctrinal permanence, is preserved from error, as the Vatican Council confirms (DS 3020): the revealed doctrine must be kept faithfully and declared infallibly.

 

The EUM can define them solemnly (e.g. authenticity of the Nicene Symbol), but the consensus of the Church renders them infallible of right, refuting the rationalists who submit them to free examination.

 

5. Institution of the authentic and infallible Magisterium

 

Thanks to the following documents, we say that this truth has been at least implicitly defined by a solemn judgment at the First Vatican Council. It defined:

 

1) The Magisterium was instituted by God upon the Apostles:

 

“God instituted the Church… so that she might be known by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word” (DS 3012).

 

“The Church… with the apostolic charge of teaching received the mandate to keep the deposit of the faith” (DS 3018).

 

2) The Magisterium is authentic and has authority:

 

– To interpret Holy Scripture: DS 3007;

 

– To propose to the faithful the truths to be believed with divine and Catholic faith: DS 3011;

 

– To judge of the scientific and philosophical truths that are connected to the revealed deposit: DS 3017-3018.

 

3) The Magisterium instituted by Our Lord is perpetual:

 

DS 3050

 

“The eternal Pastor and Guardian of our souls (1 Pet 2, 25), in order to perpetuate the salutary work of Redemption, decided to found the Church, in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful would be gathered by the bond of one faith and of one charity”

 

DS 3071

 

“This charism of truth and of faith never failing has been granted by God to Peter and to his successors in this chair, so that they might fulfill their high charge for the salvation of all, so that the universal flock of Christ, kept from the poisoned foods of error, might be nourished with heavenly doctrine, so that, every occasion of schism being suppressed, the Church might be conserved entire in the unity of the faith”

 

4) It is infallible:

 

DS 3020

 

“On the other hand, the doctrine of faith that God has revealed has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be perfected by the reflection of man, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ so that she might keep it faithfully and present it infallibly. Consequently, the sense of the sacred dogmas that must be conserved in perpetuity is that which our holy Mother the Church has presented once for all and it is never lawful to depart from it under the pretext or in the name of a more advanced understanding”

 

DS 3074

 

“consequently, these definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church.”

 

5) It is traditional:

 

it was instituted not to teach new things but to keep, defend and proclaim the received deposit:

 

DS 3070

 

“For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might make known under his revelation a new doctrine, but so that with his assistance they might keep holily and expose faithfully the Revelation transmitted by the apostles, that is, the deposit of the faith.”

 

6. Subject of the infallible Magisterium

 

The subject of this infallible Magisterium, that is, the moral or physical person who possesses this function of teaching is:

 

– The Roman Pontiff, as formal Successor of Saint Peter in his primacy over the Church or as Vicar of Our Lord, when the holy chair is occupied;

 

– The Body of Bishops in submission to the Sovereign Pontiff. The Bishops can be gathered in Council or else dispersed throughout the world.

 

In the first case one speaks of Pontifical Magisterium; in the second of universal Magisterium, which is exercised by the modes distinguished above.

 

The infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff is a truth of defined divine faith. It is contained in Revelation (Mt XVI, 18-19; Lk XXII, 32), has always been taught, believed, practiced by the Church.

 

Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches likewise that the Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his charge, must judge the controversies relative to faith and morals, and he examines expressly whether the Pontiff can err in such a judgment. His doctrine thus attaches pontifical infallibility to the very function of doctor and supreme judge of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

 

Reference: Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, capp. I-III; Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Engl. trans. Ryan Grant, Post Falls, Idaho, Mediatrix Press, 2015.

 

The Sovereign Pontiff enjoys the same infallibility as the Church (DS 3074):

 

“when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, fulfilling his charge of pastor and doctor of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that a doctrine in matter of faith or of morals must be held by the whole Church, he enjoys, in virtue of the divine assistance that has been promised to him in the person of Saint Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church be provided when she defines the doctrine on faith or morals; consequently, these definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church.”

 

When the Sovereign Pontiff speaks not as Pope, but as private doctor, he does not enjoy infallibility.

