The Dogmatic Fact
Its Nature and its Relation with the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church
Table of contents
Introduction
- Definition of the dogmatic fact
- Distinctions between the various categories of facts connected with infallibility
2.1. The purely historical dogmatic fact
2.1.1. The teaching of Cardinal Franzelin
2.1.2. The doctrine of Cardinal Cajetan
2.2. The doctrinal fact
2.3. Canonization
2.4. The universal approval of a rite
2.5. The legitimacy of a council
- The dogmatic fact in relation to the infallibility of the Magisterium
- The dogmatic fact as fruit of infallibility and not as source
- Illustrative historical examples
5.1. The five propositions of Jansenius
5.2. The condemnation of the Three Chapters
5.3. The fact that such a person is truly pope
5.3.1. The teaching of Cardinal Billot
5.3.2. Peaceful and universal acceptance according to Cardinal Journet
- Doctrinal and pastoral implications
Conclusion
Principal references
Introduction
The dogmatic fact occupies an eminent place in Catholic theology, because it unites the historical contingent with eternal revealed truth. It designates a fact or a judgment not revealed in itself, but so closely linked to Revelation that the Church must be able to know it with certainty in order to keep the deposit of faith intact. Its relation with the infallibility of the Magisterium is therefore intrinsic: the dogmatic fact does not constitute an autonomous source of infallibility, but it receives its certainty from the divine assistance promised to the Church.
This doctrine flows from the very principles of Catholic ecclesiology. If the Church could err in the facts necessary for the conservation or application of the faith, the visible unity of the Church would disappear and the proximate rule of faith would become uncertain. As the classical theologians teach, infallibility does not bear solely upon revealed truths taken materially, but also upon the connected objects without which the revealed deposit could not be kept, explained or applied with security.
One must therefore hold the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas provides the fundamental principles that will later serve to elaborate this doctrine systematically, notably when he teaches that the universal Church, assisted by the Holy Spirit, cannot err in what belongs to the faith: “Sed contra est quod Ecclesia universalis non potest errare, quia spiritu sancto gubernatur, qui est spiritus veritatis, hoc enim promisit dominus discipulis, Ioan. XVI, dicens, cum venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem.” Translation: “On the contrary, the universal Church cannot err, because it is governed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth; for the Lord promised this to his disciples, in John XVI, saying: When that Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 1, a. 9, sed contra.
Indeed, the Church cannot fail in the visible signs of its unity (unity of faith, of worship and of government). In the present crisis, the absence of a universally recognized legitimate pope illustrates that the Church remains indefectible in its faith, even without a temporary supreme visible pastor.
By logical consequence, present-day sedevacantism constitutes a necessary conclusion of the unity of the Church. Indeed, to recognize as pope a man who publicly teaches heresy amounts to uniting oneself, in a certain manner, to a heretic and thus to wound the unity of the Church, which is infallible and one in the orthodox faith.
This position flows directly from Catholic doctrine: the Church cannot have as visible head a man who has broken with the Catholic faith, because that would destroy the visible unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. Since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964, the Apostolic See is therefore vacant, in conformity with the principles taught by the classical theologians such as Saint Robert Bellarmine: “Est ergo quinta opinio vera, Papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse Papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab Ecclesia posse eum iudicari et puniri.” Translation: “The fifth opinion is therefore the true one: a manifestly heretical pope ceases by himself to be pope and head, just as he ceases by himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church.” Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, in Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, t. I, Naples, apud Josephum Giuliano, 1856, p. 420.
We shall therefore proceed in logical order: definition of the dogmatic fact, necessary distinctions between the various categories of facts connected with infallibility, relation between these facts and the Magisterium, historical examples, then doctrinal implications.
- Definition of the dogmatic fact
The dogmatic fact is a historical fact or a contingent judgment which, without belonging formally to divine Revelation, is so linked to it that the Church must be able to determine it infallibly in order to conserve and correctly apply the revealed deposit.
