appropriated to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIIl.1 9. After the decree of Urban,2 a priest, to whom Masses are given to be celebrated, can give satisfaction through another, by paying a smaller stipend to him and retaining the other part of the stipend for himself. ro. It is not contrary to justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice. Nor, is it contrary to fidelity if I promise, with a promise confirmed also by an oath, to him who gives a stipend, what I offer for no one else. 1 r. We are not bound to express in a subsequent confession sins omitted in confession or forgotten because of the imminent danger of death or for some other reason. 12. Mendicants can absolve from cases reserved for bishops, when the faculty of the bishop was not obtained for this. 13. He satisfies the precept of an annual confession, who confesses to a regular, presented to a bishop, but unjustly reproved by him. 14. He who makes no confession voluntarily, satisfies the precept of the Church. 15. A penitent by his own authority can substitute another for himself, to fulfill the penance in his place. 16. Those who have provided a benefice can select as confessor for themselves a simple priest not approved by the ordinary. 17. It is permitted a religious or a cleric to kill a calumniator who threatens to spread grave crimes about him or his order, when no other means of defense is at hand; as it seems not to be, if a calummator be ready to spread the aforesaid about the religious himself or his order publicly or among people of importance, unless he be killed. 18. It is permitted to kill a false accuser, false witnesses, and even a judge, from whom an unjust sentence threatens with certainty, if the innocent can avoid harm in no other way. 19. A husband does not sin by killing on his own authority a wife caught in adultery. 20. The restitution imposed by Pius V 3 upon those who have received benefits but not reciting [ the Divine Office in fulfillment of their ob- ligation] is not due in conscience before the declaratory sentence of the judge, because it is a penalty. 21. He who has a collective chaplaincy, or any other ecclesiastical benefit, if he is busy with the study of letters, satisfies his obligation, if he recites the office through another. 1 In the Constitution of Innocent XII "Nuper," Dec. 23, 1697. 2 In the Constitution of Innocent XII "Nuper," Dec. 23, 1697. 8 Constit. "Ex proximo," Sept. 20, 1571.
22. It is not contrary to justice not to confer ecclesiastical benefits gratuitously, because the contributor who contributes those ecclesiastical benefits with money intervening does not exact that money for the con- tribution of the benefit, but for a temporal profit, which he was not bound to contribute to you. 23. He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he.is bound, does not sin mortally, unless he does this out of contempt and disobedience, e.g., because he does not wish to subject himself to a precept. 24. Voluptuousness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ulti- mate species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has pro- cured a pollution. 25. He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: "I committed a grievous sin against chastity with an unmarried woman," without mentioning the inter- course. 26. When litigants have equally probable opinions in their defense, the judge can accept money to bring a sentence in favor of one over the other. 27. If a book is published by a younger or modern person, its opinion should be considered as probable, since it is not established that it has been rejected by the Holy See as improbable. 28. A nation does not sin, even if without any cause it does not accept a law promulgated by the ruler. B. On the 18th day of March, 1666 29. On a day of fasting, he who eats a moderate amount frequently, 1129 even if in the end he has eaten a considerable quantity, does not break the fast. 30. All officials who labor physically in the state are excused from the 1130 obligation of fasting, and need not make certain whether the labor is compatible with fasting. 3 r. All those are entirely excused from fasting, who make a journey 1131 by riding, under whatever circumstances they make the journey, even if it is not necessary and even if they make a journey of a single day. 32. It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and cheese in 1132 Lent is binding. 33. Restitution of income because of the omission of stipends can be 1133 supplied through any alms that a beneficiary has previously made from the income of his service. 34. By reciting the paschal office on the day of Palms one satisfies the 1134 precept. 35. By a single office anyone can satisfy a twofold precept, for the 1135 present day and tomorrow.
36. Regulars can in the forum of conscience use their privileges which were expressly revoked by the Council of Trent. 37. Indulgences conceded to regulars and revoked by Paul V are today revalidated. 38. The mandate of the Council of Trent, made for the priest who of necessity performs the Sacrifice while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible [ see note 880], is a recommendation, not a precept. 39. The expression "quam primum" is understood to be when the priest will confess in his own time. 40. It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible 1 delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded. 41. One living in concubinage is not bound to dismiss the concubine, if she is very useful for the pleasure of him so living ( in the vernacular, "regalo") provided that if she [ another reading: he J were missing, he would carry on life with very great difficulty, and other food would affect him living in concubinage with great loathing, and another maid servant would be found with very great difficulty. 42. It is permitted one who borrows money to exact something beyond the principal, if he obligates himself not to seek the principal until a certain time. 43. An annual legacy left for the soul does not bind for more than ten years. 44. So far as the forum of conscience is concerned, when the guilty has been corrected and the contumacy ceases, the censures cease. 45. Books prohibited "until they are expurgated" can be retained until they are corrected by the application of diligence. All these are condemned and prohibited, at least as scandalous.
Perfect and Imperfect Contrition 2 [From the decree of the Sacred Office, May 5, 1667]
Concerning the controversy: Whether that attrition, which is inspired by the fear of hell, excluding the will to sin, with the hope of pardon, to obtain grace in the sacrament of penance requires in addition some act of love of God, to some asserting this, and to others denying it, and in turn censuring the opposite opinion: . . . His Holiness . . . orders . . . that if they later write about the matter of the aforemen- tioned attrition, or publish books or writings or teach or preach or in any manner whatever instruct penitents or students and others, let them not dare change either opinion with a note of any theological censure or Viva reads "sensualis," but DuPI and MER as it is !,ere, "sensibilis." 2 DuPI III, II 824b f.
32 3 contumely, whether it be that of denying the necessity of any love of God in the aforementioned attrition inspired by the fear of hell, which seems to be the more common opinion among scholastics today, or whether that of asserting the necessity of this love, until something has been defined by the Holy See concerning this matter.
CLEMENT CLEMENT
Frequent and Daily Communion 1 [From the Decree C. S. Cone., Feb. 12, 1679]
Although the daily and frequent use of the most holy Eucharist has 1147 always been approved by the holy Fathers of the Church, yet never have they appointed certain days either for receiving it more often or certain days of the weeks and months for abstaining from it, which the Council of Trent did not prescribe; but, as if it considered the frailty of human nature, although making no command, it merely indicated what it would prefer when it said: "The Holy Council would indeed wish that at every Mass the faithful present would communicate by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist" [ see n. 944]. And this not without cause, for there are very many secret recesses of conscience, various diversions be- cause of the occupations of the spirit, likewise many graces and gifts of God granted to children, and since we cannot scrutinize these with human eyes, nothing can be established concerning the worthiness or integrity of anyone, and consequently nothing concerning the more frequent or daily partaking of the bread of life. And thus, as far as concerns tradesmen themselves, frequent approach to the receiving of the holy sustenance is to be left to the judgment of the confessors who explore the secrets of the heart, who from the purity of consciences and from the fruit of frequency and from the progress in piety in the case of laity, tradesmen, and married men, will be obliged to provide for them whatever they see will be of benefit to their salva- tion. In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give them- 1 Collect. S.C. de Prop. Flde (1907) n. 219; DuPI III, II 346 b £.; Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s.v. "Eucharistis" I 41 (III 244 b ff.).-This decree conforms entirely with the response S.C. Cone. already given in the year 1587 (Jan. 24) to the Bishop of Brescia [Diet. de Theo!. cath. s.v. Communion euclzarist. (frequente), T. 3, col. 534 £.; Analecta Juris Pontifici, ser. 7, col. 789 £.].
selves to prayer" [cf.I Cor. 7=5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind. In this, then, will the diligence of pastors be especially alert, not that some may not be deterred from frequent or daily partaking of holy com- munion by a single formula of precept, or that days for partaking be established generally, but rather let it be decided what should be per- mitted to each, or should be decided for themselves by themselves, or by the priests or confessors; and let this be prohibited entirely: that no one be repelled from the sacred banquet, whether he approach it frequently or daily, and yet let it attend that everyone taste of the sweetness of the body of the Lord more rarely or more frequently according to his measure of devotion and preparation. Similarly nuns who desire holy communion daily will have to be advised to receive communion on the days established by the rule of their order; if some, however, are distinguished by purity of mind and are so enkindled by fervor of spirit that they seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the most holy Sacrament, let this be permitted them by the superiors. It will be of benefit, too, besides the diligence of priests and confessors, to make use also of the services of preachers and to have an agreement with them, that, when the faithful have become used 1 to frequenting the most holy Sacrament (which they should do), they preach a sermon on the great preparation for undertaking that, and show in general that those who by devout zeal are stirred to a more frequent or daily partaking of the health bringing Food, whether lay tradesmen, or married people, or any others, ought to understand their own weakness, so that because of the dignity of the Sacrament and the fear of the divine judgment they may learn to revere the celestial table on which is Christ; and if at any time they should feel themselves not prepared, to abstain from it and to gird themselves for a greater preparation. But let bishops, in whose dioceses such devotion towards the most Blessed Sacrament flourishes, give thanks to God for this, and they should nurture it by applying to it the proper measure of prudence and judg- ment, and on their part they will especially prevail upon themselves that no labor or diligence must be spared to do away with every suspicion of irreverence and scandal in the reception of the true and immaculate lamb, and to increase virtues and gifts in those who partake of it; and this will happen abundantly, if those, who are bound by such devoted zeal, by surpassing divine grace, and who desire to be refreshed more frequently
1 It seems that the reading should be "accenderit," "have enkindled."
by the most holy bread, become accustomed to expend their strength and to prove themselves with reverence and love. . . . Furthermore, let bishops and priests or confessors refute those who 1150 hold that daily communion is of divine right, . . . Let them not permit that a confession of venial sins be made to a simple priest without the approbation of a bishop or ordinary.
Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) 1 [Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]
1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. 2. I think that probably a judge can pass judgment according to opin- ion, even the less probable. 3. In general, when we do something confidently according to prob- ability whether intrinsic or extrinsic, however slight, provided there is no departure from the bounds of probability, we always act prudently.2 4. An infidel who does not believe will be excused of infidelity, since he is guided by a less probable opinion. 5. Even though one sins mortally, we dare not condemn him who uttered an act of love of God only once in his life. 6. It is probable that the precept of love for God is of itself not of grave obligation even once every five years. 7. Then only is it obligatory when we are bound to be justified, and we have no other way by which we can be justified. 8. Eating and drinking even to satiety for pleasure only, are not sinful, provided this does not stand in the way of health, since any natural appetite can licitly enjoy its own actions. 9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect. 10. We are not bound to love our neighbor by an internal and formal act. II. We can satisfy the precept of loving neighbor by external acts only. 12. Scarcely will you find among seculars, even among kings, a super- fluity for [his] state of life. And so, scarcely anyone is bound to give alms from what is superfluous to [his] state of life. 13. If you act with due moderation, you can without mortal sin be 1 DuPl III, II 388 a ff.; Viva I, 175 ff. 2 The moral system according to these opinions, which is called "Laxismus," is
condemned.
sad about the moral life of someone and rejoice about his natural death, seek it with ineffectual desire and long for it, not indeed from dissatis- faction with the person but because of some temporal emolument. 14. It is licit with an absolute desire to wish for the death of a father, not indeed as an evil to the father, but as a good to him who desires it, for a rich inheritance will surely come his way. 15. It is licit for a son to rejoice over the parricide of his parent per- petrated by himself in drunkenness, because of the great riches that came from it by inheritance. 16. Faith is not considered to fall under a special precept and by it- self. 17. It is enough to utter an act of faith once during life. 18. If anyone is questioned by a public power, I advise him to confess his faith to a noble person as to God and ( to be) proud of his faith; I do not condemn silence as sinful of itself. 19. The will cannot effect that assent to faith in itself be stronger than the weight of reasons impelling toward assent. 20. Hence, anyone can prudently repudiate the supernatural assent which he had. 21. Assent to faith is supernatural and useful to salvation with only the probable knowledge of revelation, even with the fear by which one fears lest God has not spoken. 22. Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit (faith) in a Rewarder. 23. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification. 24. To call upon God as a witness to a slight lie is not a great irrever- ence, because of which God wishes or can condemn man. 25. With cause it is licit to swear without the intention of swearing, whether the matter be light or serious. 26. If anyone swears, either alone or in the presence of others, whether questioned or of his own will, whether for sake of recreation or for some other purpose, that he did not do something, which in fact he did, under- standing within himself something else which he did not do, or another way than that by which he did it, or some other added truth, in fact does not lie and is no perjurer. 27. A just reason for using these ambiguous words exists, as often as it is necessary or useful to guard the well-being of the body, honor, property, or for any other act of virtue, so that the concealing of the truth is then re- garded as expedient and zealous. 28. He who has been promoted to a magistracy or a public office by means of a recommendation or a gift can utter with mental reservation the oath which is customarily exacted of similar persons by order of the
king, without regard for the intent of the one exacting it, because he is not bound to confess a concealed crime. 29. A grave, pressing fear is a just cause for pretending the administra- 1179 tion of sacraments. 30. It is right for an honorable man to kill an attacker who tries to 1180 inflict calumny upon him, if this ignominy cannot be avoided otherwise; the same also must be said if anyone slaps him with his hand or strikes with a club and runs away after the slap of the hand or the blow of the club. 31. I can properly kill a thief to save a single gold piece. 32. It is not only permitted to defend, with a fatal defense, these things 1182 we possess actually, but also those things to which we have a partial right, and which we hope to possess. 33. It is permitted an heir as well as a legatee to defend himself against 1183 one who unjustly prevents either an inheritance being assumed, or lega- cies being paid, just as it is permitted him who has a right to a chair or a benefice against one who unjustly impedes his possession of them. 34. It is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of 1184 the foetus, lest the girl found pregnant be killed or defamed. 35. It seems probable that every foetus ( as long as it is in the womb) 1185 lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is com- mitted in any abortion. 36. It is permitted to steal not only in extreme, but in grave necessity. 1186 37. Male and female domestic servants can secretly steal from their 1187 masters to gain compensation for their work which they judge of greater worth than the salary which they receive. 38. No one is bound under the pain of mortal sin to restore what has 1188 been taken away by small thefts, however great the sum total may be. 39. Whoever moves or induces another to bring a serious loss upon a 1189 third party is not bound to a restitution of that loss incurred. 40. A usurious contract is permitted even with respect to the same 1190 person, and with a contract to sell back previously entered upon with the intention of gain. 41. Since ready cash is more valuable than that to be paid, and since 1191 there is no one who does not consider ready cash of greater worth than future cash, a creditor can demand something beyond the principal from the borrower, and for this reason be excused from usury. 42. There is no usury when something is exacted beyond the principal 1192 as due because of a kindness and by way of gratitude, but only if it is exacted as due according to justice. 43. What is it but venial sin if one detract authority by a false charge 1193 to prevent great harm to himself?