 

The infallibility of the bishops united and submitted to the Pope is a truth of faith implicitly defined at the Vatican Council (DS 3011), and is founded on the documents of Holy Scripture cited at the beginning of this chapter. The Catholic Church, faithful to Apostolic Tradition, conserves this infallible unity against schisms and heresies.

 

7. Object of the infallible Magisterium

 

What is called object of the Magisterium is the ensemble of the propositions upon which the latter can bring a positive or negative judgment, according as such propositions are true or false.

 

It is a matter of truths linked to Revelation (since the infallible Magisterium was given in order to keep, defend and explicate the deposit of Revelation) and which are normally indicated by the phrase: “doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

 

All the theologians divide into two classes these truths of faith or of morals: primary or direct, secondary or indirect. Saint Thomas: “A proposition can be of faith for two reasons: in the first place and principally, as the articles of faith, or indirectly and secondarily as the propositions whose negation entails the alteration of some article of faith” (II-II, q. 11, a. 2).

 

7.1. Primary object of the Magisterium

 

The first class is constituted by the propositions that are contained formally in Revelation, explicitly, or implicitly; e.g.: “Jesus is God”. They are called truths revealed by themselves and they constitute the primary or direct object of the Magisterium. Let us see the teaching of the Church on this subject.

 

– First Vatican Council (1870):

 

“There is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith all that is contained in the word of God either written or transmitted, and that the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes to be believed as divinely revealed” (DS 3011).

 

“The doctrine of the faith, that God has revealed… transmitted to the Spouse of Christ as a divine deposit, must be kept faithfully and declared infallibly” (DS 3020).

 

“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might reveal a new doctrine, but so that, with his assistance they might keep holily, and expose faithfully the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of the faith. All the venerable Fathers accepted and the holy Catholic doctors venerated and followed the apostolic doctrine knowing very well that the chair of Saint Peter remained pure of every error, according to the promise of Our Lord made to the prince of the Apostles: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren’ (Lk XXII, 32)” (DS 3070).

 

Leo XIII “Sapientiae Christianae”: “Among the things that are contained in divine revelation, some relate to God, and others to man and to the means necessary for the eternal salvation of man. It belongs by divine right to the Church, and, in the Church, to the Roman Pontiff, to determine in these two orders what must be believed and what must be done. That is why the Pontiff must be able to judge with authority of what the word of God [Revelation] contains, decide which doctrines concord with it and which doctrines contradict it. Likewise, in the sphere of morals, it is for him to determine what is good, what is evil, what is necessary to accomplish and to avoid if one wishes to arrive at eternal salvation; otherwise, he could be neither the infallible interpreter of the word of God, nor the sure guide of human life” (Sapientiae Christianae, § 34).

 

Pius XII, Humani Generis:

 

“And although this sacred Magisterium must be for every theologian, in matter of faith and morals, the next and universal rule of truth, – since it is to it that Christ Our Lord entrusted the whole deposit of the faith, Holy Scripture and Tradition, to keep, to defend and to interpret… God, in fact, gave to His Church, with these sources that we have said, a living Magisterium to enlighten and disengage what was contained in the deposit of the Faith only in an obscure manner and so to speak implicit. This deposit, it is not to each of the faithful, nor to the theologians themselves that our divine Redeemer entrusted the authentic interpretation, but to the sole Magisterium of the Church… It belongs to it by divine institution… to keep and to interpret the deposit of the divinely revealed truths” (DS 3884, 3886; Humani Generis, § 34 for the last phrase).

 

The dogmatic value of these propositions from the cited texts is the following: it is a defined truth of faith that the object of infallibility is constituted of the formally revealed truths (Vatican Council), DS 3011 and following:

 

“Porro fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.”

 

DS 3020,

 

“Neque enim fidei doctrina, quam Deus revelavit, velut philosophicum inventum proposita est humanis ingeniis perficienda, sed tamquam divinum depositum Christi Sponsae tradita, fideliter custodienda et infallibiliter declaranda. Hinc sacrorum quoque dogmatum is sensus perpetuo est retinendus, quem semel declaravit sancta mater Ecclesia, nec umquam ab eo sensu altioris intelligentiae specie et nomine recedendum.” “Crescat igitur… et multum vehementerque proficiat, tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac saeculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia: sed in suo dumtaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia.”