The Dominican theologian Charles-René Billuart sets forth this doctrine in the Summa Sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata, t. III, Tractatus de regulis fidei, dissertatio III, articulus VII, § II, Paris, apud Victorem Palmé, 1900, p. 322: “Dico: Judicium Ecclesiae de sensu librorum, seu de factis dogmaticis, est infallibile.” Translation: “I say: the judgment of the Church on the sense of books, that is to say on dogmatic facts, is infallible.”
The dogmatic fact therefore remains contingent, historical or doctrinal, not directly revealed. But it becomes the object of an infallible judgment because of its necessary connection with the faith. Thus the identity of the true pope, the authenticity of an ecumenical council, the real presence of heretical propositions in a work or the doctrinal conformity of a text can pertain to the dogmatic fact.
Pius IX treats, in the letter Tuas libenter of 21 December 1863, of the extent of the submission due to the truths proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, DS 2879: “Namque etiamsi ageretur de illa subiectione, quae fidei divinae actu est praestanda, limitanda tamen non esset ad ea, quae expressis, oecumenicorum Conciliorum aut Romanorum Pontificum, huiusque Apostolicae Sedis decretis definita sunt, sed ad ea quoque extendenda quae ordinario totius Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata traduntur, ideoque universali et constanti consensu a catholicis Theologis ad fidem pertinere retinentur.” Translation: “For even if it were a question of that subjection which must be rendered by an act of divine faith, it ought not however to be limited to those things which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but it ought also to be extended to those things which are transmitted as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world and which, for that reason, are held by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians as belonging to the faith.” Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VIII (1874–1875), pp. 436–442. This passage does not, by itself, define the dogmatic fact in the technical sense; it concerns directly the assent of faith due to what the ordinary and universal magisterium proposes as divinely revealed.
The theological foundation of the dogmatic fact therefore resides in the necessity of preserving the integrity of the revealed deposit.
- Essential distinctions between the various categories of facts connected with infallibility
The classical theologians often group under the general name of “dogmatic fact” several distinct categories. Yet these categories are not entirely homogeneous. They must be distinguished with precision in order to avoid confusions of theological notes.
2.1. The purely historical dogmatic fact
The purely historical dogmatic fact concerns a contingent event of history, not revealed in itself, but necessary for the conservation of the faith. Examples: the identity of the true pope, the validity of an ecumenical council, the authentic attribution of a condemned text.
2.1.1. The teaching of Cardinal Franzelin
Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin teaches: “Cum veritatibus revelatis connexae sunt et ad eas referuntur veritates aliae in se quidem non revelatae, sine quibus tamen ipsum depositum revelationis non posset in tota sua plenitudine rite custodiri, explicari, defendi.” Translation: “To revealed truths are connected and related other truths which, in themselves, are certainly not revealed, but without which the very deposit of Revelation could not, in all its fullness, be suitably kept, explained and defended.” Johann Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura, 3rd ed., Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, thesis XII, scholion I, principium III, p. 121.
Thus, if the universal Church could err on the identity of the pope, the visible rule of faith would become false, the visible unity of the Church would be destroyed and the promises of Christ would be rendered vain.
