Date of the Loss of his Office by Paul VI,

formal and public heretic

on 21 November 1964

 

Table of contents:

 

Introduction

 

1 Definitions and Fundamental Distinctions

 

1.1. Definition of Heresy and its Consequences

 

1.2. Distinction Material/Formal Heresy

 

1.3. Pertinacity

 

1.4. Resistance

 

2 The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV and the Certain Doctrinal Principle

 

3 The Infallibility of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.)

 

4 The Public and Manifest Heresies of Vatican II and of Paul VI

 

5 Indefectibility of the Church and Continuity in Time of Crisis

 

6 Historical and Canonical Analysis of the Case of Paul VI

 

6.1. 1963: Election and U.P.A.

 

6.2. 1964: Public and Manifest Heresy and Loss of Office

 

6.3. Immediate Resistance

 

6.4. 1964-1971: Period of Progressive Recognition

 

6.5. Fidelity to the Bull and U.P.A.

 

7 Supplementary Arguments

 

7.1. The Heretical Pope Cannot Be the Proximate Rule of Faith

 

7.2. The Unity of Faith is Constitutive of the Church

 

7.3. Impossibility of Two Contradictory Magisteria

 

7.4. Visibility of the Church

 

7.5. Impossibility of an Officially Non-Binding Magisterium

 

7.6. Visibility of the Rule of Faith

 

7.7. Formal Continuity of the Church

 

7.8. Against the Objection of the Absence of Declaration

 

8 Refutation of the Counter-Arguments

 

Conclusion

 

List of sources

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

According to the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church, founded on the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors and the ecumenical councils before 1963, public and manifest heresy entails the loss of the office of membership in the Church and, consequently, of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We will demonstrate here, by the establishment of the facts and of a logical reasoning, that Paul VI manifested public and manifest heresies, placing him outside the Church.

 

This study examines the case of Paul VI in detail: his initial legitimacy confirmed infallibly by the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.) at his election in 1963; the loss of the office and automatic of his office (as to the subject of jurisdiction) by public and manifest heresy in 1964, at the promulgation of the constitution Lumen Gentium; the subsequent resistance of the Catholic faithful as a negative sign of non-adherence to the heretic; finally, the formal and progressive recognition of this vacancy, culminating with the first public declarations in 1971 by Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in La nueva Iglesia postconciliar o Iglesia Montiniana. This analysis reconciles the bull of Paul IV (which attests the certain doctrinal principle that a manifest heretic cannot hold the supreme jurisdiction) with the infallibility of the U.P.A. (which guarantees the initial moral legitimacy, but whose pacificity is broken by the subsequent heresy, as a simple negative sign).

 

1: Definitions and Fundamental Distinctions

 

1.1. Definition of Heresy and its Consequences: Heresy is the obstinate rejection, after baptism, of a truth of divine and Catholic faith proposed as such by the Church (Code of Canon Law of 1917, canon 1325 § 2, p. 257). A public doctor who promulgates documents containing heresies manifests a pertinacity, presumed moral and juridical by the very nature of the official and public act (held ex officio to know the faith, without possible invincible ignorance). Manifest heretics lose ipso facto all jurisdiction, as Saint Robert Bellarmine explains: “Haereticus manifestus, nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae.” (Translation: “The manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church.”) (Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, in Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei, t. I, Prague, typis Wolffgangi Wickhart, 1721, p. 386, n° 20).

 

Canon N° 2314 of the Code of Canon Law (1917, p. 438; cf. canon 188, n° 4, p. 41) presupposes this doctrine for inferior clerics, but the loss of the office of the pontificate falls under divine law.

 

1.2. Distinction Material/Formal Heresy: Material heresy is an objective error against the faith, but without subjective culpability. Formal heresy implies a conscious and voluntary obstinacy.

 

1.3. Pertinacity: It is presumed in public doctors by the nature of the act, not by psychological judgment. Indeed, the law morally presumes exterior pertinacity in him who officially teaches errors against the faith after having received the mission to teach it.