 

The thesis according to which the doctrine on faith and morals constitutes the direct and primary object of infallibility is contained implicitly in the definition of the infallibility of the Pontiff: in fact one says that its object is “the doctrine on faith or morals” (DS 3074).

 

7.2. The secondary object

 

The second class is constituted of the propositions that are connected (linked) in a necessary manner to Revelation, that are useful for the reception, the conservation, and the communication of the revealed deposit.

 

In fact, as Mgr Gasser teaches, there exist other truths linked more or less closely to the revealed dogmas, which, “although they are not revealed in themselves, are however required in order to conserve integrally the very deposit of Revelation, to explain it correctly and to define it efficaciously”. Gasser adds immediately: “Hence, absolutely all Catholic theologians agree in recognizing that the Church is infallible in the authentic proposition and definition of truths of this kind, so that to deny this infallibility would be a very grave error.”

 

Reference: Vincent Gasser, Relatio de emendationibus capitis IV constitutionis dogmaticae primae de Ecclesia Christi, 11 July 1870, in J.-D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, t. LII, Arnhem-Leipzig, H. Welter, 1927, col. 1226.

 

Gasser specifies however that the agreement of the theologians bears on this infallibility, while their divergence bears on the degree of certainty of the doctrine that affirms it: some do not consider it as a dogma of faith, while others hold it for a revealed truth and therefore dogmatic.

 

Reference: Vincent Gasser, Relatio, 11 July 1870, Mansi, t. LII, col. 1226.

 

He then applies expressly the same principle to the Sovereign Pontiff: “Concerning the infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff in the definition of these truths, one must say absolutely the same thing as concerning the infallibility of the Church when she defines them.”

 

Reference: ibidem.

 

Thus Monsignor Vincent Gasser (1809-1879), bishop of Brixen (present Bressanone), at the First Vatican Council. It is an official intervention made in the name of the Deputation of the Faith, on 11 July 1870, in the framework of the discussions on the definition of pontifical infallibility. This intervention, commonly called the Relatio Gasser, was pronounced on 11 July 1870 by Mgr Vincent Gasser, bishop of Brixen, in the name of the Deputation of the Faith, in order to explain to the conciliar Fathers the sense of the text relative to pontifical infallibility that was submitted to them.

 

Gasser finally summarizes the determining principle: in the object of infallibility thus enunciated, “the infallibility of the Pontiff extends neither less nor farther than the infallibility of the Church in her definitions concerning the doctrine of faith and of morals”.

 

Reference: Vincent Gasser, Relatio, 11 July 1870, Mansi, t. LII, col. 1227.

 

It is called secondary object because it derives from the primary; it is said indirect object of infallibility, because infallibility does not touch it itself, but because of the primary object.

 

Gasser insists further on the indissoluble unity between pontifical infallibility and that of the Church: the consent of the Church can never be lacking to the pontifical definitions, “for it cannot happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the universal Church cannot err”.

 

Reference: Vincent Gasser, Relatio of 11 July 1870, French translation in Communio, 2018/1, no 255, Association Communio, pp. 54-55.

 

Gasser specifies also that the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is so efficacious that the universal Church cannot be led into error: if a pontifical judgment were to be erroneous and harmful to the Church, this judgment would be prevented; if the Pontiff arrives at a definition, the latter remains infallible.

 

Reference: ibidem, p. 56.

 

It includes the propositions drawn formally from those that are revealed by means of a legitimate deduction; it includes also the truths necessary to keep intact the deposit of Revelation (which, without them, would be corrupted) to explain it and to define it further. One is accustomed to divide it into several groups.