44. It is probable that he does not sin mortally who imposes a false charge on someone, that he may defend his own justice and honor. And if this is not probable, there is scarcely any probable opinion in theology. 45. To give the temporal for the spiritual is not simony, when the temporal is not given for a price, but only as a motive for conferring and effecting the spiritual, or even because the temporal is only a gratui- tous compensation for the spiritual, or vice versa. 46. And this also is admissable, even if the temporal is the principal motive for giving the spiritual; furthermore, even if it be the end of the spiritual thing itself, so that it is considered of greater value than the spiritual thing. 47. When the Council of Trent says that they sin mortally by sharing the sins of others who do not promote to the churches those whom they themselves judge to be more worthy and more useful for the Church, the Council either first seems to mean to signify by "more worthy" nothing else than the worthiness of being selected, using the comparative rather than the positive; or secondly, in a less proper expression takes "more worthy" to exclude the unworthy, but not the worthy, or finally, and thirdly, it is speaking of what occurs during an assembly. 48. Thus it seems clear that fornication by its nature involves no malice, and that it is evil only because it is forbidden, so that the con- trary seems entirely in disagreement with reason. 49. Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin. 50. Intercourse with a married woman, with the consent of her hus- band, is not adultery, and so it is enough to say in confession that one had committed fornication. 5r. A male servant who knowingly by offering his shoulders assists his master to ascend through windows to ravage a virgin, and many times serves the same by carrying a ladder, by opening a door, or by cooperating in something similar, does not commit a mortal sin, if he does this through fear of considerable damage, for example, lest he be treated wickedly by his master, lest he be looked upon with savage eyes, or, lest he be expelled from the house. 52. The precept of keeping feast days is not obligatory under pain of mortal sin, aside from scandal, if contempt be absent. 53. He satisfies the precept of the Church of hearing the Holy Sacri- fice, who hears two of its parts, even four simultaneously by different celebrants. 54. He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can the remaining hours, is held to nothing, since the great part brings the lesser to it.
32 9 55. He satisfies the precept of annual communion by the sacrilegious 1205 eating of the Lord. 56. Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live like 1206 pagans, is a mark of predestination. 57. It is probable that natural but honest imperfect sorrow for sins 1207 suffices. 58. We are not bound to confess to a confessor who asks us about the 1208 habit of some sin. 59. It is permitted to absolve sacramentally those who confess only 1209 half, by reason of a great crowd of penitents, such as for example can happen on a day of great festivity or indulgence. 60. The penitent who has the habit of sinning against the law of God, 1210 of nature, or of the Church, even if there appears no hope of amend- ment, is not to be denied absolution or to be put off, provided he pro- fesses orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment. 6r. He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occa- 1211 sion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into. 62. The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when 1212 some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs. 63. It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning 1213 for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor. 64. A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an 1214 ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 65. It is enough to have believed the mysteries once.
All condemned and prohibited, as they are here expressed, at least as scandalous and in practice pernicious. The Holy Pontiff concludes the decree with these words: Finally, in order that doctors, whether scholastics or any others what- 1216 soever, may refrain from injurious contentions in the future, and that there be deliberations for peace and charity, the same Holy Pontiff com- mands them in virtue of holy obedience, to be on their guard in printing books and manuscripts, as well as theses, disputations, and sermons. against any censure and note, and likewise violent railings against such propositions which are still being carried on among Catholics here and there, until the matter has been considered, and a judgment is rendered 1 by the Holy See upon these same propositions.
1 Benedict XIV sanctioned the same in the Bull, "Sollicita et provide," July 9th, l753 [BB(M) rn, 251 ff.].
33°
Errors on "donated omnipotence" 1 [Condemned in the decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 23, 1679]
r. God gives us His omnipotence, that we may use it, just as someone gives another a villa or a book. 2. God submits His omnipotence to us. They are prohibited as at least rash and novel.
Moral Systems 2 [Decree of the Holy Office, June 26, 1680]
In a report of the contents of the letters of Father Gonzales Thirsus directed to His Holiness through Father Laurea of the Society of Jesus, their most blessed Eminences said that the Secretary of State had written to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Spaniards, asking that he inform the said Father Thirsus what His Holiness commanded, after the letter was kindly received and read not without praise; that he himself freely and boldly preach, teach, and defend with his pen the more probable opinion, and not vigorously attack the opinion of those who assert that in the conflict of the less probable opinion with the more probable so recog- nized and judged, it is lawful to follow the less probable opinion; and to inform him that whatever he shall do and write in favor of the more probable will be pleasing to His Holiness. Let it be enjoined on the Father General of the Society concerning this order of His Holiness, that he not only permit the Fathers of the Society of Jesus to write in defense of the opinion of the more probable and to oppose the opinion of those who assert that in the controversy of the less probable opinion with the more probable so understood and judged, it is allowed to follow the less probable; but, moreover, let him also write to all the universities of the Society that it is the mind of His Holiness that anyone who will may freely write as he pleases in behalf of the more probable opinion and may attack the contrary opinion above mentioned; and let him order them to submit themselves in all things to the orders of His Holiness. 3 1 DuPl III, Tl 352 b: Viva I 564 a. 2 Etudes religieuses 91 (1902 II), 847 f., where the authentic text appears.-Franc. ter Haar, C.SS.R., contends in his book, "Ven. lnnocentii PP XI de probabilismo decreti historia" (Tornaci 1904, Casterman) that this decree, disciplinary rather than doc- trinal, is prejudicial to "probabilismus"; and others likewise. And on the other hand Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J., in the work "Probabilismus vindicatus" (Friburgi, 1906, Herder) 78-11 r answers that it is not prejudicial to "probabilismus"; and others similarly. 8 There is added in the copy of the Holy Office: "On the eighth day of July, 1680. When the above-mentioned order of His Holiness was reported to the Father General
Error Concerning the Seal of Confession 1 [Condemned in the decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1862]
Concerning the proposition: "It is lawful to use knowledge obtained 1220 in confession, provided it is done without any direct or indirect revelation, and without burden upon the penitent, unless some much greater evil follows from its nonuse, in comparison with which the first would be rightly held of little account," an explanation or limitation then being added, that it is to be understood concerning the use of the knowledge obtained from confession with burden to the penitent, any revelation whatsoever being excluded, and in the case in which a much greater burden to the same penitent would follow from its nonuse, it is decided: "that the stated proposition, as far as it admits the use of said knowledge with the burden upon the penitent, must be altogether prohibited, even with the aforesaid explanation or limitation."
Errors of Michael of Molinos 2 [Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687]
1. It is necessary that man reduce his own powers to nothingness, and this is the interior way. 2. To wish to operate actively is to offend God, who wishes to be Himself the sole agent; and therefore it is necessary to abandon oneself wholly in God and thereafter to continue in existence as an inanimate body. 3. Vows about doing something are impediments to perfection. 4. Natural activity is the enemy of grace, and impedes the operations of God and true perfection, because God wishes to operate in us with- out us. 5. By doing nothing the soul annihilates itself and returns to its be- ginning and to its origin, which is the essence of God, in which it re- mains transformed and divinized, and God then remains in Himself, because then the two things are no more united, but are one alone, and
of the Society of Jesus through the assessor, he replied that he would obey in every respect most promptly, although it had never been forbidden by himself or his predecessors to write in behalf of the more probable opinion and to teach it." 1 DuPl III, II 354; Viva I 565 b. 2 DuPI III, II 357 ff.; coll. Viva I 557 a ff.; BR(T) 19, 775 b ff.; MBR 10, 212 b ff.
-Michael de Molinas, born on June 29th, I 628, at Muniessa in Spain, in his works and letters spread the errors of quietism, so-called, finally was imprisoned, and in 1696, fortified by the sacraments of the Church, <lied.
in this manner God lives and reigns in us, and the soul annihilates itself in operative being. 6. The interior way is that in which neither light, nor love, nor resig- nation is recognized, and it is not necessary to understand God, and in this way one makes progress correctly. 7. A soul ought to consider neither the reward, nor punishment, nor paradise, nor hell, nor death, nor eternity. 8. He ought not to wish to know whether he is progressing with the will of God, or whether or not with the same resigned will he stands still; nor is it necessary that he wish to know his own state or his own nothingness; but he ought to remain as an inanimate body. 9. The soul ought not to remember either itself, or God, or anything whatsoever, and in the interior life all reflection is harmful, even reflec- tion upon its human actions and upon its own defects. IO. If one scandalizes others by one's own defects, it is not necessary to reflect, as long as the will to scandalize is not present, and not to be able to reflect upon one's own defects, is a grace of God. 1 I. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not. 12. He who gives his own free will to God should care about nothing, neither about hell, nor about heaven; neither ought he to have a desire for his own perfection, nor for virtues, nor his own sanctity, nor his own salvation, the hope of which he ought to remove. 13. After our free will has been resigned to God, reflection and care about everything of our own must be left to that same God, and we ought to leave it to Him, so that He may work His divine will in us without us. 14- It is not seemly that he who is resigned to the divine will, ask anything of God; because asking is an imperfection, since the act is of one's own will and election, and this is wishing that the divine will be conformed to ours, and not that ours be conformed to the divine; and this from the Gospel: "Seek you shall find" [John 16:24 l, was not said by Christ for interior souls who do not wish to have free will; nay in- deed, souls of this kind reach this state, that they cannot seek anything from God. 15. Just as they ought not ask anything from God, so should they not give thanks to Him for anything, because either is an act of their own will. 16. It is not proper to seek indulgences for punishment due to one's own sins, because it is better to satisfy divine justice than to seek divine mercy, since the latter proceeds from pure love of God, and the former from an interested love of ourselves, and that is not a thing pleasing to God and meritorious, because it is a desire to shun the cross. 17. When free will has been surrendered to God, and the care and
thought of our soul left to the same God, no consideration of temptations need any longer be of concern; neither should any but a negative re- sistence be made to them, with the application of no energy, and if nature is aroused, one must let it be aroused, because it is nature. 18. He who in his prayer uses images, figures, pretension, and his own 123S conceptions, does not adore God "in spirit and in truth" [John 4:23]. 19. He who loves God in the way which reason points out or the in- 1239 tellect comprehends, does not love the true God. 20. To assert that in prayer it is necessary to help oneself by discourse 1240 and by reflections, when God does not speak to the soul, is ignorance. God never speaks; His way of speaking is operation, and He always operates in the soul, when this soul does not impede Him by its dis- courses, reflections, and operations. 2r. In prayer it is necessary to remain in obscure and universal faith, 1241 with quiet and forgetfulness of any particular and distinct thought of the attributes of God and the Trinity, and thus to remain in the presence of God for adoring and loving Him and serving Him, but without pro- ducing acts, because God has no pleasure in these. 22. This knowledge through faith is not an act produced by a creature, 1242 but it is a knowledge given by God to the creature, which the creature neither recognizes that he has, and neither later knows that he had it; and the same is said of love. 23. The mystics with Saint Bernard in the Scala Claustralium 1 (The 1243 Ladder of the Recluses) distinguished four steps: reading, meditation, prayer, and infused contemplation. He who always remains in the first, never passes over to the second. He who always persists in the second, never arrives at the third, which is our acquired contemplation, in which one must persist throughout all life, provided that God does not draw the soul (without the soul expecting it) to infused contemplation; and if this ceases, the soul should turn back to the third step and remain in that, without returning again to the second or first. 24. Whatever thoughts occur in prayer, even impure, or against God, 1244 the saints, faith, and the sacraments, if they are not voluntarily nourished, nor voluntarily expelled, but tolerated with indifference and resignation, do not impede the prayer of faith, indeed make it more perfect, because the soul then remains more resigned to the divine will. 25. Even if one becomes sleepy and falls asleep, nevertheless there is 1245 prayer and actual contemplation, because prayer and resignation, resig- nation and prayer are the same, and while resignation endures, prayer also endures. 26. The three ways: the purgative, illuminative, and unitive, are the 1246 1 Elsewhere: The mystics with St. Bernard or the author of Scala Claustralis under the name of the same St. Bernard.
greatest absurdity ever spoken about in mystical (theology), since there is only one way, namely, the interior way. 27. He who desires and embraces sensible devotion, does not desire nor seek God, but himself; and anyone who walks by the interior way, in holy places as well as on feast days, acts badly, when he desires it and tries to possess it. 28. Weariness for spiritual matters is good, if indeed by it one's own love is purified. 29. As long as the interior soul disdains discourses about God, and disdains the virtues, and remains cold, feeling no fervor in himself, it is a good sign. 30. Everything sensible which we experience in the spiritual life, is abominable, base, and unclean. 3 r. No meditative person exercises true interior virtues; these should not be recognized by the senses. It is necessary to abandon the virtues. 32. Neither before nor after communion is any other preparation or act of thanksgiving required for these interior souls than continuance in a customary passive resignation, because in a more perfect way it supplies all acts of virtues, which can be practised and are practised in the ordinary way. And, if on this occasion of communion there arise emotions of humility, of petition, or of thanksgiving, they are to be repressed, as often as it is not discerned that they are from a special impulse of God; other- wise they are impulses of nature not yet dead. 33. That soul acts badly which proceeds by this interior way, if it wishes on feast days by any particular effort to excite some sensible de- votion in itself, since for an interior soul all days are equal, all festal. And the same is said of holy places, because to souls of this kind all places are alike. 34. To give thanks to God by words and by speech is not for interior souls which ought to remain in silence, placing no obstacle before God, because He operates in them; and the more they resign themselves to God, they discover that they cannot recite the Lord's prayer, i.e., the Our Father. 35. It is not fitting for souls of this interior life to perform works even virtuous ones, by their own choice and activity; otherwise they would not be dead. Neither should they elicit acts of love for the Blessed Virgin, saints, or the humanity of Christ, because since they are sensible objects, so, too, is their love toward them. 36. No creature, neither the Blessed Virgin, nor the saints ought to abide in our heart, because God alone wishes to occupy and possess it. 37. On occasion of temptations, even violent ones, the soul ought not to elicit explicit acts of opposite virtues, but should persevere in the above mentioned love and resignation.
