The Indefectibility and Immutability
of the Government of the Church
According to Dom Mauro Cappellari
(future Pope Gregory XVI)
Table of contents
- Introduction
1.1. Historical context of the Treatise
1.2. Place in The Triumph of the Holy See
1.3. Doctrinal and polemical object
- The fundamental thesis of the immutability of ecclesiastical government
2.1. Distinction between civil governments and the government of the Church
2.2. Definition of immutability
2.3. Government and essence of the Church
- The Church as a visible and hierarchical society
3.1. Perfect society
3.2. Ecclesial visibility
3.3. Doctrinal and jurisdictional authority
3.4. Necessity of government
- The reasons for the divine institution of government
4.1. Doctrinal school
4.2. Spiritual tribunal
4.3. Unity and peace
4.4. Protection against innovations
4.5. Universal visibility
- Perpetuity and indefectibility
5.1. Divine assistance
5.2. Indefectibility
5.3. Argument drawn from the promises of Christ
5.4. Argument of Gamaliel
- Refutation of an indeterminate form of government
6.1. Doctrinal impossibility
6.2. Ecclesiological consequences
6.3. Loss of identity of the Church
- The Church identifiable by its constitution
7.1. Comparison with civil societies
7.2. Government as a visible sign
7.3. Recognition of the true Church
- Critique of the innovators
8.1. Protestantism
8.2. Gallicanism
8.3. Febronianism and Tamburinism
8.4. Abuses and constitution
- Pontifical monarchy and the primacy of Peter
9.1. Refutation of primus inter pares
9.2. True monarchy
9.3. Authority that is not despotic
9.4. Function of the Roman Pontiff
- Refutation of conciliarism
10.1. Conciliarist theories
10.2. Hierarchical unity
10.3. Jurisdiction and dependence
- Ecclesial continuity and resistance to innovations
11.1. Conservation of the divine plan
11.2. Permanence of the ecclesiastical constitution
11.3. The true Church and the continuity of government
11.4. Objection and reply
- Doctrinal conclusion
- List of sources
- Introduction
The Treatise on the Immutability of the Government of the Church of Dom Mauro Cappellari, future Pope Gregory XVI, constitutes one of the most systematic ecclesiological expositions of the early nineteenth century in favour of the permanence of the hierarchical and monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church. Originally inserted in The Triumph of the Holy See and of the Church against the Attacks of the Innovators, the work replies to Protestant, Gallican, Febronian and Jansenizing doctrines which maintained, under various forms, the mutability of ecclesiastical government or the essential limitation of pontifical authority. Cappellari develops a demonstration founded on the visible nature of the Church, its quality as a perfect society, the promises of Christ and the indefectibility of the hierarchically constituted government instituted by God. Since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964, the apostolic see is vacant; nevertheless, the divine constitution of the Church remains intact in its essential permanence, and this treatise retains all its actuality for understanding that the Church subsists such as Christ founded it.
1.1. Historical context of the Treatise
The Treatise belongs to a period of profound ecclesiological contestations. The intellectual consequences of the Protestant Reformation, of Gallicanism, of Febronianism and of rationalist currents had progressively shifted the theological debate from the strictly doctrinal domain towards the very question of ecclesiastical authority. The problem was no longer only that of a particular doctrine, but that of the visible principle charged with guaranteeing its integrity. Dom Mauro Cappellari, Camaldolese Benedictine born at Belluno in 1765 and later raised to the sovereign pontificate under the name of Gregory XVI, intervenes precisely in this context. A theologian formed in the religious schools of his order, member of the Academy of the Catholic Religion and later cardinal then prefect of Propaganda, he belongs to that generation of ultramontane thinkers who undertook to reply methodically to the doctrines contesting the Roman primacy and the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
1.2. Place in The Triumph of the Holy See
The Treatise on the Immutability of the Government of the Church does not constitute an independent writing in its first origin. It forms the preliminary and doctrinal discourse of The Triumph of the Holy See, but its amplitude and its organisation rapidly conferred upon it an intellectual autonomy. The French edition of the nineteenth century itself underlines this exceptional importance, presenting this treatise as a complete demonstration of the immutability of ecclesiastical government and as an exposition of the permanent principles upon which the visible Church rests. The work is divided into numerous successive paragraphs of which each pursues a precise stage of the general reasoning. This methodical architecture testifies to a will that is not only polemical, but truly scientific, according to the scholastic method adapted to modern controversies.