 

Cardinal Billot formulates expressly this distinction: “Potestas infallibilis magisterii pro obiecto primario habet res fidei et morum […] Secundario vero extenditur ad alias etiam veritates in se non revelatas, quae tamen requiruntur ut revelationis depositum integrum custodiatur, et nominatim quidem ad multiplices propositionum censuras et ad facta dogmatica.” — “The power of the infallible Magisterium has for primary object the things of faith and of morals […]; secondarily, it extends also to other truths that are not revealed in themselves, but that are nevertheless required so that the deposit of Revelation be conserved intact, and namely to the various censures of propositions and to dogmatic facts.”

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. X, th. XVII, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 392.

 

7.3. Infallibility in dogmatic facts

 

Moreover, the Church is infallible in dogmatic facts, that is, in certain facts that, without being themselves formally revealed, are so necessarily connected to the revealed deposit that the Church must be able to judge of them with certainty in order to conserve and explain this deposit.

 

7.3.1. What is a dogmatic fact?

 

A dogma is a truth revealed by God, contained in the Scriptures or Tradition, and proposed infallibly by the magisterium of the Church as having to be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

 

But there are not only speculative truths (such as the Trinity) that pertain to dogma; the historical facts necessary to the deposit of the faith are also such, because without them the revealed truths would lose their foundation.

 

The legitimacy of a determined Pontiff is therefore not a historical question without relation to the faith.

 

Billot explains that the adhesion of the universal Church to a false Pontiff would be equivalent to her adhesion to a false rule of faith: “Idem namque foret, Ecclesiam adhaerere pontifici falso, ac si adhaereret falsae fidei regulae, cum Papa sit regula vivens quam Ecclesia in credendo sequi debet.” — “It would in fact be the same thing for the Church to adhere to a false Pontiff as to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule that the Church must follow in believing.”

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621.

 

These facts, connected to the revealed deposit, pertain to the object of infallibility, because their negation would alter an article of faith, according to Saint Thomas (II-II, q. 11, a. 2, corpus):

 

“a thing relates to the faith: sometimes directly and principally, as the articles of the faith; sometimes indirectly and secondarily, as the things that entail the corruption of an article. And heresy can extend to this double domain, as also the faith.”

 

Cardinal Journet confirms expressly this extension of infallibility to the facts necessarily connected to the revealed deposit: “It happens that the Church defines infallibly and irrevocably as true, without however defining them as revealed and contained in the apostolic deposit, doctrines and facts that appear to her in necessary connection with this deposit.”

 

Reference: Charles Journet, Le Traité de l’Église, 1957, chap. V, III, 5, “The tasks or instances of the jurisdictional power and the assistance of the Holy Ghost”.

 

Among the realities traditionally studied under the secondary object of infallibility, the theologians examine notably:

 

1. purely historical dogmatic facts: the legitimacy of a pope, the authenticity of councils, the historical identity of an author;

 

1. doctrinal dogmatic facts: the orthodoxy of a formula, the approval of a universal liturgy, the canonizations, the doctrinal censures.

 

The legitimacy of a determined Pontiff is traditionally treated by the theologians among the dogmatic facts, since the certainty of the identity of the visible head of the Church is necessary to the certain exercise of doctrinal and jurisdictional authority. This question will be studied more precisely in the chapters devoted to the dogmatic fact and to universal and peaceful acceptance.

 

7.3.2. Scriptural and traditional proof that the papacy is a dogmatic fact

 

Christ instituted the Petrine primacy as a divine and irrevocable fact: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16, 18).

 

This promise establishes the perpetuity of the institution of the primacy of Peter in the Church. It does not exclude the periods of vacancy of the Apostolic See, during which the institution remains although the see is momentarily occupied by no Pontiff.

 

The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of 18 July 1870, chapter 4, defines the infallibility of the legitimate pope:

 

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra […] possesses, by the divine assistance that is promised to him as blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church be provided.”

 

In order that the faithful may adhere with certainty to the acts of a Roman Pontiff as acts of the supreme authority of the Church, the legitimacy of him who occupies the Chair of Peter must be able to be known with certainty by the Church. It is precisely in this sense that the theologians treat the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff among the dogmatic facts. The properly theological demonstration of this doctrine will be given in the following chapters.