38. The voluntary cross of mortifications is a heavy weight and fruit- 1258 less, and therefore to be dismissed. 39. The more holy works and penances, which the saints performed, 1259 are not enough to remove from the soul even a single tie. 40. The Blessed Virgin never performed any exterior work, and never- 1260 theless was holier than all the saints. Therefore, one can arrive at sanctity without exterior work. 4r. God permits and wishes to humiliate us and to conduct us to a true 1261 transformation, because in some perfect souls, even though not inspired, the demon inflicts violence on their bodies, and makes them commit carnal acts, even in wakefulness and without the bewilderment of the mind, by physically moving their hands and other members against their wills. And the same is said as far as concerns other actions sinful in themselves, in which case they are not sins, but in them ( Viva: quia his, because with these) the consent is not present. 42. A case may be given, that things of this kind contrary to the will 1262 result in carnal acts at the same time on the part of two persons, for example man and woman, and on the part of both an act follows. 43. God in past ages has created saints through the ministry of tyrants; 1263 now in truth He produces saints through the ministry of demons, who, by causing the aforesaid things contrary to the will, brings it about that they despise themselves the more and annihilate and resign themselves to God. 44. Job blasphemed, and yet he did not sin with his lips because it 1264 was the result of the violence of the devil. 45. Saint Paul suffered such violences of the devil in his body; thus 1265 he has written: "For the good that I will I do not do; but the evil which I will not, that I do" [Rom. 7:19]. 46. Things of this kind contrary to the will are the more proportionate 1266 medium for annihilating the soul, and for leading [ Viva: et earn] it to true transformation and union, nor is there any other way; and this is the easier and safer way. 47. When things of this kind contrary to the will occur, it is proper 1267 to allow Satan to operate, by applying no effort and making no real attempt, but man should persist in his own nothingness; and even if pollutions follow and obscene acts by one's own hands, and even worse, there is no need to disquiet oneself [ Viva: inquietari], but scruples must be banished, as well as doubts and fears, because the mind becomes more enlightened, more confirmed, and more candid, and holy liberty is ac- quired. And above all there is no need to confess these matters, and one acts in a most saintly way by not confessing, because the devil is over- come by this agreement, and the treasure of peace is acquired. 48. Satan, who produces violences of this kind contrary to the will, 1268
afterwards persuades that they are grave sins, so that the mind disturbs itself, lest it progress further in the interior way; hence for weakening his powers it is better not to confess them, because they are not sins, not even venial. 49. Job from the violence of the devil polluted himself with his own hands at the same time as "he offered pure prayer to God" ( thus inter- preting the passage from chapter 16, Job) [cf. Job. 16:18]. 50. David, Jeremias, and many of the holy Prophets suffered violence of this kind, of these impure external operations contrary to the will. 51. In Sacred Scripture there are many examples of violence to the will unto external sinful acts, as that of Samson, who by violence killed him- self with the Philistines [Judg. 16:29 £.], entered a marriage with a for- eigner [J udg. 14: 1 ff.], and committed fornication with the harlot Dalila [Judg. 16:4 ff.], which in other times were prohibited and would have been sins; that of Judith, who had lied to Holofernes, [Judg. rr: 4 ff.]; that of Elisaeus, who cursed children [IV Kings 2:24]; that of Elias, who burned the leaders with the troops of King Achab [ cf. IV Kings 1: ro ff.]. But whether violence was immediately executed by God, or by the minister of the demons, as it happens in some souls, is left in doubt. 52. When such things contrary to the will, even impure, happen with- out confusion of the mind, then the soul can be united to God, and de facto is always the more united. 53. To recognize in practice, whether an operation has been violence in some persons, the rule which I have for this is not the protestations of those souls which protest that they have not consented to the said violences or cannot swear that they have consented, and cannot see that they are the souls who make progress in the interior life, but I would adopt a rule from a certain light which is superior to actual human and theological cognition, that makes me recognize for certain, with internal certitude, that such operation is violence; and I am certain that this light proceeds from God, because it comes to me joined with certitude that it comes forth from God, and it leaves in me no shadow of doubt to the contrary, in that way by which it sometimes happens that God in reveal- ing something reassures the soul at the same time that it is He who reveals it, and the soul cannot doubt to the contrary. 54- Persons who lead ordinary spiritual lives, in the hour of death will find themselves deluded and confused with all the passions to be purged in the other world. 55. Through this interior life one reaches the point, although with much suffering, of purging and extinguishing all passions, so that he feels nothing more, nothing, nothing; nor is any disquietude felt, just
as if the body were dead, nor does the soul permit itself to be moved any more. 56. Two laws and two desires ( the one of the soul, the other of self- 1276 love) endure as long as self-love endures; wherefore, when this is purged and dead, as happens through the interior way, those twcr laws and two desires are no longer present; nor, is any lapse incurred further, nor, is .anything felt more, not even venial sin. 57. Through acquired contemplation one comes to the state of not 1277 committing any more sins, neither mortal nor venial. 58. One arrives at such a state by no longer reflecting on his own 1278 actions, because defects arise from reflection. 59. The interior way is separated from confession, from those who 1279 confess, and from cases of conscience, from theology and from philosophy. 60. For advanced souls, who begin to die from reflections, and who 1280 even arrive at the point that they are dead, God sometimes makes con- fession impossible, and He Himself supplies it with such great preserving _grace as they receive in the sacrament; and therefore for such souls it is not good in such a case to approach the sacrament of penance, because it is impossible for them. 6r. When the soul arrives at mystical death, it cannot wish for any- 1281 thing more than what God desires, because it does no longer have a will, since God has taken it away from it. fo. By the interior way it arrives at a continuous, immobile state in 1282 an imperturbable peace. 63. By the internal way one even arrives at the death of the senses; 1283 moreover, it is a sign that one remains in a state of nothingness, that is, of mystical death, if the exterior senses no longer represent sensible things ( from which they are) as if they did not exist, because they do not succeed in making the intellect apply itself to them. 64. A theologian is less disposed than an ignorant man for the con- 1284 templative state; in the first place, because he does not have such pure faith; secondly, because he is not so humble; thirdly, because he does not care so much for his own salvation; fourthly, because he has a head full of phantasms, images, opinions, and speculations, and cannot enter into that true light. 65. One must obey directors in the exterior life, and the latitude of the 1285 vow of obedience of religious extends only to the external. In the interior life the matter is different, because only God and the director enter. 66. A certain new doctrine in the Church of God is worthy of ridicule, 1286 that the soul should be governed as far as its interior is concerned by a bishop; but if the bishop is not capable, the soul should go to him with his director. I speak a new doctrine; because neither Sacred Scripture, nor
councils, nor bulls, nor saints, nor authors have ever transmitted it, nor can transmit it, because the Church does not judge about hidden matters, and the soul has its faculty of choosing whatsoever shall seem good to it [ Viva: anima ius habet eligendi quaecumque sibi bene visum]. 67. To say that the interior must be manifested to the exterior tribunal of directors, and that it is a sin not to do so, is a manifest deception, be- cause the Church does not pass judgment on hidden matters, and they prejudge their own souls by these deceptions and hypocrisies. 68. In the world there is neither faculty nor jurisdiction for command- ing that the letters of a director, as far as the interior direction of a soul is concerned, should be made manifest; therefore, it is necessary to assert that it is an insult of Satan, etc. Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, of relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respective\ y.
Errors Concerning the Goodness of an Act and Concerning Philosophic Sin 1 [Condemned in the Deer. S. Off., Aug. 24, 1690]
r. Objective goodness consists in the agreement of an object with ra- tional nature; but formal goodness consists in the conformity of an act with the rule of morals. For this it is sufficient that the moral act tend toward its ultimate end interpretatively. Man is not obliged to love this end, neither in the beginning nor in the course of his moral life. Declared and condemned as heretical. 2. Philosophic or moral sin is a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason; but theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is a grave sin, but is not an offense against God, neither a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punish- ment. Declared and condemned as scandalous, rash, an offense to pious ears, and erroneous. 2 1 DuPI III, II 365 a f.; coll. Viva I 363. 2 Cf. H. Beylard, Le peche philosophique [Nou11. Rev. theol. 62, (1935), 591 ff., 673 ff.].
Alexander VIII, 168r;-1691
Errors of the Jansenists 1 7, 1690]
1. In the state of fallen nature, for mortal [ Viva: form ale] sin and 1291 for demerit that liberty is sufficient by which the mortal sin or demerit was voluntary and free in its cause, namely, in original sin and in the will of Adam sinning. 2. Although there is such a thing as invincible ignorance of the law 1292 of nature, this, in the state of fallen nature, does not excuse from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance. 3. It is not permitted to follow a (probable) opinion or among the 1293 probables the most probable. 2 4. Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect 1294 only, but for all the faithful only. 5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in 1295 any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any suffi- cient grace. 6. Grace sufficient for our state is not so much useful as pernicious, 1296 so that we can justly pray: From sufficient grace deliver us, 0 Lord. 7. Every human act is a deliberate choice of God or of the world; if 1297 of God, it is love of the Father; if of the world, it is concupiscense of the flesh, that is, it is evil. 8. Of necessity, an infidel sins in every act. 9. In truth he sins who hates sin merely because of its vileness and 1299 its inconsistency with nature, without any reference to the offense to God. ro. The intention with which anyone detests evil and follows after 1300 good, merely that he may obtain heavenly glory, is not right nor pleasing to God. Ir. Everything which is not in accordance with supernatural Christian 1301 faith, which works through charity, is a sin. 12. When in great sinners all love is lacking, faith also is lacking; and 1302 even if they seem to believe, their faith is not divine but human. 13. Whoever serves God even in view of an eternal reward, if he lacks 1303 charity, is not free from fault, as often as he acts even in view of his eternal reward. 14. Fear of hell is not supernatural. 15. Attrition, which is conceived through a fear of hell and punish- 1305
1 DuPl III, II 371 b ff.; coll. Viva I 364 ff. 2 By this opinion is condemned absolute "tutiorismus."
Alexander VIII, 168ir1691 ments, with a love of benevolence for God in Himself, is not a good and supernatural motive. 16. Neither the policy nor institution of the Church has introduced the order of placing satisfaction before absolution, but the law and pre- scription of Christ, since the nature of the thing in a way demands that very order. 17. By that practice of absolving first the order of penance is inverted. I 8. The modern custom as regards the administration of the sacra- ment of penance, even if the authority of many men sustains it and long duration confirms it, is nevertheless not considered by the Church as a usage but as an abuse. 19. Man ought to do penance during his whole life for original sin. 20. Confessions made to religious are generally either sacrilegious or invalid. 21. The parish priest can suspect mendicants who live on common alms, of imposing too light and unsuitable a penance or satisfaction be- cause of the advantage or gain of some temporal aid. 22. They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim the right to receive Communion before they have done worthy penance for their sins. 23. Similarly, they must be prevented from Holy Communion, who have not yet a pure love of God, without any admixture. 24. The oblation in the Temple, which was made by the Blessed Virgin Mary on the day of her purification by means of two turtle doves, one for a holocaust and the other for sins, sufficient! y testifies that she was in need of purification, and that her Son ( who was being offered) was also stained with the stain of His mother, according to the words of the law. 25. It is unlawful to place in a Christian temple an image of God the Father [Viva: sedentis, sitting]. 26. Praise which is offered to Mary, as Mary, is vain. 27. Sometimes baptism is valid when conferred under this form: "In the name of the Father, etc .••• ," omitting these words: "I baptize thee." 28. Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but within his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does. 29. Futile an<l many times refuted is the assertion about the authority of the Roman Pontiff being superior to that of an ecumenical Council and about his infallil1ility in deciding questions of faith. 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. 31. The Bull of Urban VIII, "In Eminenti," is false. 1
1 ln this Bull of Urban VIII (published in the year 1641) the Constitutions of Pius V and Gregory XIII are confirmed, in which the 79 propositions of Baius are condemned; in the same Bull the book of Cornelius Jansen, which has the title
Alexander VIII, r68()-169r 34 1 Condemned and prohibited as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding, m1uri- ous, close to heresy, smacking of heresy, erroneous, schismatic, and heretical respective! y.