1.3. Doctrinal and polemical object
The fundamental problem to which Cappellari replies may be formulated thus: is the government of the Church, like political governments, susceptible of essential changes? To this question the author replies negatively with absolute firmness. All his argumentation tends to establish that ecclesiastical government is of divine institution, possesses a determined form, belongs to the visible essence of the Church and remains perpetually identical in its fundamental constitution. Thus the work does not simply defend certain Roman privileges or certain disciplinary practices. It defends the very structure of the Church willed by Jesus Christ, which takes on a particular importance in the present situation of vacancy of the apostolic See since 1964.
- The fundamental thesis of the immutability of ecclesiastical government
2.1. Distinction between civil governments and the government of the Church
Cappellari begins with a decisive distinction between two orders of political and social realities. Human governments depend on historical circumstances, conventions, balances of forces and human wills. Their form may vary according to peoples and epochs. Monarchy, aristocracy or democracy may succeed one another without the same constitution necessarily remaining. Roman and oriental history furnishes the author with examples of such mutations. But this mutability, he maintains, cannot be transferred to the government of the Church. The Church does not proceed from a human convention nor from a social contract. Its government does not derive from a popular sovereignty nor from a political agreement. Its origin resides in a positive divine institution. Consequently, the comparison between civil governments and ecclesiastical government can be made only with strict conceptual precautions.
2.2. Definition of immutability
By immutability Cappellari does not mean the absence of every disciplinary or administrative evolution. He carefully distinguishes accidental changes and essential changes. The first concern the contingent exercise of power, certain administrative forms or secondary disciplinary measures. The second would touch the nature of the power, its seat, its constitution or the fundamental hierarchical relations. It is this second category that Cappellari declares impossible. According to him, to modify essentially the hierarchical constitution would amount not to reforming the Church, but to establishing another one, which is incompatible with the indefectibility promised by Christ.
2.3. Government and essence of the Church
The immediate consequence of the preceding principle appears in the intimate link that Cappellari establishes between government and ecclesial essence. The Church is not an indistinct multitude of believers united only by common religious sentiments or by an interior adhesion to the Gospel. It constitutes a true society whose visible organisation belongs to its very identity. This affirmation possesses a considerable bearing. If government belongs only to exterior circumstances, it may vary without the Church losing its identity. But if, on the contrary, government belongs to the constitutive plan willed by Jesus Christ, to modify it essentially amounts to altering the Church itself. Cappellari here adopts a logic analogous to that of Aristotle concerning political cities. A society remains identical so long as the form that organises its fundamental relations subsists; when this form changes substantially, it is no longer the same society.
- The Church as a visible and hierarchical society
3.1. Perfect society
In order to establish the necessity of ecclesiastical government, Cappellari develops the traditional doctrine of the Church as a perfect society. A perfect society possesses in itself the means necessary to attain its proper end. Now the end of the Church is supernatural: to lead souls to salvation, to conserve revelation, to administer the sacraments, to teach divine truth and to govern the faithful spiritually. Such a mission necessarily supposes the existence of an authority, of a hierarchical order and of a jurisdictional power. Without these elements the Church would become a private association or a school of religious opinions, incapable of accomplishing the mission entrusted by Christ. Government thus appears not as a historical or disciplinary concession, but as an intrinsic necessity flowing from the very finality of the Church.
3.2. Ecclesial visibility
The visibility of the Church constitutes one of the major arguments of the treatise. Cappellari invokes the prophetic image of Isaiah: the mountain raised up towards which the nations flow. This figure signifies that the Church was to be manifest, recognisable, public and identifiable among human societies. An invisible or indeterminate Church would be repugnant to the very design of Christ. But this visibility does not consist only in the material existence of the faithful. It resides also in the public profession of faith, the hierarchy, doctrinal authority, jurisdiction and governmental order. In other words, the visibility of the Church implies the visibility of its government. Without identifiable structure the Church could not be distinguished from the innumerable sects that likewise claim to invoke Jesus Christ.