2.1.2. The doctrine of Cardinal Cajetan
Cardinal Cajetan treats expressly of the case of a dead or uncertain pope and of an ambiguity concerning the electors: “In casu autem permissionis, puta, quia Papa nihil statuit in oppositum, et ambiguitatis, quia nescitur si aliquis est verus Cardinalis et similium eventuum, mortuo vel incerto Papa, ut tempore magni schismatis inchoati sub Urbano VI contigisse videtur, in Ecclesia Dei esse potestatem applicativam papatus ad personam, servatis debitis requisitionibus, ne perplexa sit, asserendum est. Et tunc per viam devolutionis ad universalem Ecclesiam potestas haec devenire videtur.” Translation: “In the case of a permission, for example because the pope has decreed nothing to the contrary, and in a case of ambiguity, because it is unknown whether someone is truly a cardinal, or in similar events, the pope being dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the great schism begun under Urban VI, it must be affirmed that there exists in the Church of God the power of applying the papacy to a person, the required conditions being observed, so that she may not remain in perplexity. And then this power seems to come, by way of devolution, to the universal Church.” Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, chap. XIII, n° 204, ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Rome, apud Institutum Angelicum, 1936, pp. 97–98. The Church is not a purely invisible or interior society; it is a visible, hierarchical and juridically constituted society. The pope being the proximate rule of ecclesiastical communion and the visible principle of unity, it is necessary that the Church be able to recognize with certainty the person who truly possesses the pontificate. Otherwise obedience to the pope would become impossible, ecclesiastical jurisdiction would become uncertain, the visible unity of the Church would be destroyed and the faithful would be abandoned to a confusion incompatible with the promises of Christ.
The Church is indeed well visible. If the Church could not infallibly recognize its visible head, or the absence of the latter, it would no longer be a perfect visible society, which contradicts its divine constitution.
This doctrine will be developed more explicitly later by Franzelin, Billot and Journet, but its foundation is already found virtually in Cajetan.
2.2. The doctrinal fact
The doctrinal fact does not bear principally upon a historical event, but upon the doctrinal relation of a proposition with Revelation. Examples: condemnation of a proposition as heretical, determination of the sense objectively contained in a text, theological qualification of a doctrine.
In the Jansenist controversy, the question whether the propositions were really found in the Augustinus pertained to the historical fact; the question whether these propositions were heretical pertained to the doctrinal fact.
Francisco Suárez teaches: “Quamobrem dicendum ulterius est, non solum non posse ecclesiam incidere in haeresim, verum etiam nec posse errare, sive per ignorantiam, sive quocumque alio modo, in aliquo dogmate in quo tanquam in veritate a Deo revelata, et ab omnibus fidelibus credenda, universa ecclesia conspirat, docet et proponit.” Translation: “It must therefore be said further that not only can the Church not fall into heresy, but that it cannot even err, whether by ignorance or in any other way, in a dogma on which the universal Church agrees, which it teaches and proposes as a truth revealed by God and to be believed by all the faithful.” Francisco Suárez, Defensio fidei catholicae et apostolicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores, Coimbra, apud Didacum Gomez de Loureyro Academiae typographum, 1613, book I, chapter IV, n° 2.
2.3. Canonization
Canonization possesses a particular nature. It comprises a historical element (the person lived holily) and a doctrinal element (the person enjoys the beatific vision and can be proposed for universal cult). Canonization therefore does not constitute a simple historical fact.
Prospero Lambertini, future Benedict XIV, concludes: “Si non haereticum, temerarium tamen, scandalum toti Ecclesiae afferentem, in Sanctos injuriosum, faventem Haereticis negantibus auctoritatem Ecclesiae in Canonizatione Sanctorum, sapientem haeresim, utpote viam sternentem Infidelibus ad irridendum Fideles, assertorem erroneae propositionis, et gravissimis poenis obnoxium dicemus eum, qui auderet asserere, Pontificem in hac, aut illa Canonizatione errasse, huncque, aut illum Sanctum ab eo Canonizatum non esse Cultu Duliae colendum; quemadmodum assentiuntur etiam illi, qui docent, de Fide non esse, Papam esse infallibilem in Canonizatione Sanctorum, nec de Fide esse, hunc aut illum Canonizatum esse Sanctum.” Translation: “If we do not call him heretical, we shall nevertheless call him rash, causing scandal to the whole Church, injurious to the saints, favourable to heretics who deny the authority of the Church in the canonization of saints, savouring of heresy inasmuch as it opens to unbelievers the way to mock the faithful, defender of an erroneous proposition and liable to very grave penalties, him who would dare to assert that the Pontiff has erred in this or that canonization and that this or that saint canonized by him is not to be honoured with the cult of dulia; as even those agree who teach that it is not of faith that the pope is infallible in the canonization of saints, nor that it is of faith that this or that canonized person is a saint.” Prospero Lambertini, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, book I, chap. XLV, n° 28, Bologna, Formis Longhi excusoris archiepiscopalis, 1734, p. 419.