 

The classical canonical tradition, reported notably by Rufinus and the decretalists, teaches: “Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam nisi in fidei articulis pertinaciter erraverit”. (Translation: “The first see will not be judged by anyone unless he has erred in a pertinacious manner in the articles of faith.”) (Rufinus, Die Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus, ed. Heinrich Singer, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1902, distinction XXI, canon 7, p. 46; É. Dublanchy, “Infaillibilité du pape”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VII, second part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1923, col. 1715.)

 

From the strict doctrinal point of view, there exists no ontological gray period: the vacancy is immediate in divine law; human recognition is progressive in historical fact.

 

1.4. Resistance: It constitutes a negative sign of non-adherence; it is a probable theological opinion that it indicates implicitly the vacancy, without creating it.

 

2: The Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of Paul IV and the Certain Doctrinal Principle

 

The bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (15 February 1559, § 6; Codicis iuris canonici fontes, t. I, n° 94) declares: “[…] si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem […] ante eius promotionem, vel in Cardinalem, seu Romanum Pontificem assumptionem a fide Catholica deviasse, aut in aliquam haeresim incidisse, promotio, seu assumptio de eo […] facta, nulla, irrita, et inanis existat […]”. (Translation: “[…] if it appears at any time whatever that someone […] has, before his promotion or his elevation to the cardinalate or to the Roman pontificate, deviated from the Catholic faith or has fallen into some heresy, the promotion or the elevation of that person […] is null, invalid and without effect […].”) Without constitutive declaration, but the ascertainment may be required for the external order, in order to establish the public fact.

 

The bull attests juridically a doctrinal principle already taught by the anterior tradition: a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church and, from that moment, cannot be its head. This principle applies to subsequent heresy by the very nature of manifest heresy.

 

3: The Infallibility of the Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.)

 

The initial moral universal peaceful acceptance is an infallible dogmatic fact as to the legitimacy of the election (Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo incarnato, t. I, De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione, 3rd ed., Prato, Giachetti, filii et soc., 1909, thesis XXIX, § 3, p. 620–621); perseverance in the office depends on the conservation of the conditions required by divine law, notably membership in the Church. Subsequent resistance is a sufficient negative sign that the pontiff has afterwards fallen into heresy.

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 1, a. 10, body of the article, Leonine edition, Rome, 1895: essential extract: “[…] una fides debet esse totius Ecclesiae […] Quod servari non posset nisi quaestio […] de fide exorta determinaretur per eum qui toti Ecclesiae praeest […]”. (Translation: “[…] one single faith must be that of the whole Church […]. This could not be safeguarded if a question arisen concerning the faith were not decided by him who presides over the whole Church […].”)

 

4: The Public and Manifest Heresies of Vatican II and of Paul VI

 

A teaching that contradicts a defined dogma is heretical. The Council of Vatican I (Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, canons, first series, n° 5, Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. V, 1869–1870, p. 491) declares: “Si quis […] mundum ad Dei gloriam conditum esse negaverit anathema sit.” (Translation: “If anyone […] denies that the world was created for the glory of God, let him be anathema.”)

 

Rigorous example: Gaudium et Spes, 7 December 1965, n° 12, § 1 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 58, 1966, p. 1034): “Believers and unbelievers are generally in agreement on this point: everything on earth must be ordered to man as to its center and its summit.” The material proposition posits man as center and summit of everything on earth. Its objective theological qualification is heretical, for it formally contradicts the defined doctrine on the primacy of God as ultimate end, subordinating the temporal order to the supernatural. This contradicts the Syllabus of Pius IX, 8 December 1864, proposition 3 (Denzinger, n° 1703; Denzinger–Schönmetzer, n° 2903): “Humana ratio, nullo prorsus Dei respectu habito, unicus est veri et falsi, boni et mali arbiter; sibi ipsi est lex et naturalibus suis viribus ad hominum ac populorum bonum curandum sufficit.” (Translation: “Human reason, without any regard for God, is the sole arbiter of true and false, of good and evil; it is a law unto itself, and by its natural forces suffices to procure the good of men and of peoples.”)

 

In short, this proposition objectively contradicts the defined dogma according to which God is the ultimate end of all creation. It therefore constitutes materially a heretical proposition; promulgated officially by Paul VI, it manifests publicly his adherence to a doctrine contrary to the faith.