3.3. Doctrinal and jurisdictional authority
The government of the Church comprises, according to Cappellari, a double function. The first is doctrinal. The Church teaches with authority. It does not simply propose theological opinions submitted to individual arbitration; it transmits and authentically interprets revelation. The second function is jurisdictional. The Church judges spiritual causes, controversies and behaviours contrary to the faith or to discipline. This jurisdiction does not constitute a mere moral authority. It implies command, obligation and power of decision. Without jurisdiction, doctrinal authority itself would remain ineffective. A truth that no one has the right to defend or to impose juridically rapidly becomes incapable of assuring unity. Thus doctrine and government appear in Cappellari as inseparable.
3.4. Necessity of government
The necessity of government then results with evidence. A universal society called to last until the end of the world cannot subsist without a principle of unity, without recognised authority, without visible centre, without real power. The absence of government would inevitably produce doctrinal plurality, fragmentation, rivalries and dissolution. Cappellari underlines that Jesus Christ did not merely announce truths; he founded an organised society destined to conserve them and to transmit them. This society therefore had to receive a proper constitution, whose permanence is guaranteed by divine assistance.
- The reasons for the divine institution of government
4.1. Doctrinal school
The first reason for which Jesus Christ instituted a government consists in the teaching function of the Church. Christianity rests upon an objective revelation. This revelation must be conserved, interpreted and transmitted faithfully. For this reason the Church is compared to a permanent school. But a school supposes masters, disciples and a competent authority. Without this distinction every doctrine becomes abandoned to private judgement. Ecclesiastical government therefore protects revealed truth against individual arbitrariness.
4.2. Spiritual tribunal
The second reason resides in the necessary existence of a spiritual tribunal. Doubts arise in doctrinal, disciplinary, sacramental or jurisdictional matters. If no judge exists to resolve them, religious peace becomes impossible. Cappellari insists: Christ did not leave the Church in a judicial indeterminacy. He willed that there exist an authority capable of deciding, of cutting short and of putting an end to controversies. Ecclesiastical government thus appears as a providential remedy against doctrinal anarchy.
4.3. Unity and peace
Unity constitutes a third fundamental finality. The faithful come from diverse nations, diverse languages and diverse customs. They must nevertheless form one single body. This unity cannot result from a mere religious sympathy. It requires one same faith, one same law and one same authority. Thus, according to Cappellari, visible unity necessarily supposes a visible government. Ecclesiastical authority therefore does not destroy communion; it constitutes its condition.
4.4. Protection against innovations
Government was further established in order to protect the Church against innovations. Every society exposed to time encounters dissensions, ambitions, errors and attempts at usurpation. The Church does not escape this historical law. But Jesus Christ, foreseeing these dangers, willed to institute a hierarchical order capable of defending doctrine, discipline and unity. The hierarchy therefore does not constitute an arbitrary domination. It acts as guardian of apostolic continuity.
4.5. Universal visibility
Finally, Cappellari returns to the missionary finality of government. The Church is destined for all nations. It must be able to be recognised universally. Now a society without stable form nor defined authority could not claim to teach the entire world. Government then becomes one of the signs permitting the Church to remain visible through the centuries and among the peoples. This visible universality belongs to the very design of Christ.
- Perpetuity and indefectibility
5.1. Divine assistance
After having established the intrinsic necessity of a government in the Church, Cappellari takes a decisive step: this government is not only necessary, it is perpetual. This perpetuity flows directly from the promises of Christ. The Saviour did not simply found a religious society called to subsist as long as human circumstances would permit; he engaged himself to assist his Church until the consummation of the ages. This assistance cannot be reduced to a vague moral protection or to a mere spiritual influence. It comprises, according to Cappellari, a real guarantee concerning the very existence of the ecclesial plan instituted by Jesus Christ.
5.2. Indefectibility
This assistance leads directly to the doctrine of indefectibility. Indefectibility means that the Church can never fail in its essential mission nor lose the constitutive elements willed by its founder. Cappellari here insists on an important distinction. The Church may suffer persecutions, crises, scandals, personal abuses or human failings. But these trials do not reach its essence. Indefectibility does not imply the absence of historical difficulties; it implies the impossibility of a substantial destruction. Ecclesiastical government belongs precisely to this essential sphere.