Articles (Erroneous) of the Gallican Clergy ( about the Power of the Roman Pontiff) 1 [Declared void in Constit., "Inter multiplices," Aug. 4, 1690]
I. To blessed Peter and his successors the vicars of Christ, and to the 1322 Church herself power over spiritual things and over those pertaining to eternal salvation has been given by God, but not power over civil and temporal affairs, since the Lord said: "My Kingdom is not of this world" [John 18:36], and again: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" [Luke 20:25], and hence the statement of the Apostle: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" [ Rom. r 3: r f.]. Therefore, by the command of God, kings and princes cannot be subject to ecclesiastical power in temporal affairs, nor can they be deposed by the authority of the keys of the Church, either directly or indirectly; nor can their subjects be released from loyalty and obedience and be freed from fulfilling their oath of allegiance; and this opinion, which is necessary for public tranquillity, and which is no less useful to the Church than to the Empire, must by every means be retained as being in harmony with the Word of God, the tradition of the Fathers, and the examples of the saints.2
Augustinus, is again prohibited. This Bull the Baians and the Jansenists said was surreptitious, on the ground that it was published by a Pontiff ignorant of the truth, although on the other hand the Pontiff says in it: After mature and diligent reading of the same book, which has the title Augustinus, it has been found that in the same book many proscribed propositions of Baius are contained. (Cf. Viva on this prop- osition. Tournely, De gratza q .3; Historia lansenismi, Epoch. I, sec. "The book of Jansenism is announced to Urban VIII and is prohibited by him"). 1 CL I 831 f. and BR(T) 20, 69 a; MER 10, 217 b; RskRP II 222.-Disapproved, as Pius VI Constit., "Auctorem fidei" [see n. 1599] reports, by Innocent XI by a letter in the form of a Brief, April 11, 1682, and by Alexander III in Constitution, "Inter multiplices" (August 4, 1690). Finally, when resumed by the synod of Pistorium, Pius VI by the Bull "Auctorcm fidei" (Aug. 28, 1794) publicly con- demned them. These four articles of the declaration, of which the three last concern a dogmatic matter, many of the authors, in a given letter to Innocent XII in the year 1693, retracted.-But these articles of the Gallic clergy do not belong to the year 1682, but with changed form, the six articles of the Sorbonne belong to the year 1663 (Gerin, Recherches historiques sur l'assemblee du clerge de France de 1682, ed. 2 [Paris, 1870], p. 17). 2 How the law for deposing princes, etc., is to be understood, cf. v. gr. Archiv.
fiir kathol. Kirchenrecht XXVI (1871), p. lxxx.
34 2 2. So there is in the Apostolic See and in the successors of Peter, the vicars of Christ, such full power over spiritual things that the decree concerning the authority of the General Councils which are contained 1 in the fourth and fifth sessions of the sacred ecumenical Council of Con- stance are valid, and at the same time always remain unchanged, since these decrees have been approved by the Apostolic See and confirmed by the use of the Roman Pontiffs themselves, and by the whole Church and have been observed by the Gallican Church in continuous religious wor- ship; and they are not to be approved by the Gallican Church who destroy the force of these decrees, as if they were of doubtful authority or have been less approved, or who distort the words of the Council in accordance only with the time of the schism. 3. Hence the use of the apostolic power must be moderated by the canons which have been established by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world; likewise, the rules, customs, and institutes accepted by the kingdom and the Gallican Church are valid, and the limitations of the Fathers remain unshaken; and this pertains to the fullness of the Apostolic See, namely, that these statutes and cus- toms, confirmed by the consent of both so great a See and of the Churches, retain their proper stability. 4. In questions of faith also, the duties of the Supreme Pontiff are principal ones, and his decrees pertain to all and individual churches, and yet this judgment is not unalterable unless the consent of the Church has been added to it. Concerning these statements Alexander VIII decreed as follows: "Each and everything that was considered and decreed in tlie above mentioned assemblies of the Gallican clergy held in the year 1682, both in regard to the extension of the right of regalia and the declaration concern- ing the ecclesiastical power and the four propositions contained in that declaration, with all and individual m:rndates, judgments, :md confirma- tions, declarations, epistles, edicts, and decrees edited and published by whatsoever persons, ecclesiastical or lay, in whatever way qualified, and no matter what authority and power they enjoy, even the power which requires individual mention,-all these acts, we declare, by the tenor of these letters, to have been from the very beginning, to be now, and always to be, by right itself, null and void, invalid, useless, entirely and wholly lacking in strength and effectiveness, and that no one is bound to their observance or to the observance of any one of them, even if they have been reinforced by an oath."
1 See n. 657 c. note.
Errors Concerning the Most Pure Love of God 1 [Condemned in the brief "Cum alias," March 12, 1699]
1. There is an habitual state of the love of God, which is pure charity and without any admixture of the motive of one's personal interest. Neither fear of punishment nor desire of reward any longer has a share in it. God is no longer loved for the sake of merit, nor because of one's own perfection, nor because of the happiness to be found in loving Him. 2. In the state of the contemplative or unitive life, every interested motive of fear and hope is lost. 3. That which is essential in the direction of a soul is to do nothing else than to follow grace, step by step with infinite patience, precaution, and subtlety. One should restrain himself within these limits so that God may be permitted to act, and he should never aspire to pure love, except when God by an interior unction begins to open the heart to this word, which is so hard for souls heretofore attached to self, and can therefore scandalize them or cause them confusion. 4. In the state of holy indifference, a soul no longer has voluntary and deliberate desires for its own interest, with the exception of those occa- sions on which it does not faithfully cooperate with the whole of its grace. 5. In the same state of holy indifference we wish nothing for ourselves, all for God. We do not wish that we be perfect and happy for self interest, but we wish all perfection and happiness only in so far as it pleases God to bring it about that we wish for these states by the im- pression of His grace. 6. In this state of holy indifference we no longer seek salvation as our own salvation, as our eternal liberation, as a reward of our merits, nor as the greatest of all our interests, but we wish it with our whole will as the glory and good pleasure of God, as the thing which He wishes, and which He wishes us to wish for His sake. 7. Dereliction is nothing else than the abnegation or renunciation of oneself, which Jesus Christ requires of us in the Gospel, after we have left all external things. This denial of ourselves is only with regard to our own interest. . . . The extreme trials in which this abnegation or dere- 1 DuPI III, II 402 If.; Viva I 562 b If.; BR(T) 20, 870 b If.; MBR 10, 21 9 a If.- They are contained in the book, Explications des maximes des Saints sur la vie in- terieure, by Messere Fran~oise de Salignac Fenelon, Archeveque Due de Cambray, etc. (Paris, 1697). Variant readings have been corrected according to the original Gallic text which DuPI, I.e., supplies.
liction of self must be exercised are the temptations by means of which a jealous God seeks to purify love, by holding out to it no refuge, nor any hope for its welfare, even eternal. 8. All sacrifices, which are wont to be made by souls who are as dis- interested as possible about their eternal happiness, are conditional. . . . But this sacrifice cannot be absolute in the ordinary state. Only in the case of extreme trials does this sacrifice become in some manner absolute. 9. In extreme trials a soul can be invincibly persuaded by a reflex persuasion ( and this is not the deep foundation of conscience) that it has been justly rejected by God. IO. Then a soul separated from itself expires with Christ on the Cross, saying: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" [Matt. 27:46]. In this involuntary expression of despair there is completed the absolute sacrifice of one's own interest in so far as eternity is concerned. 1 I. In this state a soul loses all hope of its own interest; but never does it lose in its higher part, that is in its direct and inner acts, a perfect hope, which is a disinterested longing for the promises. 12. Then a director can permit this soul to acquiesce simply in the loss of its own interest, and in the just condemnation which it believes has been enjoined on it by God. 13. The inferior part of Christ on the Cross did not communicate his involuntary disturbances to his superior part. r4. In the extreme trials for the purification of love there takes place a certain separation of the upper part of the soul from the lower. . . . In that separation the acts of the lower part flow from a completely blind and involuntary disturbance, for, whatever is voluntary and intellectual is of the higher part. 15. Meditation consists of discursive acts which are easily distinguished from one another. . . . The putting together of the discursive and reflex acts is the proper exercise of an interested love. r6. There is a state of contemplation so sublime and so perfect that it becomes habitual; so that, as often as a soul actually prays, its prayer is coutemplative, not discursive. Then it no longer needs to return to meditation and to its methodical acts. 17. Contemplative souls are deprived of a distinct, sensible, and reflex vision of Jesus Christ at two different times: first, in the newborn fervor of their contemplation; secondly, when the soul loses the vision of Jesus Christ in extreme trials. 18. In the passive state all the distinct virtues are exercised without any thought that they are virtues. At every moment no other thought is in the mind than to do that which God wishes, and a zealous love likewise brings it about that no one any longer desires virtue for himself nor is he ever so endowed with virtue as when he is no longer attached to virtue.
19. In this sense it can be said that a soul in a passive and disinterested 1345 state no longer wishes even love itself, in so far as it is its perfection and its happiness, but only in so far as it is that which God wishes of us. 20. In confession transformed souls must detest their sins and con- 1346 demn themselves, and desire the remission of their sins not as a personal purification and liberation, but as the thing which God wills and which He wills us to will because of His glory. 21. Holy mystics have excluded from the state of transformed souls the 1347 practices of virtues. 22. Although this doctrine ( about pure love) was designated a pure 1348 and simple evangelical perfection in universal tradition, the ancient pas- tors did not propose it indiscriminately to the multitude of the just, unless the practice of their interested love was proportionate to their grace. 23. Pure love itself alone constitutes the whole interior life; and thence 1349 arises the only principle and the only motive of all acts which are delib- erate and meritorious. Condemned and rejected as, either in the obvious sense of these words, or in the extended meaning of the thoughts, rash, scandalous, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, pernicious, and likewise erroneous in practice.
Concerning Truths which Necessarily Must be Explicitly Believed 1 [Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703)
Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, 1349a to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him. Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. [Response of the Sacred Office, May ro, 1703] Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be 1349b with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an 1 ASS 30, (1897/98) 700 with note; Collect. S.C. de Prop. Fide I, n. 254, 1 and 256, 2.
understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle: "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder" [Heb. u:6], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a cer- tain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not be- lieve explicitly in Jesus Christ. Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe ex- plicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.
An Obsequious Silence in Regard to Dogmatic Facts 1 [From the Constitution, "Vineam Domini Sabaoth," July r6, 1705]
(Sec. 6 or 25) In order that, for the future, every occasion of error may be prevented, and that all sons of the Catholic Church may learn to listen to the Church herself, not in silence only (for, "even the wicked are silent in darkness" [I Kings 2:9]), but with an interior obedience, which is the true obedience of an orthodox man, let it be known that by this constitution of ours, to be valid forever, the obedience which is due to the aforesaid apostolic constitutions is not satisfied by any obsequious silence; but the sense of that book of Jansen which has been condemned in the five propositions ( see n. 1092 ff.) mentioned above, and whose meaning the words of those propositions express clearly, must be re- jected and condemned as heretical by all the faithful of Christ, not only by word of mouth but also in heart; and one may not lawfully subscribe to the above formula with any other mind, heart, or belief, so that all who hold or preach or teach or assert by word or writing anything contrary to what all these propositions mean, and to what each single one means, we declare, decree, state, and ordain, with this same apostolic authority, that all, as transgressors of the aforementioned apostolic constitutions, come under each and every individual censure and penalty of those con- stitutions. 1 DuPI III, II 448; Viva I 516 a; BR(T) 21, 235 b; MBR 8, 36 a.