 

Rigorous example: Lumen Gentium introduces a collegiality where the episcopal college is titular of the supreme jurisdiction with the pope, contradicting directly Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) which affirms that the Roman pontiff is the unique titular of the full and immediate supreme jurisdiction – contradiction bearing on the very subject of the supreme jurisdiction, falling under the divine constitution of the Church.

 

This contradiction does not bear on a simple modality of the exercise of power, but on the very subject of the supreme jurisdiction. Vatican I teaches that the Roman Pontiff possesses, by virtue of his personal office, the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church. Pastor Aeternus declares in effect (18 July 1870, chapter 3, final canon, Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, p. 44–45): “Si quis itaque dixerit Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam… anathema sit.” (Translation: “If therefore anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only an office of inspection or of direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.”) Then the same council affirms that this jurisdiction belongs to the Roman Pontiff personally, immediately and ordinarily, as to its unique titular.

 

Now Lumen Gentium n° 22 teaches that “the order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of the Apostles […], with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, is also itself the subject of the supreme and full power over the universal Church […]” (Council of Vatican II, dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, n° 22; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 26; translation from the Latin). Thus, the titular of the supreme jurisdiction is no longer solely the Roman Pontiff, but a collegial subject composed of the pope and the ensemble of the bishops.

 

It is therefore not a question of a simple disciplinary or pastoral precision, but of a modification of the very constitution of the Church. Vatican I recognizes a single titular of the supreme jurisdiction; Vatican II affirms two: the Roman Pontiff personally, and the episcopal college united to him. Two doctrines attributing the supreme jurisdiction to different subjects cannot be simultaneously true. The contradiction therefore bears directly on the divine constitution of the Church.

 

This contradiction cannot be set aside by the “Nota explicativa praevia” annexed to Lumen Gentium (n° 3, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 74). The latter expressly recognizes that the episcopal college is also itself the titular of the supreme and full power over the universal Church, while specifying only the conditions of its exercise. The difficulty therefore does not concern the exercise of the supreme jurisdiction, but its subject. Now it is precisely on this point that Vatican I had defined that the supreme jurisdiction belongs personally to the Roman Pontiff. The Nota explicativa praevia therefore does not suppress the doctrinal difficulty; it confirms it by explicitly admitting the existence of a second titular of the supreme jurisdiction.

 

Paul VI promulgated and maintained these heresies, manifesting public pertinacity.

 

5: Indefectibility of the Church and Continuity in Time of Crisis

 

The doctrine of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church is a truth of divine and Catholic faith, founded on divine Revelation and affirmed by the constant magisterium of the Church before 1963. It guarantees that the Church, instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ, perseveres until the end of time without ever failing in its essential properties: its visibility, its unity, its holiness, its catholicity, its apostolicity, its infallibility and its Magisterium.

 

Indeed, the perpetuity of the New Law, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, confirms the indefectibility of the Church as a visible society until the end of time. In the Summa Theologica (Ia-IIae, q. 106, a. 4; Latin text: Leonine edition, Rome, 1892), he teaches exactly: “The state of this world can undergo two sorts of changes: 1° A change of law. In this sense, no other state must succeed to that of the new law. The latter has already itself succeeded to the old law as a more perfect state succeeds to a less perfect state; but no other state of the present life can be more perfect than that of the new law […] Thus there can be in the present life no state more perfect than that of the new law […]” (body of the article); “The state which is theirs must therefore last until the end of the world.” (sed contra). Logically, this divine perpetuity excludes any total defection of the Church, for a prolonged vacancy without continuity would contradict the finality of salvation promised by Christ.

 

Next this truth follows logically from the first divine cause: God, having ordered the Church as the necessary instrument of salvation, cannot permit that it be corrupted without contradicting His promise, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains: “Man must believe the truths of faith, not because of human reason, but because of the divine authority.” (Summa theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 2, a. 10, body of the article, Leonine edition, Rome, 1895; translation from the Latin).

 

Indefectibility designates the property by which the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, remains immutable in its essential characteristics until the end of time, as George Joyce affirms in The Catholic Encyclopedia, article “The Church”, t. III, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1908, section X, “Indefectibility of the Church”, p. 756 (translation from the English): “Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified not only that the Church will persist until the end of time, but also that it will preserve intact its essential characteristics.”