5.3. Argument drawn from the promises of Christ
The evangelical promises constitute for Cappellari a positive proof. Christ promises: “And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” This permanent assistance cannot, according to him, be understood independently of the governmental mission entrusted to the Church. For the Church does not subsist as a mere historical souvenir of Christ. It subsists by teaching, by governing and by sanctifying. Assistance must therefore accompany these functions. In other words, if government could change substantially, the promise of assistance would become unintelligible.
5.4. Argument of Gamaliel, a historical confirmation illustrating the stability of divine works
Cappellari further reinforces his demonstration by invoking the word of Gamaliel reported in the Acts of the Apostles: “If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it.” This citation receives in him an ecclesiological bearing. The Church is precisely the divine work par excellence. If its government were subject to essential alterations or to destructions imposed by human pride, one would have to conclude that this work does not possess the solidity proper to divine institutions. The argument translates a metaphysical logic: the divine work must bear the imprint of the stability of its author.
- Refutation of an indeterminate form of government
6.1. Doctrinal impossibility
An objection then presents itself. Could Christ have voluntarily left the form of ecclesiastical government indeterminate, thus permitting successive generations freely to choose the constitution most adapted? Cappellari replies negatively. Such an hypothesis would immediately introduce a radical uncertainty. One would no longer know where authority resides, who possesses jurisdiction, who may teach or who may judge. Government would become dependent on majorities, circumstances or human conventions. Now Christ never presented his Church as a society founded on the variable consent of its members. He founded it on a mission received from on high.
6.2. Ecclesiological consequences
The consequences of an indeterminate form would be, according to Cappellari, disastrous. If no constitution were fixed, disciples and masters would become interchangeable, pastors and faithful could exchange their functions and power would lose all determination. The Church would then cease to be an ordered body. It would become a floating religious association, susceptible of reconfiguring itself indefinitely. Such a conception would destroy precisely what Christ wished to establish: a stable and hierarchical society. The distinction between teaching and learning, governing and obeying, judging and being judged, belongs to the very structure of the ecclesiastical order.
6.3. Loss of identity of the Church
Cappellari here introduces one of his deepest arguments. A society changes identity when its fundamental constitution changes. He invokes Aristotle: a city remains identical so long as its political form subsists; when it changes essentially, it is no longer the same city. This political analogy becomes an ecclesiological instrument. If the Church passed from a hierarchical constitution to a democracy, from a spiritual monarchy to an autonomous federation or from a determined order to a diffuse sovereignty, it would no longer be the same society. Historical continuity alone would not suffice. What founds ecclesial identity is the permanence of the plan willed by Christ.
- The Church identifiable by its constitution
7.1. Comparison with civil societies
Cappellari next introduces a carefully nuanced comparison with political societies. Civil nations may traverse profound transformations: dynasties, revolutions, constitutional changes. They remain nevertheless identifiable thanks to territory, population or national continuity. But the Church possesses none of these exclusive characters. It is universal, spread among all nations, independent of frontiers and without proper territory. It cannot therefore be recognised by means of the criteria that serve to identify States. Its recognition requires other signs, and among these signs Cappellari places in the first rank the governmental constitution.
7.2. Government as a visible sign
Government thus becomes a sign of visibility. The Church cannot be recognised by a private interior inspiration, by a mere moral agreement or by a subjective experience. It must be identifiable exteriorly. Now this identification supposes hierarchy, jurisdiction, doctrinal authority and governmental continuity. If these elements became fluctuating, the distinction between Church and sects would disappear. Every religious community could then claim Christian succession. Christ would have founded a society impossible to discern. For Cappellari this conclusion is inadmissible.
7.3. Recognition of the true Church
This reflection leads to a decisive principle. Where the essential constitution willed by Jesus Christ remains, there remains the true Church. Inversely, where this constitution is abandoned or replaced, ecclesial identity becomes problematic. This thesis prepares the critique that Cappellari will address to the innovators. These often claim to defend a reform or to correct abuses. But according to him they in reality touch the very principle of ecclesiastical government. The debate therefore does not concern mere secondary disciplines. It concerns the visible permanence of the divine plan instituted in the Church.