Errors of Paschasius Quesnel 1 (Condemned in the dogmatic Constitution, "Onigenitus," 2 Sept. 8, r7r 3]
(Sec. 3) r. What else remains for the soul that has lost God and His grace except sin and the consequences of sin, a proud poverty and a sloth- ful indigence, that is, a general impotence for labor, for prayer, and for every good work? 2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is nothing done, but nothing can be done. 3. In vain, 0 Lord, do You command, if You do not give what you command. 4. Thus, 0 Lord, all things are possible to him for whom You make all things possible by effecting those same things in him. 5. When God does not soften a heart by the interior unction of His grace, exterior exhortations and graces are of no service except to harden it the more. 6. The difference between the Judaic dispensation and the Christian is this, that in the former God demanded flight from sin and a fulfill- ment of the Law by the sinner, leaving him in his own weakness; but in the latter, God gives the sinner what He commands, by purifying him with His grace. 7. What advantage was there for a man in the old covenant, in which God left him to his own weakness, by imposing on him His law? But what happiness is it not to be admitted to a convenant in which God gives us what He asks of us? 8. But we do not bdong to the new covenant, except in so far as we
1 DuPl III, II 462 ff.; coll. Viva II 1 ff.; CIC Rcht II 140 ff.; BR(T) 21, 569 b ff.; MER 8, 119 a ff. Variant, doubtful, and corrected readings are according to the first Gallic text which DuPl, l.c., presents~Paschasius Quesnel was born on July 14, 1634. After completing his studies in the Sorbonne in 1657, he entered the Congre- gation of the Oratory; but because of his zeal for the heresy of Jansenism, he was forced to leave the Congregation. His book, "Reflections morales," was condemned, to which the Constitution, "Unigenitus," is related. Shortly before his death on Dec. 2, 1719, he made a profession of faith publicly [Hrt, Sec. rec. IF 822 ff.]. 2 This dogmatic constitution was confirmed by the same Clement XI in the Bull,
"Pastoralis Officii" (Aug. 28, 1718) against the Appellantes, in which he declares that certain Catholics "who did not accept the Bull "Unigenitus" were clearly out- side the bosom of the Roman Church; by Innocent XIII in a decree published on Jan. 8, 1722; by Benedict XIII and the Roman Synod in 1725; by Benedict XIV in the encyclical, '"Ex omnibus Christiani orbis regionibus" on Oct. 16, 1756; it was accepted by the Gallic clergy in assemblies in 1723, 1726, 1730, by the councils of Avignon, 1725 and Ebred, 1727, and by the whole Catholic world.
are participators in that new grace which works in us that which God commands us. 9. The grace of Christ is a supreme grace, without which we can never confess Christ, and with which we never deny Him. ro. Grace is the working of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard. 1 r. Grace is nothing else than the omnipotent Will of God, ordering and doing what He orders. 12. When God wishes to save a soul, at whatever time and at what- ever place, the undoubted effect follows the Will of God. 13. When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him. 14. Howsoever remote from salvation an obstinate sinner is, when Jesus presents Himself to be seen by him in the salutary light of His grace, the sinner is forced to surrender himself, to have recourse to Him, and to humble himself, and to adore his Savior. 15. When God accompanies His commandment and His eternal ex- hortation by the unction of His Spirit and by the interior force of His grace, He works that obedience in the heart that He is seeking. 16. There are no attractions which do not yield to the attractions of grace, because nothing resists the Almighty. 17. Grace is that voice of the Father which teaches men interiorly and makes them come to Jesus Christ; whoever does not come to Him, after he has heard the exterior voice of the Son, is in no wise taught by the Father. 18. The seed of the word, which the hand of God nourishes, always brings forth its fruit. 19. The grace of God is nothing else than His omnipotent Will; this is the idea which God Himself gives us in all His Scriptures. 20. The true idea of grace is that God wishes Himself to be obeyed by us and He is obeyed; He commands, and all things are done; He speaks as the Lord, and all things are obedient to Him. 21. The grace of Jesus Christ is a strong, powerful, supreme, invincible
grace, that is, the operation of the omnipotent Will, the consequence and imitation of the operation of God causing the incarnation and the resurrection of His Son. 22. The harmony of the all powerful operation of God in the heart of man with the free consent of man's will is demonstrated, therefore, to us in the Incarnation, as in the fount and archetype of all other opera- tions of mercy and grace, all of which are as gratuitous and as dependent on God as the original operation itself. 23. God Himself has taught us the idea of the omnipotent working
of His grace, signifying it by that operation which produces creatures from nothing and which restores life to the dead. 24. The right idea which the centurion had about the omnipotence of 1374 God and of Jesus Christ in healing bodies by a single act of His will, [Matt. 8:8] is an image of the idea we should have about the omnip- otence of His grace in healing souls from cupidity. 25. God illumines the soul, and heals it, as well as the body, by His 1375 will only; He gives orders and He is obeyed. 26. No graces are granted except through faith. 27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others. 28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner is the remission of 1378 sm. 29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted. 30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ, are infallibly saved. 1380 3L The desires of Christ always have their effect; He brings peace 1381 to the depth of hearts when He desires it for them. 32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the 1382 hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the elect. 33. Ah, how much one ought to renounce earthly goods and himself 1383 for this, that he may have the confidence of appropriating, so to speak, Christ Jesus to himself, His love, death, and mysteries, as St. Paul does, when he says: "He who loved me, and delivered Himself for me" [Gal. 2:20]. 34. The grace of Adam produced nothing except human merit. 35. The grace of Adam is a consequence of creation and was due to 1385 his whole and sound nature. 36. The essential difference between the grace of Adam and of his 1386 state of innocence and Christian grace, is that each one would have received the first in his own person, but the second is not received except in the person of the risen Jesus Christ to whom we are united. 37. The grace of Adam by sanctifying him in himself was proportion- 1387 ate to him; Christian grace, by sanctifying us in Jesus Christ, is omnip- otent, and worthy of the Son of God. 38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except 1388 to do evil. 39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for 1389 straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good. 40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemna- 1390 tion. 41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan 1391
philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowl- edge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love. 42. The grace of Christ alone renders a man fit for the sacrifice of faith; without this there is nothing but impurity, nothing but unworthi- ness. 43. The first effect of baptismal grace is to make us die to sin so that our spirit, heart, and senses have no more life for sin than a dead man has for the things of the world. 44. There are but two loves, from which all our volitions and actions arise: love of God, which does all things because of God and which God rewards; and the love with which we love ourselves and the world, which does not refer to God what ought to be referred to Him, and therefore becomes evil. 45. When love of God no longer reigns in the heart of sinners, it needs must be that carnal desire reign in it and corrupt all of its actions. 46. Cupidity or charity makes the use of the senses good or evil. 47. Obedience to the law ought to flow from the source, and this source is charity. When the love of God is the interior principle of obedience and the glory of God is its end, then that is pure which appears ex- ternally; otherwise, it is but hypocrisy and false justice. 48. What else can we be except darkness, except aberration, and ex- cept sin, without the light of faith, without Christ, and without charity? 49. As there is no sin without love of ourselves, so there is no good work without love of God. 50. In vain we cry out to God: My Father, if it is not the spirit of charity which cries out. 5 r. Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity. 52. All other means of salvation are contained in faith as in their own germ and seed; but this faith does not exist apart from love and con- fidence. 53. Only charity in the Christian way makes ( Christian actions) through a relation to God and to Jesus Christ. 54. It is charity alone that speaks to God; it alone that God hears. 55. God crowns nothing except charity; he who runs through any other incentive or any other motive, runs in vain. 56. God rewards nothing but charity; for charity alor.e honors God. 57. All fails a sinner, when hope fails him; and there is no hope m God, when there is no love of God. 58. Neither God nor religion exists where there is no charity. 59. The prayer of the impious is a new sin; and what God grants to them is a new judgment against them.
60. If fear of punishment alone animates penance, the more intense this 1410 is, the more it leads to despair. 6r. Fear restrains nothing but the hand, but the heart is addicted to 1411 the sin as long as it is not guided by a love of justice. 62. He who does not refrain from evil except through fear of punish- 1412 rnent, commits that evil in his heart, and is already guilty before God. 63. A baptized person is still under the law as a Jew, if he does not 1413 fulfill the law, or if he fulfills it from fear alone. 64. Good is never done under the condemnation of the law, because 1414 one sins either by doing evil or by avoiding it only through fear. 65. Moses, the prophets, priests, and doctors of the Law died without 1415 having given any son to God, since they produced only slaves through fear. 66. He who wishes to approach to God, should not come to Him with 1416 brutal passions, nor be led to Him by natural instinct, or through fear as animals, but through faith and love, as sons. 67. Servile fear does not represent God to itself except as a stern, 1417 imperious, unjust, unyielding master. 68. The goodness of God has shortened the road to salvation, by 1418 enclosing all in faith and in prayers. 69. Faith, practice of it, increase, and reward of faith, all are a gift of 1419 the pure liberality of God. 70. Never does God afflict the innocent; and afflictions always serve 1420 either to punish the sin or to purify the sinner. 7r. For the preservation of himself man can dispense himself from that 1421 law which God established for his use. 72. A mark of the Christian Church is that it is catholic, embracing all 1422 the angels of heaven, all the elect and the just on earth, and of all times. 73. What is the Church except an assembly of the sons of God abiding 1423 in His bosom, adopted in Christ, subsisting in His person, redeemed by His blood, living in His spirit, acting through His grace, and awaiting the grace of the future life? 74. The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head, 1424 but all the saints as members. 75. The Church is one single man composed of many members, of 1425 which Christ is the head, the life, the subsistence and the person; it is one single Christ composed of many saints, of whom He is the sanctifier. 76. There is nothing more spacious than the Church of God; because 1426 all the elect and the just of all ages comprise it. 77. He who does not lead a life worthy of a son of God and a mem- 1427 ber of Christ, ceases interiorly to have God as a Father and Christ as a head. 78. One is separated from the chosen people, whose figure was the 1428
Jewish people, and whose head is Jesus Christ, both by not living accord- ing to the Gospel and by not believing in the Gospel. 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture. So. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all. 8 I. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it. 82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading. 83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mys- teries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not trom the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures, and have heresies been born. 84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ. 85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gos- pels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommumcation. 86. To snatch from the simple people this consolation of joining their voice to the voice of the whole Church is a custom contrary to the apostolic practice and to the intention of God. 87. A method full of wisdom, light, and charity is to give souls time for bearing with humility, and for experiencing their state of sin, for seeking the spirit of penance and contrition, and for beginning at least to satisfy the justice of God, before they are reconciled. 88. We are ignorant of what sin is and of what true penance is, when we wish to be restored at once to the possession of the goods of which sin has despoiled us, and when we refuse to endure the confusion of that separation. 89. The fourteenth step in the conversion of a sinner is that, after he has already been reconciled, he has the right of assisting at the Sacrifice of the Church. 1440' 90. The Church has the authority to excommunicate, so that it may exercise it through the first pastors with the consent, at least presumed, of the whole body. 91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long
as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity. 92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema 1442 rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity. 93. Jesus sometimes heals the wounds which the precipitous haste of 1443 the first pastors inflicted without His command. Jesus restored what they, with inconsidered zeal, cut off. 94. Nothing engenders a worse opinion of the Church among her 1444 enemies than to see exercised there an absolute rule over the faith of the faithful, and to see divisions fostered because of matters which do not violate faith or morals. 95. Truths have descended to this, that they are, as it were, a foreign 1445 tongue to most Christians, and the manner of preaching them is, as it were, an unknown idiom, so remote is the manner of preaching from the simplicity of the apostles, and so much above the common grasp of the faithful; nor is there sufficient advertence to the fact that this defect is one of the greatest visible signs of the weakening of the Church and of the wrath of God on His sons. 96. God permits that all powers be opposed to the preachers of truth, 1446 so that its victory cannot be attributed to anyone except to divine grace. 97. Too often it happens that those members, who are united to the 1447 Church more holily and more strictly, are looked down upon, and treated as if they were unworthy of being in the Church, or as if they were separated from Her; but, "the just man liveth by faith" [Rom. r:17 ], and not by the opinion of men. 98. The state of persecution and of punishment which anyone endures 1448 as a disgraceful and impious heretic, is generally the final trial and is especially meritorious, inasmuch as it makes a man more conformable to Jesus Christ. 99. Stubbornness, investigation, and obstinacy in being unwilling either 1449 to examine something or to acknowledge that one has been deceived, daily changes into an odor, as it were, of death, for many people, that which God has placed in His Church to be an odor of life within it, for instance, good books, instructions, holy examples, etc. roo. Deplorable is the time in which God is believed to be honored by 1450 persecution of the truth and its disciples! This time has come. . .. To be considered and treated by the ministers of religion as impious and un- worthy of all commerce with God, as a putrid member capable of corrupting everything in the society of saints, is to pious men a more terrible death than the death of the body. In vain does anyone flatter himself on the purity of his intentions and on a certain zeal for religion,
when he persecutes honest men with fire and sword, if he is blinded by his own passion or carried away by that of another on account of which he does not want to examine anything. We frequently believe that we are sacrificing an impious man to God, when we are sacrificing a servant of God to the devil. ror. Nothing is more opposed to the spirit of God and to the doctrine of Jesus Christ than to swear common oaths in Church, because this is to multiply occasions of perjury, to lay snares for the weak and inex- perienced, and to cause the name and truth of God to serve sometimes the plan of the wicked. Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church ar:d her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.
Clandestine Marriages in Belgium (and Holland):.. [From the Declaration, "Matrimonia, quae in locis," Nov. 4, r74r]
Marriages which are wont to be entered into in places subject to the dominion of the Federated Orders in Belgium, whether between heretics on both sides, or between an heretical man on one side and a Catholic woman on the other, or, viceversa, without having observed the form prescribed by the Sacred Council of Trent, whether such marriages are valid or not has been for a long time greatly disputed in the minds of men, and there are divided and diverse opinions; a situation which has furnished a rather fruitful source of anxiety and the seed of danger for many years, especially since bishops, parish priests, and missionaries of these regions have no certainty in regard to the matter and do not dare to decree and to declare anything without consulting the Holy See. . . . 1 BR(M) I, 178 fl. [old ed. In. 34]; MBR 16, 52 a ff.; RskMm II 49 ff.; MThCc
25, 679 ff.-This is the very celebrated "Declaratio Benedictina," whose decisions later were extended to other regions. Cf. A. Lehmkuhl, T heal. moralis 12 II n. 905 ff., and ASS 6 (1870) 456; 23 (1890/91) 234 ff.; AE 5 (1897) 263 ff.; 6 (1898) 427 ff.