 

This indefectibility applies to the Church as a visible and hierarchical society, and not to its individual members, who can fail. Logically, indefectibility follows from the divine finality: the Church is the instrument of salvation, and its defection would contradict the divine promise.

 

The scriptural foundations are certain: Matthew 16, 18 (Louis Segond translation, 1910): “And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This promise guarantees that the Church will never be vanquished by error or corruption. Matthew 28, 20 (Louis Segond translation, 1910): “And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” The continuous presence of Christ assures the permanence of the Church.

 

The apostolic Tradition, transmitted by the Fathers and the councils, confirms this doctrine. The Council of Vatican I (1870), in Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4 (18 July 1870, Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, p. 46; translation from the Latin), links indefectibility to infallibility: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that by His revelation they might manifest a new doctrine: but in order that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, or the deposit of the faith.”

 

According to scholastic theology, indefectibility manifests itself in three principal aspects: in existence (in esse): the Church always subsists as a visible and hierarchical society; in teaching (in docere): the Church cannot err in the faith; in action (in agere): the Church remains holy in its means of sanctification.

 

In time of prolonged crisis, such as the present vacancy of the See since 1964, indefectibility assures continuity by the jurisdiction of supply (canon 209 of the 1917 Code, p. 45, applying to acts necessary for the salvation of souls in case of common error or of probable doubt, both in the external and internal forum, without ever supplying the supreme and universal power of the Roman pontiff) and the role of faithful bishops, who maintain the ordinary universal magisterium and the sacraments. Historical examples of prolonged vacancy confirm this survival: the Great Western Schism (XIVth century) or the Arian crises, where the Church subsisted by bishops such as Saint Athanasius.

 

Thus, indefectibility excludes any total failure and guarantees that the visible and hierarchical Church perseveres until the consummation of the ages, even in prolonged sedevacancy.

 

6: Historical and Canonical Analysis of the Case of Paul VI

 

6.1. 1963: Election and U.P.A.: Paul VI was elected on 21 June 1963 and accepted peacefully by the entire Church, which constitutes an infallible dogmatic fact confirming his initial legitimacy.

 

6.2. 1964: Public and Manifest Heresy and loss of the office, loss of all jurisdiction, cessation of being in the communion of the Church. On 21 November 1964, Paul VI promulgated the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (n° 22, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 26), which introduces a doctrine on episcopal collegiality contradicting directly the dogma defined by the Council of Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus on the primacy and the immediate jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. This promulgation constitutes a public and manifest heresy. The loss of the papal office is then immediate and automatic (ipso facto), by the certain doctrinal principle attested by the bull of Paul IV and taught by common theology: the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its visible head.

 

6.3. Immediate Resistance: From the conciliar sessions, the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, group of faithful bishops, opposed resistance to the errors, thus breaking the pacificity of the acceptance, constituting a historical index that the adherence was no longer “peaceful”.

 

It is a probable theological opinion that this resistance is an implicit declaration of vacancy.

 

6.4. 1964-1971: Period of Progressive Recognition: Between 1964 and 1971, resistance to the errors and legitimate disobedience in matters of faith became generalized among the faithful Catholics, without the entire Church committing a collective error. The human awareness of the vacancy was progressive. The first formal public declaration occurred in 1971 with the book of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, La nueva Iglesia postconciliar o Iglesia Montiniana, which concludes to the heresy of Paul VI and to the vacancy of the See.

 

6.5. Fidelity to the Bull and U.P.A.: The bull of Paul IV attests the certain doctrinal principle; the U.P.A. infallibly guarantees the initial legitimacy in 1963, but not post-heresy. The Church did not err: the resistance proves the infallible non-adherence to the heretic.

 

7: Supplementary Arguments

 

7.1. The Proximate Visible Rule of Faith The proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium of the Church. This rule must be objectively visible, certain and exempt from error, so that all the faithful may adhere with certainty to the revealed truths. Saint Thomas teaches: “[…] una fides debet esse totius Ecclesiae […] Quod servari non posset nisi quaestio […] de fide exorta determinaretur per eum qui toti Ecclesiae praeest […]”. (Summa theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 1, a. 10, body of the article, Leonine edition, Rome, 1895.) (Translation: “[…] one single faith must be that of the whole Church […]. This could not be safeguarded if a question arisen concerning the faith were not decided by him who presides over the whole Church […].”)