- Critique of the innovators
8.1. Protestantism
After having established positively the necessity and the perpetuity of ecclesiastical government, Cappellari undertakes the examination of the doctrines that appear to him to contradict it. Protestantism constitutes for him the first and the most radical of these contestations. The Protestant critique is not limited, according to him, to certain particular doctrines; it touches the very principle of visible authority. By substituting private judgement, individual interpretation and the sovereignty of conscience for the hierarchical authority instituted by Jesus Christ, Protestantism introduces a structural dissolution. This dissolution produces historically a multiplication of confessions, doctrinal fragmentation, absence of definitive authority and permanent instability.
8.2. Gallicanism
Gallicanism appears in Cappellari as a more subtle contestation. Unlike Protestantism, it does not openly deny the hierarchy, the primacy or the visibility of the Church. But it tends to limit pontifical authority and to transfer a part of ecclesiastical sovereignty towards particular Churches, national episcopates or ecclesiastical assemblies. Cappellari estimates that this limitation compromises the very coherence of ecclesiastical government. A monarchy whose supreme authority would depend permanently on concurrent instances would lose its essential unity. Gallicanism thus introduces a duality of principles that inevitably engenders conflicts of competence, jurisdictional uncertainty and weakening of unity.
8.3. Febronianism and Tamburinism
Cappellari reserves particular attention to Febronianism and to the doctrines associated with Tamburini. These systems willingly admit a certain Roman primacy, a function of coordination or an honorary presidency. But they refuse to recognise therein a true sovereignty. The Pope there becomes essentially a first among equals. This conception particularly attracts Cappellari’s critique. It seems to safeguard Catholic tradition while discreetly reducing its monarchical principle. The danger therefore appears still greater than in open negation. Cappellari uses the very concessions of his adversaries against them, notably the recognition by Tamburini that to change the essential form of government would amount to destroying the order established by Jesus Christ.
8.4. Abuses and constitution
An essential distinction appears here. The innovators, Cappellari affirms, often claim to combat only abuses. But one must rigorously distinguish personal abuses and the divine constitution. Abuses may exist among prelates, in administration or in certain disciplinary practices. No human society is totally exempt from them. But the existence of abuses does not destroy the right. A monarchy does not cease to be monarchical because a sovereign governs badly. Likewise the Church does not lose its constitution because certain men exercise it imperfectly. The innovators frequently use abuses as a pretext in order to attack indirectly jurisdiction, hierarchy or primacy.
- Pontifical monarchy and the primacy of Peter
9.1. Refutation of primus inter pares
One of the principal theses combated by Cappellari maintains that the Roman Pontiff would be only a primus inter pares, a first among equals. This theory admits a certain Roman honour, a precedence or sometimes a function of arbitration. But it refuses a proper supreme jurisdiction. For Cappellari this conception empties the primacy of its substance. A purely honorary first does not constitute a principle of government. Now the Church, as a visible society, requires precisely unity of command, jurisdictional continuity and sovereign authority. Roman intervention appears from the first centuries as a governmental reality and not merely honorary.
9.2. True monarchy
Cappellari therefore affirms that the government of the Church possesses a true monarchical form. It is fitting however to specify what he understands by monarchy. It is not an arbitrary absolutism nor a power independent of Christ. The Pope remains minister, vicar and depositary. But this ministry nevertheless implies a real sovereignty. A universal society cannot subsist durably without a visible centre of unity. The Roman Pontiff precisely fulfils this function. Ecclesiastical monarchy then appears as spiritual, ministerial and sacred, but authentically monarchical.
9.3. Authority that is not despotic
Adversaries willingly accuse pontifical monarchy of despotism. Cappellari considers this accusation as a sophism. It rests on a confusion between domination and despotism. Every society necessarily comprises a power of commanding. This domination belongs to the essence of government. Despotism, on the contrary, designates arbitrariness, caprice or unjust use of power. Now the existence of a sovereign power in no way implies its abuse. Ecclesiastical government differs from human tyrannies because it remains ordered to truth, to salvation and to the spiritual good.