 

Journet himself gives an explicit example of a dogmatic fact. He distinguishes the purely historical fact of the coming and of the martyrdom of Saint Peter at Rome from the dogmatic fact constituted by the union of the Roman pontificate and of the universal pontificate: “But the indissoluble junction of the Roman pontificate and of the universal pontificate is further, for the believer, a dogmatic fact, pertaining to a superior certainty.”

 

Reference: Charles Journet, Le Traité de l’Église, 1957, chap. V, III, 4.

 

This necessity of an ecclesial rule objectively recognizable corresponds to the general doctrine of Billuart on the rule of faith. Answering the Protestant objections, he teaches that, as soon as the Catholic knows that he finds himself in the true Church of Christ, he knows that in following her as guide he cannot stray from the truth: “Si Catholico semel persuasum sit, se esse in vera Christi Ecclesia, statim intelliget, se, illam ducem sequendo, a veritate aberrare non posse.” — “As soon as the Catholic is persuaded that he is in the true Church of Christ, he understands at once that, in following her as guide, he cannot stray from the truth.”

 

Billuart adds that the faithful can know whether the bishop he follows is in communion with the other bishops of the world and “imprimis cum supremo Ecclesiae Capite” — “principally with the supreme Head of the Church”. This text does not establish directly the particular principle of the universal peaceful acceptance of a Pontiff; it establishes however the general principle according to which the visible Church must furnish to the faithful an objectively recognizable rule of faith.

 

Reference: Charles-René Billuart, O.P., Summa Summae S. Thomae sive Compendium Theologiae, t. III, Secunda Secundae Partis, Tractatus de Fide, Rome, Crispinus Puccinelli, 1834, Latin, p. 801.

 

7.3.3. Universal peaceful acceptance (UPA) as an infallible criterion

 

Charles Journet establishes beforehand a fundamental principle: since Christ willed that his Church be visibly founded on Peter and his successors until the end of time, the succession of Peter must itself be objectively recognizable. He writes: “If it is expressly revealed that the Church must be visibly founded on Peter and his successors until the end of time, it is by that very fact revealed that the line of the successors of Peter will be recognizable until the end of time; and it is likewise implicitly revealed that Peter, in virtue of an exceptional privilege that he conserved until his death, could determine the conditions that would render recognizable the line of his successors.”

 

Reference: Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate. An Essay in Speculative Theology, vol. I, The Apostolic Hierarchy, Engl. trans. A. H. C. Downes, Sheed and Ward, London–New York, 1955, English, p. 427.

 

The question of knowing by what criterion this legitimacy becomes certain for the universal Church receives in Billot a more precise answer: the universal adhesion of the Church constitutes by itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff.

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621.

 

Catholic theology teaches that the adhesion of the universal Church to a Pontiff constitutes an infallible sign of his legitimacy and, consequently, of the existence of the conditions required for this legitimacy (Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621).

 

This is not a simple custom, but a dogmatic fact deduced from the indefectibility of the Church.

 

Cardinal Louis Billot formulates expressly the principle:

 

“Adhaesionem universalis Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et exsistentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae.”

 

“The adhesion of the universal Church will always be, by itself alone, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for this legitimacy.”

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621.

 

Cardinal Charles Journet in The Church of the Word Incarnate likewise develops this reflected dogmatic fact.

 

Billot adds: “praedicta Ecclesiae adhaesio omne vitium electionis radicitus sanat” — “the aforesaid adhesion of the Church heals radically every vice of the election”.

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621.

 

The theological reason of this infallibility was set forth in § 7.3.1: the adhesion of the universal Church to a false Pontiff would be equivalent to her adhesion to a false rule of faith (Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Giachetti, 1909, p. 621).

 

8. Refutation of counter-arguments

 

– Some object that “the Church cannot subsist without a pope for decades”, invoking indefectibility.

 

But the possibility of a prolonged vacancy is not contrary, in itself, to the indefectibility of the Church. Billot affirms it expressly: “Permittere potest Deus ut aliquando vacatio sedis diutius protrahatur” — “God can permit that, sometimes, the vacancy of the See be prolonged longer.”