 

From that moment, if a man remained truly pope while publicly teaching doctrines contrary to the already defined dogmas, the proximate rule of faith would itself become equivocal and contradictory. The faithful could no longer know with certainty what they must believe. Such a hypothesis is incompatible with the very nature of theological faith and with the divine constitution of the Church. A public heretic cannot therefore remain the proximate visible rule of faith nor conserve the supreme authority in the Church.

 

7.2. The Formal Unity of the Church: The Catholic Church is formally constituted by the unity of faith, of government and of worship. This unity does not result from a simple exterior organization, but from the common profession of the same revealed faith and from submission to the same legitimate authority.

 

Now the public heretic, having ceased to belong to the unity of faith, cannot be the formal principle of this unity. Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches: “Haereticus manifestus, nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae.” (De Summo Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, ed. of Prague, 1721, t. I, p. 386, n° 20.) (Translation: “The manifest heretic is in no way a member of the Church.”)

 

A member separated from the body cannot be the head of the body from which he is separated. If the visible head publicly professed a doctrine incompatible with the Catholic faith, he would himself destroy the unity that he is instituted to conserve. He could therefore no longer be the visible principle of the unity of the Church nor legitimately exercise the supreme jurisdiction.

 

7.3. Impossibility of Two Contradictory Magisteria: It results from the preceding demonstration that a same Magisterium cannot teach contradictorily on the divine constitution of the Church. If Vatican II contradicts Vatican I on the subject of the supreme jurisdiction, the authority that promulgated Vatican II cannot be identically the same magisterial authority as that which defined Pastor Aeternus.

 

7.5. Principle of the end of authority: Every authority is essentially ordered to the common good of the society of which it is the head. In the Church, this common good is the integral conservation of the revealed faith. An authority that publicly destroys this common good acts against the essential end of its office. It ceases from that moment to be proportioned to the function that Christ instituted to confirm his brethren in the faith (Luke 22, 32).

 

7.6. Visibility and formal continuity of the Church: If Paul VI remained pope after having publicly promulgated doctrines contrary to the defined faith, the visible Church would have officially changed its doctrine. Now the Church is formally constituted by the continuity of the same faith, of the same government and of the same worship. An authority that conserves the visible structures while modifying the doctrinal substance cannot therefore be the formal authority of the Catholic Church. The sole explanation compatible with indefectibility is the vacancy of the See.

 

7.7. Impossibility of an Officially Non-Binding Magisterium: Paul VI promulgated Lumen Gentium as a dogmatic constitution. Now a pope cannot officially promulgate, in the name of the universal Church, a doctrinal teaching that would be simply “pastoral” and non-normative in matters of faith and of ecclesiology. The official qualification of the act necessarily engages the magisterial authority. Therefore, if the teaching is erroneous, the authority that enacts it cannot be the formal Catholic authority.

 

7.9. Burden of proof: In natural law as in canon law the Roman principle applies: “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” (The burden of proof falls upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; Digest, 22, 3, 2, Paul, book 69 ad edictum; cf. Code of Canon Law of 1917, canon 1748 § 1, p. 335). Those who maintain that a public heretic remains pope must therefore demonstrate, by an explicit text of Scripture, of the Magisterium or of common theology, that there exists an exception to the principle constantly taught according to which the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its head. In default of such a proof, the common doctrine remains fully applicable.

 

7.10. Against the Objection of the Absence of Declaration: It is false to claim that a declaration of the Church would be necessary for the loss of the office to take place. The declaration is declarative and not constitutive (Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, ed. of Prague, 1721, t. I, p. 386, n° 18). It ascertains a fact already accomplished in divine law. The absence of declaration therefore in no way prevents the real vacancy of the See.