2.4. The universal approval of a rite
The universal approval of a rite likewise pertains to the secondary objects of infallibility. Here the object is not a particular historical fact, but a liturgical or sacramental law imposed on the universal Church.
The principle taught by the classical theologians is that the universal Church cannot impose an intrinsically evil rite, a rite destructive of the faith or an invalid rite. Saint Robert Bellarmine specifies: “Tertia propositio haec esse potest. Non solum in decretis fidei errare non potest summus pontifex, sed neque in praeceptis morum, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur, et quae in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis quae per se bona, vel mala sunt, versantur.” Translation: “The third proposition can be the following: the sovereign pontiff cannot err not only in decrees of faith, but neither in moral precepts prescribed to the whole Church and which concern things necessary for salvation or those which are good or evil in themselves.” Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V, in Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, t. I, Naples, apud Josephum Giuliano, 1856, p. 483. Dom Prosper Guéranger writes: “The Roman Liturgy alone is virgin of all error, like the Church which promulgates it.” Prosper Guéranger, Institutions liturgiques, 2nd ed., t. I, Paris, Société générale de librairie catholique, Victor Palmé, 1878, chap. VIII, pp. 200–201. As for the substance of the sacraments, the Council of Trent declares: “Praeterea declarat, hanc potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, ut in sacramentorum dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, ea statueret vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati seu ipsorum sacramentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum et locorum varietate, magis expedire iudicaret.” Translation: “It further declares that the Church has always possessed the power, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being safeguarded, to establish or change what it would judge most useful for those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the diversity of circumstances, times and places.” Council of Trent, session XXI, doctrine on communion under both kinds and the communion of little children, chap. II, DS 1728. This category does not constitute a historical dogmatic fact in the strict sense, but a secondary object of infallibility linked to the universal discipline of the Church.
The Church cannot canonize a heretic nor impose a rite destructive of the faith. This has an evident pastoral bearing today.
2.5. The legitimacy of a council
The recognition of an ecumenical council comprises several elements: validity of convocation, pontifical approval, universal recognition, doctrinal authority. It is therefore a complex ecclesiological-dogmatic fact.
Cajetan formulates the condition thus: “Propositio dicens: quod Concilium generale non potest errare in iudicio fidei est vera simpliciter et absolute de Concilio iudicante in fide cum Papa, et non est vera de acephalo.” Translation: “The proposition saying that a general council cannot err in a judgment of faith is true simply and absolutely of a council judging in matters of faith with the pope, and it is not true of a headless council.” Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Apologia de comparata auctoritate Papae et Concilii, chap. XI, § 5, nos 697–707, ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Rome, apud Institutum Angelicum, 1936, pp. 288–290. If the universal Church could be mistaken on the legitimacy of an ecumenical council, the doctrinal unity of the Church would disappear and the universal rule of faith would become uncertain.
- The dogmatic fact in relation to the infallibility of the Magisterium
Infallibility is a divine privilege granted to the Church so that it may teach without error the truths necessary for salvation. This infallibility extends to dogmatic facts because these are necessary for the conservation, explanation or application of the revealed deposit.
The Magisterium does not receive its infallibility from the dogmatic fact. On the contrary, it is the divine assistance promised to the Magisterium that renders the judgment infallible; the dogmatic fact receives its certainty from the judgment of the Church. Infallibility can be exercised by the extraordinary Magisterium, by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, or in judgments bearing upon facts connected with Revelation.