( r) Our Most Holy Father, having taken time to ponder the matter, 1453 recently enjoined that this declaration and instruction be set down, which should be employed hereafter as a definite rule and norm by all Belgian bishops, priests, and missionaries of these regions, and vicars apostolic, in matters of this kind. (2) Namely, first, in regard to marriages celebrated between heretics 1454 in places subject to the authority of the Federated Orders, which did not observe the form prescribed by Trent, although His Holiness knows that at other times, in certain particular cases and in circumstances attendant and explained at the time, the Sacred Congregation of the Council has said that they are invalid; nevertheless, His Holiness, being equally certain that nothing has been generally or universally defined by the Apostolic See regarding marriages of this kind, and, on the other hand, that, in order to furnish advice to all the faithful residing in those places and to avert more grave disorders, he ought to declare what must be generally held regarding such marriages, after giving mature consideration to the matter, and sedulously balancing all the weighty reasons pro and con, has declared and decreed that marriages which have been contracted up to now, and which will be contracted hereafter in the said federated provinces of Belgium between heretics, even if the form prescribed by Trent shall not have been observed in their celebration, provided no other canonical impediment interferes, are to be considered as valid; and furthermore, if it should happen that each spouse be received into the bosom of the Catholic Church, they are held bound by the same conjugal tie as before, even if their mutual consent is not renewed before the Catho- lic priest; but, if only one of the spouses, either man or woman, should be converted, neither can, as long as the other is living, enter into another marnage. (3) Now as regards those marriages which likewise in the same 1455 federated provinces of Belgium are contracted by Catholics with heretics without the form established by Trent, whether a Catholic man takes an heretical woman in marriage, or a Catholic woman marries an heretical man; grieving very much that there are among Catholics those who, becoming shamefully deranged by a mad love, do not wholeheartedly abhor and think that they should refrain from these detestable marriages which Holy Mother Church has continually condemned and interdicted, and praising greatly the zeal of those bishops, who, by proposing severe penalties, endeavor to restrain Catholics from uniting themselves to heretics in this sacrilegious bond, His Holiness encourages, exhorts, and advises seriously and gravely all bishops, vicars apostolic, parish priests, missionaries, and every other faithful minister of God and of the Church who reside in those regions, to deter, in so far as they can, Catholics of both sexes from entering into marriages of this kind to the destruction of
their own souls, and to make it their business to avert in every good way and efficaciously to hinder these same marriages. But if by chance some marriage of this sort, without observing the Tridentine form, has already been contracted there, or may be contracted in the future ( which God forbid!), His Holiness declares that such a marriage, provided that no other canonical impediment exists, must be considered valid, and that neither of the spouses, as long as the other one lives, can in any way enter into a new marriage under the pretext that the prescribed form was not observed; that the Catholic spouse, whether man or woman, should especially bear this in mind, that in proportion to the very grave fault he has committed he should do penance and ask pardon from God, and should try, in proportion to his strength, to draw the other spouse, who is straying from the true faith, back to the bosom of the Catholic Church, and to win her or his soul, which indeed would be a very excellent means of obtaining pardon for the crime committed, knowing besides, as has just been said, that he will be perpetually bound by the bond of that marnage. ( 4) In addition, the Holy See declares that whatever up to now has been sanctioned and pronounced about marriages, either between heretics or between Catholics and heretics, in those regions subject to the rule of the Federated Orders in Belgium, is likewise sanctioned and pronounced for similar marriages contracted outside the limits of the dominion of these same Federated Orders by those who have been assigned to the legions, or military forces which are customarily sent by these same Federated Orders to guard and to defend the frontier parts commonly called di Barriera; so that, indeed, marriages entered into there without the Tridentine form between heretics on both sides, or between Catholics and heretics, retain their validity, provided the spouse in each case be- longs to these same military forces or legions; and His Holiness wishes this declaration to include also the city of Mosa Traiectensis, which is possessed by the Commonwealth of the Federated Orders, not, however, by right of dominion, but only under the name of a pledge, as they say. (5) Finally, in regard to marriages which are contracted either in the regions of Catholic princes by those who have a domicile in the federated provinces, or in the federated provinces by those who have a domicile in the regions of Catholic princes, His Holiness has thought that nothing new should be decreed and declared, wishing that whenever a dispute arises concerning them, they be decided according to the canonical prin- ciples of the common law, and by the resolution approved in similar cases at other times and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and so he has declared and decreed and commanded that it be observed by all for the future.
The Minister of Confirmation 1 [From the Constitution, "Etsi Pastoralis," for Italian-Greeks, May 26, 1742]
(3) Let Latin bishops unconditionally confirm infants or others hap- 1458 tized in their dioceses and signed on the forehead with chrism by Greek priests, since neither by our predecessors nor by us has the faculty been granted, nor is it granted to Greek priests in Italy and the adjacent islands to confer the sacrament of confirmation on baptized infants.
Profession of Faith which Is Prescribed for Orientals (Maronites) 3 [From the Constitution, "Nuper ad nos," March 16, 1743]
5..•. I, N., with firm faith, etc. I believe in one, etc., [ as in the 1459 Nicene-Constantinople Creed, see n. 86, 994]. I revere also and accept the universal Synods as follows, namely; The 1460 first Nicean fsee n. 54], and I profess what has been defined in it against Arius of execrable memory, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, who is born of the sub- stance of the Father, not made, that He is consubstantial with the Father, that those impious statements have been rightly condemned in the same Synod, such as: "That at some time He did not exist," or, "that He was made of those things which are not, or of some other substance or es- sence," or, "that the Son of God is mutable or changeable." The first Constantinople, second in order [see n. 85 f.], and I profess 1461 that which was defined in it against Macedonius of execrable memory that the Holy Spirit is not a servant but Lord, not a creature but God, and possessing the one divinity with the Father and the Son. The first Ephesian [see n. II r a f.], third in order, and I profess that 1462 'Which was defined against Nestorius of execrable memory, that divinity and humanity by an ineffable and incomprehensible union in the one 1 BB(M) 1, 352 [ed. old I, n. 57]; MBR 16, 96 b. 2 The same Benedict XIV in his work, "De Synodo diocesana" ( r. VII, c. 8, n. 7: ed. Mehl. II 70), says: "But whatever there is about this difficult and very complex controversy, it is clear to all chat confirmation conferred by a simple Latin priest through the sole delegation of the bishop would now be invalid, because the Apostolic See reserves this right to itself alone." According to a decree of the Holy Office, July 5, 1853 [Collect. S.C. de Prop. Fidel (1907), n. 1095], the power of confirming is taken away from Greek presbyters, whether uniate or schismatic, in Bulgaria, in Albania, in Cyprus, among the Maronites of Mount Lebanus, in Italy and the ad- jacent islands, but not in Walachia, Moldavia, and Asia. 3 BB(M) :2, 82 ff. [old ed. I n. 78]; NBR 16, 148 ff.
person of the Son of God have constituted for us one Jesus Christ, and that for this reason the most Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God. Chalcedon [ see n. 148], fourth in order, and I profess that which was defined against Eutyches and Dioscorus, both of execrable memory, that the one and same Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true man consisting of rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in regard to His divinity, and consubstantial with us in regard to His humanity, in all things similar to us, without sin; that before time He was born of the Father according to divinity, but that in these latter days the same One, for us and for our salvation, was born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to humanity, and that the one same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten must be recognized in the two natures without confusion, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, never removing the difference of the natures because of their union, and preserving the peculiar character of each nature joined in one Person and substance; that this same Lord is not separated and divided into two persons, but is one and the same Son and Only-begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ: likewise that the divinity of our same Lord Jesus Christ, according to which He is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is impassible and immortal; moreover, the same Lord was crucified and died only in the flesh, as was also defined in the said Synod and in the letter of St. Leo, the Roman Pontiff [ cf. n. 143 f.], by whose mouth, the Fathers in the same Synod declared that Blessed Peter the Apostle spoke, and by this definition there is condemned also that impious heresy of those who, when the Trisagion transmitted by the angels was being sung in the aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon: "Holy God, strong God, immortal God, have mercy on us," added these words: "Who was crucified for us," and thereby asserted that the divine nature of the three Persons was passible and mortal. Second Council of Constantinople [see n. 212 ff.], fifth in order, in which the definition of the aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon was renewed. Third Council of Constantinople [seen. 289 ff.], sixth in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Monothelites, that in our one same Lord, Jesus Christ, there are two natural wills and two natural operations without division, change, separation, or confusion, and that His human will is not contrary to, but subject to His divine and omnip- otent will. Second Nicean Council [see n. 302 ff.], seventh in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Iconoclasts, that images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, as well as of other saints, should
be kept and retained, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them. The fourth of Constantinople [see n. 336 ff.], eighth in order, and I 1467 profess that in it Photius was rightly condemned, and that Saint Ignatius, the Patriarch, was rightly reinstated (restored). I venerate also and accept all the other universal Synods which have been 1468 lawfully held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Synod of Florence; [ there follows what is gathered and ex- cerpted as far as the meaning goes from the decree on the union of the Greeks (namely, n. 691-693), and from the decree for the Armenians (see n. 7 r 2 f.), of the Council of Florence]. . . . Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent [seen. 782 ff.], and 1469 I profess what was defined and declared in it, and especially that there is offered to God in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in accordance with the faith that had always been in the Church of God, there is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Christ, and that there is made a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole sub- stance of the wine into the blood, which change the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, and that under each species and in each single part of each species, when a division is made, the whole Christ is contained. Likewise, I profess that there are seven sacraments of the New Law 1470 instituted by Christ, our Lord, for the salvation of the human race, al- though not all of them are necessary for each individual: namely, bap- tism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and (I profess) that these confer grace, and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege. Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time. Likewise (I profess) that the bond of the sacrament of matrimony is indissoluble, and that, although a separation of bed and board may be possible between the spouses because of adultery, heresy, and some other causes, nevertheless it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage. Likewise, (I profess) that the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions 1471 must be accepted and revered; also, that power of granting indulgences has been left to the Church of Christ, and that their use is very salutary for Christian people.
Likewise, I accept and profess what was defined in the aforesaid Synod of Trent about original sin, about justification, about the list and interpretation of the sacred books of both the New Testament and the Old [ cf. n. 787 ff., 783 ff.]. Likewise, all other things I accept and profess, which the Holy Roman Church accepts and professes, and I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize, at the same time all contrary things, both schisms and heresies, which have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the same Church. In addition, I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles and the vicar of Jesus Christ. And that this faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, etc. • • . [ as in the Tridentine pro- fession of faith, see n. 1000].
About not Demanding the Name of an Accomplice 1 [From the Brief, "Suprema omnium Ecclesiarum sollicitudo," July 7, 1745]
( 1) For it came to our attention not so long ago that some confessors of those parts, allowing themselves to be seduced by a false idea of zeal, but straying far from the zeal "according to knowledge" [cf. Rom. 10: 2], have begun to bring in and to introduce a certain evil and pernicious practice in hearing the confessions of the faithful of Christ, and in ad- ministering the very saving sacrament of penance: namely, that if by chance they should happen upon penitents who have an associ~te in their sin, they demand at times from these penitents the name of such an accomplice or companion, and they attempt to induce them to reveal this to them not only by persuasion, but what is more detestable, they directly force and compel them to reveal it, under a threat of denying them sacramental absolution; nay more, they demand that not only the name of the accomplice be made known but also the place of residence, and this intolerable imprudence they do not hesitate to disguise by the specious pretext of procuring the correction of the accomplice and of accomplishing other good effects, nor to defend it by falsifying the opin- ions of learned men, when, in truth, by following false and erroneous opinions of this sort, or by making a bad application of true and sound principles, they bring destruction not only to their own souls but also to those of their penitents, and, besides, they render themselves guilty before God, the eternal judge, of many serious evils which they ought 1 BB(M) 3, 178 £. [old ed. I n. 134]; NBR 16, 305 a £.-This decree was con-
firmed and urged by repetition by the same Pontiff in the Constitution "Ubi primum," July 2, 1746 [BB(M) 4, II7 ff.]. Cf. Constit. Ad eradicandum September 28, 1746 [BB(M) 4,303 ff.].
to have foreseen would easily follow from their action . . • . (3) More- over, in order that we may not seem to be lacking in our apostolic ministry to any degree in so great a danger to souls, and so that we may not permit our mind on this matter to be obscure or ambiguous to you, we wish you to know that the practice mentioned above must be entirely repudiated, and this same practice is reproved and condemned by Us through our present letters in the form of a brief, as scandalous and dangerous, and as harmful to the reputation of one's neighbor as it is to the sacrament itself, and tending to the violation of the most sacred sacramental seal and alienating the faithful from so advantageous and necessary a use of this same sacrament of penance.