 

Reference: Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, th. XXIX, 3rd ed., Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909, p. 621.

 

Saint Robert Bellarmine examines expressly the hypothesis of a heretical pope in De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30. After having set forth five opinions, he rejects notably that according to which a manifestly heretical pope would remain pope until his deposition by the Church. His fundamental reason is that a manifest heretic is no longer a member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head: “a manifest heretic cannot be Pope”. He concludes that, manifest heresy destroying the disposition necessary for the possession of the charge, the heretical pope “ceases to be Pope by himself”.

 

His text: “A non-Christian cannot in any manner be Pope […] because he cannot be the head of that of which he is not a member […] Now a manifest heretic is not a Christian […] Consequently, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”

 

Reference: Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. XXX; Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Engl. trans. Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press, Post Falls, Idaho, 2015, English, pp. 318-320 of the PDF.

 

Bellarmine invokes further the unanimous testimony of the Fathers according to which heretics are not only outside the Church, but lose ipso facto all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. He therefore does not conceive the cessation of the pontificate as a jurisdictional deposition operated by an authority superior to the pope, but as the consequence of the incompatibility between manifest heresy and the quality of member — and therefore of head — of the Church.

 

His text “The holy Fathers teach unanimously that not only are heretics outside the Church, but that they are even deprived ipso facto of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

 

Reference:

 

Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. XXX; Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Engl. trans. Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press, Post Falls, Idaho, 2015, English, p. 320 of the PDF.

 

The doctrinal principle posed by Bellarmine is therefore clear: manifest heresy is incompatible with the quality of member of the Church and, consequently, with that of head of the Church.

 

The application of this principle to Paul VI and to his successors then presupposes establishing separately the public and heretical character of the doctrines they professed, notably in matter of religious liberty and of ecclesiology. This demonstration pertains to the chapters devoted to these errors.

 

And without a pope the Church is capable of doing all that God has ordered and given her to do. The history of the Church shows it to us: from Saint Peter to Pius XII there have been about as many interregna as popes, and the Church has always functioned.

 

– The “non-sedevacantist” traditionalists (who must well be named schismatics or heretics for their adhesion to the antipopes) contradict themselves in criticizing the “pope” while recognizing him: either he is infallible, and their criticisms are sacrilegious; or he is not, and their recognition is illogical.

 

In short, to determine whether someone is pope constitutes a dogmatic fact, because it touches the revealed deposit of the faith.

 

This DF (dogmatic fact) is therefore infallible, guaranteed by the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Church.

 

9. Conclusion

 

The infallibility of the Church is the divinely instituted rampart against error, and it assures the faithful transmission of the deposit of the faith. The Church, Mystical Body of Christ, remains under the assistance of her divine Head and of the Spirit of truth. Every contrary objection, whether it come from the modernists or from the schismatics, is refuted by Thomistic logic: the faith requires an infallible criterion, and this criterion is the Catholic Church, faithful to Apostolic Tradition.

 

AMDG

 

List of principal sources:

 

– Holy Scripture (Vulgate).

 

– First Vatican Council, constitution Pastor Aeternus and Dei Filius (DS 3000 and following).

 

– Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

 

– Saint Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium.

 

– Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., De Ecclesia Christi.

 

– Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontiff.

 

– Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii.

 

– Charles-René Billuart, O.P., Summa Summae S. Thomae sive Compendium Theologiae, t. III, Secunda Secundae Partis, Tractatus de Fide, Rome, Crispinus Puccinelli, 1834, Latin.

 

– Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin S.J., De Divina Traditione et Scriptura.

 

– Charles Journet, Le Traité de l’Église, 1957 and Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate. An Essay in Speculative Theology, vol. I, The Apostolic Hierarchy, Engl. trans. A. H. C. Downes, Sheed and Ward, London–New York, 1955, English.

 

– Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum and Sapientiae Christianae.

 

– Pius XII, Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis.

 

– J. V. de Groot O.P., Summa apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica.

 

– Mgr Vincent Gasser, Report to the First Vatican Council.