Cardinal Franzelin explains that the connected truths are necessary so that the deposit of Revelation may be suitably kept, explained and defended in all its fullness; such is principium III of scholion I placed after thesis XII (Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura, 3rd ed., Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, p. 121).
- The dogmatic fact as fruit of infallibility and not as source
The dogmatic fact is not an autonomous source of infallibility. It is on the contrary an effect of the divine assistance granted to the Church. Without this assistance, the fact would remain contingent and the human judgment would remain fallible. With the divine assistance, the ecclesial judgment becomes infallible and the fact acquires an objective and universal certainty.
Émile Dublanchy writes: “The infallible judgment of the Church, in exercising itself upon this fact, pronounces at once upon the objective reality of the indicated sense and upon its orthodox or heterodox character.” He adds: “In the course of the centuries, the Church, certainly infallible in the determination of its powers, has constantly used this right of judging infallibly the orthodox or heterodox character of writings whose doctrinal appreciation was important for the good of Christian society, and in this matter it has always rigorously imposed upon the acceptance of the faithful its definitive judgments.” Émile Dublanchy, “Église”, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, t. IV, 2nd part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1911, col. 2188 and following. The faithful are therefore obliged to adhere to the infallible judgments bearing upon dogmatic facts, because the refusal of these judgments would call into question the very authority of the teaching Church.
- Illustrative historical examples
5.1. The five propositions of Jansenius
Innocent X condemned the five Jansenist propositions in the apostolic constitution Cum occasione of 31 May 1653, DS 2001–2007, especially DS 2006. Alexander VII, in the apostolic constitution Ad sanctam beati Petri Sedem of 16 October 1656, declared and defined that the five propositions had been taken from the Augustinus of Cornelius Jansenius and condemned in the sense intended by him, DS 2010–2012, especially DS 2012. The formulary imposed by the constitution Regiminis apostolici of 15 February 1665 takes up exactly this object: “Ego N. Constitutioni Apostolicae Innocentii X, datae die 31. maii 1653, et Constitutioni Alexandri VII, datae die 16. Octobris 1656, Summorum Pontificum, me subicio, et quinque propositiones ex Cornelii Jansenii libro, cui nomen Augustinus, excerptas, et in sensu ab eodem auctore intento, prout illas per dictas Constitutiones Sedes Apostolica damnavit, sincero animo reicio ac damno, et ita iuro: Sic me Deus adiuvet, et haec sancta Dei evangelia.” Translation: “I, N., submit myself to the apostolic constitution of Innocent X of 31 May 1653 and to that of Alexander VII of 16 October 1656, Sovereign Pontiffs; I sincerely reject and condemn the five propositions taken from the book of Cornelius Jansenius entitled Augustinus, in the sense intended by the same author, as the Apostolic See has condemned them by the said constitutions, and I so swear: so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.” Alexander VII, Regiminis apostolici, 15 February 1665, DS 2020. Here appear clearly the doctrinal fact, namely the qualification and condemnation of the five propositions, and the fact concerning the work, namely that they were taken from it and condemned in the sense intended by Jansenius.
5.2. The condemnation of the Three Chapters
The second Council of Constantinople of 553 condemned the Three Chapters. Despite the historical difficulties and the initial hesitations of Pope Vigilius, the universal Church finally recognized this council as ecumenical. This case illustrates the infallibility of the Church in the recognition of councils and the divine protection despite historical complications.
5.3. The fact that such a person is truly pope
The fact that Pius X was truly pope constitutes a classical example of a historical dogmatic fact. The peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church constitutes an infallible sign of legitimacy.
5.3.1. The teaching of Cardinal Billot
Cardinal Billot teaches: “Id saltem veluti penitus inconcussum et extra omnem dubitationem positum firmiter tenendum est : adhaesionem universalis Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et exsistentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae.” Translation: “This at least must be firmly held as absolutely unshaken and placed beyond all doubt: the adhesion of the universal Church will always be, of 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 that legitimacy itself.” Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato, t. I, 3rd ed., Prato, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, 1909, q. XIV, thesis XXIX, § 3, pp. 620–621.