 

8: Refutation of the Counter-Arguments

 

The Church did not err in its global discernment: the immediate and growing resistance of the Catholic faithful to the promulgated errors proves precisely the infallible non-adherence to the heretic, thus preserving the divine indefectibility promised by Christ. This resistance, far from being a schism, constitutes a legitimate act of fidelity to the immutable apostolic doctrine, breaking the pacificity of the acceptance without introducing a collective error into the true Church, which subsists in the members attached to the integral faith. Indefectibility is fully preserved, for the visible and hierarchical Church continues by the jurisdiction of supply and the ordinary magisterium of the faithful bishops in this sense that these faithful bishops conserve and transmit the revealed deposit.

 

Any objection founded on a pretended necessity of constitutive declaration ignores that the loss is already accomplished in divine law; the declaration is only ascertaining.

 

Conclusion

 

Paul VI was recognized legitimate pope in 1963 by the Universal Peaceful Acceptance, infallible sign of his initial validity according to the certain Catholic doctrine. However, by his public and obstinate promulgation of public and manifest heretical doctrines, notably in Lumen Gentium on 21 November 1964, he lost ipso facto the papal office according to the certain doctrinal principle attested by the bull of Paul IV and taught by common theology (Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, ed. of Prague, 1721, t. I, p. 386, n° 18). This loss is ontological as to the subject of jurisdiction and automatic in divine law: the manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and cannot be its visible head. From that moment, the resistance of the faithful Catholics constituted a negative sign of non-adherence and an implicit indication of the vacancy of the See, breaking the pacificity without collective error of the Church. The formal and public recognition of this vacancy was progressive, culminating with the declarations of Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in 1971. Thus, the Church preserved its indefectibility, its visibility and its unity in the faithful attached to the immutable apostolic doctrine.

 

Oremus pro Ecclesia.

 

List of sources

 

1. Bellarmine, Robert, De Summo Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, in Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei, t. I, Prague, typis Wolffgangi Wickhart, 1721, p. 386, nos 18 and 20. Latin.

 

2. Billot, Louis, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo incarnato, t. I, De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione, 3rd edition, Prato, Giachetti, filii et soc., 1909, thesis XXIX, § 3, p. 620–621. Latin.

 

3. Code of Canon Law of 1917, canons 188, n° 4, p. 41; 209, p. 45; 1325 § 2, p. 257; 1748 § 1, p. 335; 2314, p. 438. Latin.

 

4. Council of Vatican I, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, canons, first series, n° 5, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. V, 1869–1870, p. 491. Latin.

 

5. Council of Vatican I, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chapter 3, final canon, and chapter 4, in Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, p. 44–46. Latin.

 

6. Council of Vatican II, pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965, n° 12, § 1, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 58, 1966, p. 1034. Latin; French citation in the text.

 

7. Council of Vatican II, dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, n° 22, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 26. Latin.

 

8. Dublanchy, É., “Infaillibilité du pape”, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VII, second part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1923, col. 1715. French.

 

9. Holy Scripture: Matthew 16, 18 and Matthew 28, 20, French translation Louis Segond, 1910; Luke 22, 32.

 

10. Joyce, George, “The Church”, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, t. III, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1908, section X, “Indefectibility of the Church”, p. 756. English.

 

11. Nota explicativa praevia annexed to Lumen gentium, n° 3, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. 57, 1965, p. 74. Latin.

 

12. Paul, jurisconsult, book 69 ad edictum, fragment conserved in the Digest, 22, 3, 2. Latin.

 

13. Paul IV, constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, § 6, in Codicis iuris canonici fontes, t. I, n° 94. Latin.

 

14. Pius IX, Syllabus, 8 December 1864, proposition 3; Denzinger, n° 1703; Denzinger–Schönmetzer, n° 2903. Latin.

 

15. Rufinus, Die Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus, edition Heinrich Singer, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1902, distinction XXI, canon 7, p. 46. Latin text.

 

16. Sáenz y Arriaga, Joaquín, La nueva Iglesia postconciliar o Iglesia Montiniana. Spanish.

 

17. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, Ia-IIae, question 106, article 4, body of the article and sed contra; Leonine edition of the Latin text, Rome, 1892.

 

18. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, IIa-IIae, question 1, article 10, body of the article, and question 2, article 10, body of the article; Leonine edition of the Latin text, Rome, 1895.