Usury 1 [From the Encyclical "Vix pervenit" to the bishops of Italy, Nov. 1, 1745]
(Sec. 3), r. That species of sin which is called usury, and which has its 1475 proper seat and place in a contract of lending, consists in this: that someone, from the loan itself, which of its very nature demands that only as much be returned as was received, wishes more to be returned to him than was received, and therefore contends that some profit beyond the principal, by reason of the lending, is due to him. Therefore, all profit of this sort, which surpasses the principal, is unlawful and is usurious. 2. Nor may any defense be summoned to justify that guilt, either from 1476 this fact, that the gain is not excessive and over much, but moderate, is not great but meager; or from this, that he from whom that profit is asked, because of the loan itself, is not a poor man but rich, who is not going to leave the sum given to him as a loan idle but is going to spend it advantageously to increase his fortune either by buying new estates or by transacting profitable business. Indeed, that person is convicted of acting contrary to the law of lending, which necessarily is concerned with the equality of what is given and returned, who, although that same equality has already once been rendered, does not fear to demand some- thing more from someone, by reason of the lending itself, for which satisfaction has already been made on equal terms; and hence, if he should receive it, he will be obligated to restitution by reason of his obligation in justice, which they cal! commutative justice, and whose purpose it is both to preserve inviolably in human contracts the equality proper to each one, and to repair it exactly when it is not observed. 3. But by this it is not at all denied that sometimes there can perhaps 1477
1 BB(M) 3, 269 ff. [ed. vet. I n. 143]; MBR 16, 328 a ff.; cf. M Th Cc 16,
1075 ff. (Deer. S. Poenit., II, Feb. 1832).
occur certain other titles, as they say, together with the contract of lend- ing, and these not at all innate or intrinsic in general to the nature of a loan, from which titles there arises a just and entirely legitimate cause of rightly demanding something more above the principal than is due from the loan. Likewise, it is not denied that many times one's own money can be rightly invested and expended in other contracts of a different nature from the nature of lending, either to secure an annual income for oneself, or also to practice legitimate commerce and business, and thus procure an honest profit. 4. But, just as in so many different kinds of contracts of this nature, it is well known that if the equality of each one is not observed, whatever is received more than is just, pertains, if not to usury ( for the reason that there is no loan either open or secret), certainly does pertain to some other real injustice carrying likewise the burden of retribution; so, also, if all things are rightly transacted and carried out according to the scale of justice, there is no doubt that in these same contracts there occurs a multifold lawful manner and method of maintaining and carrying on human commerce and profitable business itself for the common good. For, far be it from Christian minds that they should think that, by mak- ing use of usury or similar harmful injustices, there could flourish a profitable commerce; since, on the contrary, we should learn from the divine proverb that "justice exalteth a nation, but sin maketh nations miserable" [Prov. 14:34]. 5. But this must be diligently borne in mind, that one would falsely and certainly rashly persuade himself that there is always found and is everywhere present, either some legitimate titles together with a loan, or, even excluding a loan, other just contracts, by the aid of which titles or contracts, it is permitted, as often as money, grain, or something of that kind is lent to another, just so often to receive a moderate increase beyond the whole and sound principal. And so, if anyone thinks in this manner, he will without any doubt be in opposition not only to the divine Scriptures and to the judgment of the Catholic Church about usury, but even to human common sense itself, and to natural reason. For, this at least cannot escape anyone, that in many cases a man is bound to succor another with a pure and simple act of lending, especially when Christ the Lord teaches: "From him that would borrow of thee, turn not away" [Matt. 5:42]; and that, similarly, in many circumstances, besides the loan itself, there can be place for no other just and true contract. Whoever, therefore, is willing to consult his conscience, ought first to inquire whether, with a loan there is truly any other just title, or, apart from a loan there is a just contract, by reason of which the profit which he seeks may be returned immune and free of all guilt.
The Baptism of Jewish Children 1 [From the epistle "Postremo mense" to the Viceregent in the City, Feb. 28, 1747]
3. . .. The first point to be considered is whether Hebrew children 1480 can be lawfully baptized, if the parents are unwilling and reluctant. Sec- ondly, if we say that this is unlawful, then we must consider whether any case might occur, in which this could not only be done, but would be even lawful and clearly fitting. Thirdly, we must consider whether the baptism bestowed on Hebrew children at a time when it is now lawful, should be considered valid or invalid. Fourthly, we must consider what must be done when Hebrew children are brought to be baptized, or when it is discovered that they have been admitted to sacred baptism; finally, how it can be proved that these same children have already been purified by the saving waters. If there is any discussion of the first chapter of the first part, whether 1481 Hebrew children can be baptized if the parents object, we openly assert that this has already been defined in three places by St. Thomas, namely, in Quodl. 2, a. 7; in II-IIne, q. IO, a. 12, where, recalling for examination the question proposed in the Quodlibeta: "Whether the children of Jews and of other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of the parents," he answered thus: "I reply that it must be said that the custom of the Church has great authority, which should always be followed in all things, etc. Moreover, the usage of the Church never held that the children of Jews should be baptized against their parents' wishes . . . ," and in addition he says this in III", q. 68, a. IO: "I reply that it must be said that children, sons of unbelievers . . . , if they do not yet have the use of free will, are, according to the natural law, under the care of their parents, as long as they cannot provide for themselves . . . , and, there- fore, it would be against natural justice, if such children were baptized without the parents' consent; just as if someone having the use of reason should be baptized against his will. It would even be dangerous ...•" Scotus in 4 Sent. dist. 4, q. 9, n. 2, and in questions related to n. 2, 1482 thought that a prince could laudably command that small children of Hebrews and unbelievers be baptized, even against the will of the parents, provided one could prudently see to it that these same children were not killed by the parents . . . • Nevertheless, the opinion of St. Thomas pre- vailed in courts .•• and is more widespread among theologians and those skilled in canon law 2 • • • • 1 BB(M) 5, 8 ff. [ed. vet. II. n. 28]; MBR 17, no ff. 2 The Pontiff, below in n. 32, decided that the legitimate age up to which Jewish children may not be baptized against the will of their parents be determined regularly at the completion of the seventh year.
7. Therefore, this having been established, that it is unlawful to bap- tize Hebrew children against the will of their parents, now, following the order proposed in the beginning, we must take up the second part: namely, whether any occasion could ever occur in which that would be lawful and fitting . . . . 8. . . . Since this may happen, that a child of Hebrew parentage be found by some Christian to be close to death, he will certainly perform a deed which I think is praiseworthy and pleasing to God, if he furnishes the child with eternal salvation by the purifying water. . . . 9. If, likewise, it should happen that any Hebrew child had been cast out and abandoned by its parents, it is the common opinion of all and has also been confirmed by many decisions, that the child ought to be baptized, even if the parents protest against this and demand the child back. . . . After we have explained the most obvious cases in which this rule of ours prohibits the baptizing of Hebrew children against the wishes of their parents, we add some other declarations pertaining to this rule, the first of which is this: If parents are lacking, but the infants have been entrusted to the guardianship of a Hebrew, they can in no way be lawfully baptized without the assent of the guardian, since all the au- thority of the parents has passed to the guardians . . . . 15. The second is this, if the father should enlist in the Christian militia and order his infant son to be baptized, he should be baptized, even though the He- brew mother protests, since the child must be considered to be, not under the power of the mother, but under that of the father. 1 • • • 16. The third is this, that although the mother does not have her children under her own right, nevertheless, if she belongs to the Christian faith and offers her child for baptism, although the Hebrew father protests, nevertheless, the child should be cleansed by the water of baptism . . . . 17. The fourth is that, if it is a certainty that the will of parents is necessary for the baptism of children, since under the name of parent a paternal grandfather also is included . . . , then it necessarily follows that, if the paternal grandfather has embraced the Catholic faith and brings his grandchild to the font of saving water, although the Hebrew mother objects, when the father is dead, nevertheless, the child should be baptized without hesitation.2 . . . 18. It is not an imaginary case that sometimes a Hebrew father says that he wants to embrace the Catholic religion and presents himself and his infant sons to be baptized, but afterwards regrets his intention and 1 Gregory IX c. r, on the exposing of infants and invalids, also decided this. 2 Benedict XIV in another letter, "Probe te meminisse," Dec. 15, 1751 [BB(M) 9, 88 If.], declared the same held when the father was dead with regard to a paternal Christian grandmother, even though the Hebrew mother and guardians objected.
refuses to have his son baptized. This happened at Mantua .••. The case was brought for examination in the Congregation of the Holy Office, and the Pope on the 24th day of September in the year 1699 de- creed that action should be taken as follows: "His Holiness, having listened to the wishes of the Cardinals, decreed that two infant sons, one three years old, the other five, be baptized. The other children, namely a sGn of eight years and a daughter twelve, should be placed in the house of catechumens, if there is one at Mantua, but if not, at the home of a pious and honorable person for the purpose of finding out their will and of instructing them. . . ." 19. Also some unbelievers are accustomed to bring their children to 1488 Christians to be washed with the saving waters, not however that they may merit the satisfactions of Christ, nor that the guilt of original sin may be washed from their soul, but they do this, motivated by some base superstition, namely because they think that by the benefit of baptism, these same children may be freed from malignant spirits, from infection, or some illness . . . . 2r. . . . Some unbelievers, when they have represented this idea to 1489 themselves, that by the grace of baptism their children will be freed from illnesses and the persecution of the demons, are brought to such a pass of madness that they have also threatened Catholic priests with death . . . . But, in opposition to this belief, the Congregation of the Holy Office in the presence of the Pope on the 5th day of September, 1625, contested: "The Sacred Congregation of the general Inquisition held in the presence of His Holiness, having read the letters of the Bishop Antibarensis, in which he made supplication for a solution of the doubt written below: Whether, when priests are compelled by Turks to baptize their children, not that they may make them Christians, but for their bodily health, so that they may be freed from infection, epilepsy, the danger of bewitchment, and wolves, whether in such a case they could pretend to baptize them, making use of the matter of baptism without the prescribed form? He replied in the negative, because baptism is the door of the sacraments and a profession of faith, and that in no way can it be simulated . . . ." 29. And so our discourse comes now to those who are presented for 1490 baptism neither by their parents nor by others who have any right over them, but by someone who has no authority. In addition, there is a question about those whose cases are not comprehended under the dis- position which permits baptism to be conferred, even if the consent of their elders is withheld. In this case, indeed, they ought not to be bap- tized, but be sent back to those in whose power and trust they are lawfully placed. But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and
religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid.
Errors Concerning Duelling 1 [Condemned in the Constitution, "Detestabilem," Nov. ro, 1752]
r. A military man who would be considered fearful, timid, abject, and unfit for military offices unless he offers or accepts a duel, and hence would be deprived of an office by which he supports himself and his family, or who would be perpetually deprived of the hope of promotion otherwise due him and merited by him, is free from guilt and penalty, whether he offers a duel or accepts one. 2. Those who accept a duel, or even provoke a duel for the sake of protecting their honor, or of avoiding the disrepute of men, can be ex- cused when they know for certain that the combat will not take place, inasmuch as it will be prevented by others. 3. A leader or military officer who accepts a duel through grave fear of losing his reputation or his office, does not incur the ecclesiastical penalties brought by the Church against duelists. 4. It is permitted in the natural state of man to accept and to offer a duel to preserve one's fortunes with honor, when their loss cannot be prevented by any other means. 5. This permission, claimed for the natural state, can also be applied to the state of the commonwealth which is badly regulated, that is to say, in which justice is openly denied, either because of the negligence or the wickedness of the magistracy. Condemned and prohibited as false, scandalous, and pernicious.
CLEMENT CLEMENT
Mixed Marriages in Belgium 2 [From the Rescript of Pius VI to Card. de Franckenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and to the Bishops of Belgium, July 13, 1782]
And therefore we must not depart from the uniform opinion of our predecessors and from ecclesiastical discipline, which do not approve marriages between parties who are both heretics, or between a Catholic 1 BB(M) 10, 77 [ed. vet. IV n. 6]; MBR 19, 19 b. 2 Rsk Mm II 61 ff.; MT h Cc 25, 692 f.
on the one hand and a heretic on the other, and this much less in a case where there is need of a dispensation of some sort. . . . Passing now to that point about the requested assistance of parish 1497 priests in mixed marriages, we say that if the above named admonition to recall the Catholic party from the unlawful marriage has been fulfilled, and nevertheless he persists in his will to contract it, and it is foreseen that the marriage will inevitably follow, then the Catholic priest can lend his material presence, nevertheless in such wise that he is bound to observe the following precautions: First, that he does not assist at such a marriage in a sacred place, nor clothed in any vestment betokening a sacred function, nor will he recite over the contracting parties any prayers of the Church, and in no way shall he bless them. Secondly, that he will exact and receive from the contracting heretic a declaration in writing, in which with an oath in the presence of two witnesses, who also ought to sign their names, he obligates himself to permit his partner the free use of the Catholic religion, and to educate in it all the children who shall be born without any distinction of sex. . . . Thirdly, that the con- tracting Catholic make a declaration signed by himself and two witnesses, in which he promises with an oath not only never to apostatize from his Catholic religion, but to educate in it all his future offspring, and to procure effectively the conversion of the other contracting non-Catholic. Fourthly, that which concerns the proclamations commanded by the 1498 imperial decree, which the bishops hold to be civil rather than sacred acts, we answer: Since they have been preordained for the future celebration of marriage and consequently contain a positive cooperation with it, a thing which certainly exceeds the limits of simple tolerance, we cannot consent that these be made . . . . It remains now to speak about one more point, concerning which, al- 1499 though we have not been expressly interrogated, nevertheless we do not think it should be passed over in silence, insomuch as, in practice, it could too frequently happen; namely, this: Whether the contracting Catholic, afterwards wishing to share in the sacraments, ought to be admitted to them? To this we say that as long as he shall demonstrate that he is sorry for his sinful union, this can be granted to him, provided he shall sincerely declare before confession that he will procure the conversion of his heretical spouse, that he renews his promise of educat- ing his children in the orthodox religion, and that he will repair the scandal he has given to the other faithful. If these conditions obtain, we are not opposed to the Catholic party receiving the sacraments. 1 1 Many synods and various Pontiffs have published decrees on (mixed) marriages, e.g., the Synod of Laodicea (between 343 and 381), c. 10, 31; that of Alvira (between 300 and 306), c. 16; that of Carthage III (397), c. 12; that of Agde, c. 67; that of Auvergne (535), c. 4; that of Toulouse (694); that of Chalcedon (451), can. 14;
Concerning the Power of the Roman Pontiff (Against Febronianism) 1 [From the Brief, "Super soliditate," Nov. 28, r786]
And since truly, as Augustine teaches,2 God has placed the doctrine of truth in the chair of unity, that unfortunate writer on the contrary leaves nothing undone with which to harass and attack in every way this See of Peter, in which See the Fathers have taught with unanimous agree- ment that that chair was established, in which alone unity might be preserved by all; from which the rights of the venerable communion emanate to all the others; and to which it is necessary that every church and all the faithful everywhere come [cf. Vatican Council, n. 1824]. He has not hesitated to call fanatic the crowd which he saw breaking forth into these words at the sight of the Pontiff: "He is the man who has received from God the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the power of binding and loosing, to whom no other bishop can be made equal, from whom these very bishops receive their authority as he himself re- ceived his supreme power from God; moreover, he is the vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church, the supreme judge of the faithful." that of Worms (1575); that of Antwerp (1576); that of York (1576); that of Luxeuil (1580); that ot Bordeaux (1583); that of Tours (1583); that of Narbonne and Constance (1609); that of Ermdand and Augusta (16rn); that of I-lertogenbosch (1612); that of Luttich (1618); that of Bordeaux (1624); that of Antwerp (1643); that of Gratianopolis (1690); that of Cologne (1651); that of Paderborn (1658); that of Kulm and of Pressburg ( 1745); that of Sitten ( 1651); that of Saint-Omer (1640); that of Ermeland (1726). Furthermore, the Pontiffs: Boniface V (c. 617), Stephen IV (c. 770), Nicholas I (Resp. ad Consult. Bu/gar n. 22), Boniface VIJI (Decret. VI 5, 24), Urban VIII (1624), Clement X (ep. d. Aug. 20, 1628), Clement XI (1706), Benedict XIV [cf. n. 1455], Clement XIJI (1763), Pius VIII (1830), Gregory XVI (1832 etc.), Pius IX [cf. n. 1640, 1765 ff.I, Leo XIII [cf. n. 1853 ff., 1865], Pius X [cf. n. 1991, 2066 ff.]; Codex I. C. can. 1060-rn64 c. notis. 1 BRCC 7, 672 b f.; Rsk RP III 319 £.-Although the book of Febronius or Joh,
Nie. ab. Hontheim: De statu Eccleswe et legitima pates/ate Romani Pontificis, 1763, had been placed upon the Index of forbidden books, and at the command of the Supreme Pontiff had been especially prohibited by the Bishops of Germany, of Mainz, of Treves, of Cologne, of Bamberg, of Herbipolis, of Constance, of Auguste, of Frising, and of Prague, nevertheless its perverse principles began to be spread and proceed widely throughout Germany. But among those who after Febronius insur- rected against the lawful power of the Roman Pontiff, the most unfortunate canonist Eybel was pre-eminent, who, when Pius VI set out on a journey into Germany to move the spirit of Joseph II, published a book: Was est der Papst? When it was published in repeated editions and after being translated into other tongues, Pius VI in the Brief, "Super soliditate," condemned it as containing propositions, respectively false, scandalous, bold, injurious, leading to schism, schismatic, erroneous, leaJing to heresy, heretical, and some condemned by the Church. "Ep. 105, 16 [ML 33, 403]; cf. St. Optatus Milcv., De schismate donatist. 2, 2 £. [ML II, 946 £.].