9.4. Function of the Roman Pontiff
The function of the Roman Pontiff is then understood with clarity. He acts as visible principle of unity, guardian of the faith, supreme judge and jurisdictional centre. This function does not destroy the authority of the bishops. It coordinates it and orders it. The bishops possess a true mission, but this remains integrated in the hierarchical unity of the universal Church. Thus, for Cappellari, the episcopate and the primacy are not concurrent realities. They belong to the same hierarchical organism.
- Refutation of conciliarism
10.1. Conciliarist theories
Cappellari’s critique next extends to conciliarist doctrines. These maintain, under diverse forms, that supreme authority would reside in the universal Church or in the council representing this universality, and that the Pope would govern only in dependence on this collective sovereignty. The author considers this theory as incompatible with the monarchical form of ecclesiastical government. A monarchy whose sovereign would be continually submitted to a permanent superior authority would cease to be monarchical. Conciliarism therefore introduces, according to him, an internal contradiction.
10.2. Hierarchical unity
The fundamental problem remains that of unity. Two permanent sovereignties cannot coexist without conflict. If supreme authority belongs simultaneously to the Pope and to the council, the ecclesiastical constitution becomes ambiguous. Who decides finally? Who judges? Who cuts short conflicts? Conciliarism does not furnish a satisfactory reply. Cappellari therefore concludes that a stable hierarchy requires a unique principle of visible unity.
10.3. Jurisdiction and dependence
This reflection leads to the question of jurisdiction. Every ecclesiastical jurisdiction supposes order, dependence and coordination. The government of the Church is not a juxtaposition of independent authorities. It forms an organism. Now every organism requires a principle of cohesion, a centre and unity of direction. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction cannot therefore be thought as a sovereignty dispersed among several autonomous centres. Cappellari considers this dispersion as incompatible with the very plan of Christ.
- Ecclesial continuity and resistance to innovations
11.1. Conservation of the divine plan
The whole of the preceding demonstration leads Cappellari to a major ecclesiological conclusion: the Church remains identical to itself so long as it conserves the fundamental constitution instituted by Jesus Christ. This conservation does not depend on the political genius of men, on national preferences or on cultural evolutions, but on fidelity to the divine plan. Ecclesiastical government does not proceed from a merely human wisdom susceptible of being perfected or replaced. It proceeds from a positive divine will. To touch substantially one of the constitutive elements necessarily amounts to affecting the others.
11.2. Permanence of the ecclesiastical constitution
This continuity implies an objective permanence. The Church may traverse wars, persecutions, moral crises or periods of human weakness. But none of these trials necessarily alters its constitution. Cappellari constantly distinguishes historical suffering and essential destruction. Persecutions touch persons, visible institutions or the concrete exercise of certain functions. But they do not destroy the governmental principle willed by Jesus Christ. This distinction permits avoiding two opposed errors: identifying the Church with the permanent moral perfection of its members, or concluding that a historical crisis would authorise a fundamental reconstruction of the ecclesiastical constitution.
In fact the indefectibility of the constitution does not however suppose the perpetuity of actual exercise. For example during pontifical interregnums:
the pope is lacking;
certain jurisdictions expire;
no new universal law can be promulgated;
and yet:
the Church subsists;
the monarchy remains;
the constitution remains intact.
Applied to the present crisis of prolonged vacancy, this principle is therefore simply the logical extension of ordinary vacancies to an extraordinary crisis.
11.3. The true Church and the continuity of government
This permanence leads Cappellari to formulate one of the most celebrated theses of the treatise. Suppose that a part of the clergy adopts innovations, illegitimate pretensions or substantial alterations of government. The true Church would recognise itself in the part that remained faithful to the original plan. For the Church must always subsist such as Jesus Christ instituted it. If an essential alteration of government were really introduced, ecclesial continuity would remain in the conservation of the primitive model. The portion of the clergy which, in the midst of contradictions, of pretensions without foundation, of usurpations and of seductions, would resist invincibly and conserve the order established by Jesus Christ, would constitute precisely the true Church. This principle is of burning actuality in the situation of vacancy of the apostolic See since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964.
11.4. Objection: “The government of the Church being guaranteed by Christ himself, there can therefore never be a prolonged vacancy of the Holy See.”