5.3.2. Peaceful and universal acceptance according to Cardinal Journet
Cardinal Charles Journet deepens this doctrine by explaining that the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Roman pontiff by the Church does not constitute a simple sociological or historical fact, but, according to his own terms, an “act infallible of itself.” The brute fact of universal adhesion is certainly historical and contingent; however, when it is considered in the light of the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church, it becomes a theologically certain sign.
Journet teaches: “But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church uniting itself actually to such an elected person as to the head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages its destiny. It is therefore an act infallible of itself, and it is immediately knowable as such. (Consequently and mediately, it will appear that all the conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been realized.)” Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, t. I, La hiérarchie apostolique, ed. René et Dominique Mougel, Saint-Maurice (Switzerland), Éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998, pp. 977–978.
This certainty does not come from a human majority nor from a simple moral consensus, but from the divine assistance promised to the Church. Indeed, if the universal Church could adhere peacefully to a false pope, it would adhere to a false proximate rule of faith, the visible unity of the Church would be destroyed and the promises of Christ concerning ecclesial indefectibility would become illusory. Thus the historical fact of universal acceptance becomes, by theological reflection on the nature of the Church, a certain dogmatic fact.
- Doctrinal and pastoral implications
The doctrine of the dogmatic fact manifests the divine wisdom in the visible government of the Church. Without this doctrine doctrinal authority would become unusable, the visible unity of the Church would be compromised and the faithful could never possess a sufficient practical certainty concerning the rule of faith.
In modern ecclesiastical crises, this doctrine remains fundamental for discerning true authority, the limits of obedience and the continuity of the Catholic faith. Infallibility does not transform historical facts into formal revealed truths, but it infallibly guarantees the judgments necessary for the conservation of the revealed deposit.
The doctrine of the dogmatic fact makes it possible to discern that the occupants of the See since 1964 cannot be true popes, because their public teaching contradicts the revealed deposit, and the adhesion is not peaceful and universal in the traditional sense (manifest public heresies).
Conclusion
The dogmatic fact constitutes one of the deepest points of Catholic ecclesiology, because it shows how divine assistance protects not only the revealed truths themselves, but also the connected realities indispensable to their conservation and application. This doctrine manifests the visible indefectibility of the Church, the continuity of the rule of faith and the doctrinal unity of the Mystical Body.
The dogmatic fact does not produce infallibility; it is its visible effect in the historical and doctrinal order. Thus are safeguarded the unity of the Church, the certainty of the faith and the authority of the Magisterium instituted by Christ.
Principal references
Johann Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura, 3rd ed., Rome, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1882, thesis XII, scholion I, principium III, p. 121.
Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato, t. I, 3rd ed., Prato, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, 1909, q. XIV, thesis XXIX, § 3, pp. 620–621.
Francisco Suárez, Defensio fidei catholicae et apostolicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores, Coimbra, apud Didacum Gomez de Loureyro Academiae typographum, 1613, book I, chapter IV, n° 2.
Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, t. I, La hiérarchie apostolique, ed. René et Dominique Mougel, Saint-Maurice (Switzerland), Éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998, pp. 977–978.
Émile Dublanchy, “Église”, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, t. IV, 2nd part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1911, col. 2188 and following.
Prospero Lambertini (Benedict XIV), De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, book I, Bologna, Formis Longhi excusoris archiepiscopalis, 1734, chap. XLV, n° 28, p. 419.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Disputationum de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, t. I, Naples, apud Josephum Giuliano, 1856; De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, p. 420, and book IV, chapter V, p. 483.
Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Scripta theologica, t. I, Rome, apud Institutum Angelicum, 1936; De comparatione, chap. XIII, n° 204, pp. 97–98; Apologia, chap. XI, § 5, nos 697–707, pp. 288–290.
Heinrich Denzinger and Adolf Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 32nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1963.