Reply:
No, Cappellari speaks of the perpetuity of the constitution, not of the uninterrupted exercise of all individual authorities. In fact the perpetuity of government must be understood as regards the essential constitution of the Church, and not as requiring the continually actual exercise of every subject of jurisdiction. Just as a vacancy of the Roman See does not abolish the papacy, an exceptional crisis does not abolish the monarchical constitution of the Church.
- Doctrinal conclusion
The Treatise on the Immutability of the Government of the Church constitutes far more than a polemic against certain theological schools of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. It represents a systematic ecclesiological construction. The point of departure of the reasoning consists in the distinction between human governments and the government of the Church. The first are essentially variable. The second proceeds from a divine institution. From this fundamental distinction Cappellari develops a chain of rigorously linked propositions. The Church is a visible and perfect society. A society of this nature necessarily requires a government. Jesus Christ instituted this government in order to teach, to judge, to conserve unity, to protect the faith and to render the Church identifiable among the nations. This government belongs to the very constitutive plan of the Church. The promises of Christ and ecclesial indefectibility guarantee its permanence. An essential modification of this constitution would entail a rupture of identity. Finally the author concludes that pontifical monarchy belongs not to a contingent historical evolution, but to the original design of the founder of the Church. This doctrine retains all its force today: despite the vacancy of the See, the divine constitution remains indefectible.
- List of sources
Principal source
Cappellari, Maur (Mauro in Italian, future Gregory XVI). Treatise on the Immutability of the Government of the Church, translated from the Italian by M. Menghi-d’Arville, Paris, Société reproductive des bons livres; Henri Barba et Cie, 1839. Language of this edition: French; original: Italian. The abbreviated references “Cappellari, Treatise, 1839” designate this edition, its paragraphs in Roman numerals and its printed pagination.
French edition of 1839: https://www.liberius.net/livres/Traite_sur_l_immutabilite_du_gouvernement_de_l_Eglise_000000903.pdf
Original work
Cappellari, Mauro. Il trionfo della Santa Sede e della Chiesa contro gli assalti dei Novatori combattuti e respinti colle stesse loro armi (The Triumph of the Holy See and of the Church against the Attacks of the Innovators, combated and repelled by their own arms), third edition, Venice, Nella Casa del Tipografo Editore Giuseppe Battaggia, 1832. Italian. Discorso preliminare (Preliminary Discourse), paragraphs I–LXXXII, p. [3]–144. Controlled concordances: paragraph XIII, p. 22; paragraph XXI, p. 35; paragraph XXIII, p. 39–40; paragraph XXXIV, p. 56–57.
Italian edition of Venice, 1832: https://archive.org/download/bub_gb_LvG5QUJQfpgC/bub_gb_LvG5QUJQfpgC.pdf
Title page of Naples, 1834, volume II: https://books.google.com/books?id=rmlJKk43ICUC&pg=PA3
Philosophical and theological sources cited or mobilised by Cappellari
Aristotle. Politics, book III, beginning of Bekker page 1276b; original Greek. French translation of Jules Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire, Paris, Ladrange, 1874, book III, chapter I, paragraphs 13–14; English translation of William Ellis, book III, chapter III. Cappellari, Treatise, 1839, paragraph VII, p. 10–11, gives the passage in Latin and refers to chapter II: the numbering depends on the edition.
French translation of Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Politique/Livre_III
English translation of William Ellis: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm
Tamburini, Pietro. Vera idea della Santa Sede dell’abate Pietro Tamburini Bresciano (True Idea of the Holy See, of Abbé Pietro Tamburini of Brescia), Milan, Tipografia Truffi, at the expense of the editor, without year printed on the title page consulted. Italian. Part II, chapter I, paragraph I, p. 121–123, especially p. 122. The date of this copy is not certified.
Title page and copy of Tamburini: https://books.google.com/books?id=BxJSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR3
Passage of Tamburini, p. 122: https://books.google.com/books?id=BxJSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA122
Holy Scriptures: Isaiah 2,2; Gospel according to Saint Matthew 28,20; Acts of the Apostles 5,38–39. Latin text of the Vulgate; French of Matthew controlled in Fillion, vol. VII, p. 192; French of Gamaliel reproduced according to Cappellari, Treatise, 1839, paragraph V, p. 7–8. The sole mention “Vulgate” does not identify a particular French translation.
Clementine Vulgate, Isaiah 2: https://catholicbible.online/vulgate/OT/Is/ch_2
Clementine Vulgate, Acts 5: https://catholicbible.online/vulgate/NT/Act/ch_5
Biographical source
Henrion, Mathieu-Richard-Auguste. Histoire de la Papauté, Paris, Société des bons livres, 1832, three volumes in-12 according to the bibliographical notice of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, FRBNF30593043. French. The historical notice of the Treatise of 1839, p. [ix]–xii, declares itself to depend on this work; the volume and the pages of this borrowing remain unlocated.
Title page of Henrion, 1832, first volume: https://books.google.com/books?id=RggJBLsQh1UC&pg=PP7
BnF bibliographical notice of the edition: https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb305930433
BnF authority notice of the author: https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb13592104f
Complementary sources of the references
Fillion, Louis-Claude. La Sainte Bible (Latin text and French translation), commented according to the Vulgate and the original texts, for the use of seminaries and the clergy, eighth edition, volume VII, Paris, Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1924, p. 192 (Matthew 28,20); p. 647 (Acts 5,38–39, translation distinct from that of Cappellari). Latin and French.
Facsimile of volume VII of Fillion: https://pdfs.bibliotheque-catholique.com/pdfs/bible/Abb%C3%A9%20Louis-Claude%20Fillion%20-%20La%20Sainte%20Bible%20comment%C3%A9e%20d%27apr%C3%A8s%20la%20Vulgate%20et%20les%20textes%20originaux%20%28Tome%207%29.pdf
Leo XIII. Encyclical letter Immortale Dei, 1 November 1885, Acta Sanctae Sedis, volume XVIII, Rome, Typis Polyglottae Officinae S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1885, p. 165. Original Latin; French version also consulted. The facsimile consulted reproduces the original volume in a reprint of 1968.
Acta Sanctae Sedis, volume XVIII, p. 165: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ass/documents/ASS-18-1885-ocr.pdf
Latin text of the encyclical: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html
French version of the encyclical: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/fr/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html
Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus (Code of Canon Law prepared by order of the sovereign pontiff Pius X and promulgated under the authority of Pope Benedict XV), Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, volume IX, part II. Original Latin. Can. 61, p. 19–20; can. 207 paragraph 1 and 208, p. 45; can. 227, p. 48; can. 229, p. 49.
Code of 1917 in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis: https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-09-II-1917-ocr.pdf
Pius XII. Apostolic constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, on the vacancy of the apostolic See and the election of the Roman pontiff, 8 December 1945, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, volume XXXVIII, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1946, p. 65–99. Original Latin. Passages used: nn. 1–5, p. 67–68; n. 18, p. 72; nn. 19–23, p. 73; nn. 26–28, p. 74. Date of the constitution confirmed at its conclusion, p. 99.
Constitution in the official volume of 1946: https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-38-1946-ocr.pdf
Gregory the Great. Registrum Epistolarum (Register of Letters), book II, letter 47, To Dominicus, Bishop (To Dominic, bishop), English translation of James Barmby, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, volume XII, under the direction of Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Buffalo, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895; revised reproduction edited by Kevin Knight. Original Latin; only the English translation has been independently controlled. In Cappellari, Treatise, 1839, p. 94, note 1: book II, letter 39, Parisian edition of 1565.
Reproduction of the translation of the letter: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360202047.htm
Martina, Giacomo. “Gregorio XVI” (“Gregory XVI”), Enciclopedia dei Papi (Encyclopaedia of the Popes), Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2000, Italian online version, beginning of the notice. Institutional secondary source consulted for Camaldolese theological formation; it does not constitute a primary piece on the establishments of formation.
Biographical notice of Treccani: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/gregorio-xvi_(Enciclopedia-dei-Papi)/
The footnotes of the original French text have been rendered in the body of the translation above where they affect the sense; their documentary content is already incorporated in section 13 and in the corresponding paragraphs. This is a complete and faithful translation of the supplied text.