Could, therefore (a thing horrible to say), that voice of Christ have been fanatical, which promised (Matt. 16:19] Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the power ot binding and loosing; which keys Optatus Milevitanus, following Tertullian, did not hesitate to confess that Peter alone received to be communicated to the others? Or, are so many solemn decrees of the Popes and Councils repeated so many times to be called fanatic, by which those have been condemned who denied that in blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, his successor, the Roman Pontiff, was established by God as the visible head of the Church and the vicar of Jesus Christ, that to him has been transmitted full power of ruling the Church, and that true obedience is due him from all who are considered Christians; and ,hat such is the power of the primacy, which he holds by divine right, that he is superior to other bishops not only by his rank of honor but by the plenitude of his supreme power? All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees, who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many ambigui- ties, that every bishop, no less than the pope, was called by God to govern the Church, and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the same power Himself to all the apostles; and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, whether it depends on consecration or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can be obtained just as well from any bishop; that Christ wished His Church to be governed in the manner of a republic; and that, indeed, for that govern- ment there is need of a head for the good of unity, but one who does not dare to interfere in the affairs of others (bishops) who rule at the same time; nevertheless, he has the privilege of exhorting those who are negligent to the fulfillment of their duties; that the power of the primacy is contained in this one prerogative, of making up for the negligence of others, of looking after the preservation of unity by encouragement and example; that the popes have no power in another diocese except in an extraordinary case; that the pope is the head because he holds his power and strength from the Church; that the Pontiffs have made it lawful for themselves to violate the rights of bishops, to reserve to themselves abso- lutions, dispensations, decisions, appeals, bestowal of benefices, in a word all other duties which he enumerates one by one and derides as unjust reservations and injurious to bishops.
37°
The Power of the One Church in the Marriage of Baptized Persons 1 [From the Epistle, "Deessemus nobis," t<i the Bishop of Matula, Sept. 16, 1788]
1500a It is not unknown to us that there are some, who, attributing too much to the authority of the secular princes, and captiously interpreting the words of this canon [seen. 982], have undertaken to defend this: That, since the Tridentine Fathers did not make use of this form of speaking, "to ecclesiastical judges alone," or, "all matrimonial cases,"-they ( the Tridentine Fathers) have left to lay judges the power of at least investi- gating matrimonial cases which are of pure fact. But we know that even this sophism and this false kind of quibbling are devoid of all foundation. For the words of the canon are so general that they embrace and comprise all cases. Moreover, the spirit or purpose of the law extends so widely that it leaves no place for exception or limitation. For if these cases pertain to the tribunal of the Church alone for no other reason than because the marriage contract is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, then, just as this notion of the sacrament is common to all matrimonial cases, so all these cases ought to pertain to the ec- clesiastical judges alone.
Errors of the Synod of Pistoia 2 [Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, ;794]
[ A. Errors about the Church 3 ]
Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I] 1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"-heretical.
1 A. de Roskovany, Matrimonittm in Ecclesia catholica, I (1870), 421 £. 2 Pistoia in Toscana (Italy). BRC 9, 398 b ff.; GI C Rcht II 148 ff.; Rsk RP III 528 ff.; Msi XXXVIII 1261-1282 (cf. also 987-1261). 3 These collected titles [in so far as they are included individually] are not con-
tained in the Bull itself.
37 1
The Power Attributed to the Community of the Church, in Order That by This the Power May Be Communicated to the Pastors [Episcopal Convocation] 2. The proposition which states "that power has been given by God to 1502 the Church, that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls"; if thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry and of rule is derived from the COMMUNITY of the faithful to the pastors,-heretical.
The Name Ministerial Head Attributed to the Roman Pontiff [Decree de fide ( on faith), sec. 8] 3. In addition, the proposition which states "that the Roman Pontiff 1503 is the ministerial head," if it is so explained that the Roman Pontiff does not receive from Christ in the person of blessed Peter, but from the Church, the power of ministry, which as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church he possesses in the universal Church,-heretical. 1
The Power of the Church for the Establishing and the Sanctioning of Exterior Discipline [Decree de fide, secs. I 3, 14] 4. The proposition affirming, "that it would be a misuse of the author- 1504 ity of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love"; and then also, "that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees"; in so far as by those undefined words, "extends to ex- terior matters," the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline- heretical. 5. In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church 1505 1 These propositions 2 and 3, accepted by Febronius, indicate the systems propose<l by E<lmund Richercus in his book De ecclesiastica et pohtica potestate, especially ap- proved by the Jansenists. This book was condemned in 161 2 by a synod of the province of Sens un<ler Card. Perronio, and in the same year by a synod of the province of Bagneres. Paul V, in a brief to the bishops of the province of Sens, approved this con- demnation. Furthermore (May 10, 1613), under the same Paul V the book was con- demned by a Holy Inquisition and (Dec. 2, 1622) under Gregory XV the book was again prohibited by the Holy Congregation of the Index, and again (March 4, 1709) it was prohibited under Clement XI.
"does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constrain- ing and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments" [ from Benedict XIV in the Brief, "Ad assiduas," of the year 1755, to the Primate, Archbishops, and Bishops of the King- dom of Poland],-leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.
Rights Attributed to Bishops Beyond What is Lawful [Decree de ord., sec. 25]
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,- schismatic, at least erroneous. 7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been intro- duced or approved and have the force of law,-leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous. 8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,-leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous.
The Right Incorrectly Attributed to Priests of Inferior Rank in Decrees of Faith and Discipline [Episcopal Convocation] 9. The doctrine which states, that "the reformation of abuses in regard 1509 to ecclesiastical discipline ought equally to depend upon and be estab- lished by the bishop and the parish priests in diocesan synods, and that without the freedom of decision, obedience would not be due to the sug- gestions and orders of the bishops," 1 -false, rash, harmful to episcopal authority, subversive of hierarchic government, favoring the heresy of Aerius, which was renewed by Calvin [ cf. Benedict XIV De Syn. dioc. ( concerning diocesan synods), r 3, r].
[From the Episcopal Convocation. From the Epistle to the Vic. For. From the Oration to the Synod, sec. 8. From session 3.] ro. Likewise, the doctrine by which parish priests and other priests 1510 gathered in a synod are declared judges of faith together with the bishop, and at the same time it is intimated that they are qualified for judgment in matters of faith by their own right and have indeed received it by ordination,-false, rash, subversive of hierarchic order, detracting from the strength of dogmatic definitions or judgments of the Church, at least erroneous.
[Oration to the Synod, sec. 8] II. The opinion enunciating that by the long-standing practice of our 1511 ancestors, handed down even from apostolic times, preserved through the better ages of the Church, it has been accepted that "decrees, or definitions, or opinions even of the greater sees should not be accepted, unless they had been recognized and approved by the diocesan synod,"- false, rash, derogatory, in proportion to its generality, to the obedience due to the apostolic constitutions, and also to the opinions emanating from the legitimate, superior, hierarchic power, fostering schism and heresy.
Calumnies Against Some Decisions in the Matter of Faith Which Have Come Down from Several Centuries [Faith, sec. 12] 12. The assertions of the synod, accepted as a whole concerning deci- 1512 sions in the matter of faith which have come down from several centuries, which it represents as decrees originating from one particular church 1 Almost the same proposition was taught in the system of Richcrius (sec 1503 n.).
or from a few pastors, unsupported by sufficient authority, formulated for the corruption of the purity of faith and for causing disturbance, in- troduced by violence, from which wounds, still too recent, have been inflicted,-false, deceitful, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Roman Pon- tiffs and the Church, derogatory to the obedience due to the Apostolic Constitutions, schismatic, dangerous, at least erroneous.
The So-called Peace of Clement IX [Oratzon to the Synod, sec. 2 in the note] 13. The proposition reported among the acts of the synod, which in- timates that Clement IX restored peace to the Church by the approval of the distinction of right and deed in the subscription to the formulary written by Alexander VII (seen. rn99),-false, rash, injurious to Clement IX. 14. In so far as it approves that distinction by extolling its supporters with praise and by berating their opponents,-rash, pernicious, injurious to the Supreme Pontiffs, fostering schism and heresy.
The Composition of the Body of the Church [ Appendix n. 28] 15. The doctrine which proposes that the Church "must be con- sidered as one mystical body composed of Christ, the head, and the faithful, who are its members through an ineffable union, by which in a marvelous way we become with Him one sole priest, one sole victim, one sole perfect adorer of God the Father, in spirit and in truth," under- stood in this sense, that no one belongs to the body of the Church except the faithful, who are perfect adorers in spirit and in truth,-heretical.
[B. Errors about fustification, Grace, the Virtues]
The State of Innocence [ Grace, secs. 4, 7: the sacraments in general, sec. 1; penance, sec. 4] 16. The doctrine of the synod about the state of happy innocence, such as it represents it in Adam before his sin, comprising not only integrity but also interior justice with an inclination toward God through love of charity, and primeval sanctity restored in some way after the fall; in so far as, understood comprehensively, it intimates that that state was a con- sequence of creation, due to man from the natural exigency and condition of human nature, not a gratuitous gift of God, false, elsewhere con- demned in Baius [see n. 1001 ff.], and in Quesnel [see n. 1384 ff.], erronecus, favorable to the Pelagian heresy.
Immortality Viewed as a Natural Condition of Man [Baptism, sec. 2] 17. The propos1t10n stated in these words: "Taught by the Apostle, 1517 we regard death no longer as a natural condition of man, but truly as a just penalty for original guilt," since, under the deceitful mention of the name of the Apostle, it insinuates that death, which in the present state has been inflicted as a just punishment for sin by the just withdrawal of immortality, was not a natural condition of man, as if immortality had not been a gratuitous gift, but a natural condition,-deceitful, rash, injurious to the Apostle, elsewhere condemned [ see n. 1078 ].
The Condition of Man in the State of Nature [On Grace, sec. rn] 18. The doctrine of the synod stating that "after the fall of Adam, 1518 God announced the promise of a future Redeemer and wished to con- sole the human race through hope of salvation, which Jesus was to bring"; nevertheless, "that God willed that the human race should pass through various states before the plenitude of time should come"; and first, that in the state of nature "man, left to his own lights, would learn to distrust his own blind reason and would move himself from his own aberrations to desire the aid of a superior light"; the doctrine, as it stands, is deceitful, and if understood concerning the desire of the aid of a superior light in relation to the salvation promised through Christ, that man is supposed to have been able to move himself to conceive this desire by his own proper lights remaining after the fall,-suspected, favorable to the Semi- pelagian heresy.
The Condition of Man under the Law [Ibid.] 19. Likewise, the doctrine which adds that under the Law man "be- 1519 came a prevaricator, since he was powerless to observe it, not indeed by the fault of the Law, which was most sacred, but by the guilt of man, who, under the Law, without grace, became more and more a prevarica- tor"; and it further adds, "that the Law, if it did not heal the heart of man, brought it about that he would recognize his evil, and, being con- vinced of his weakness, would desire the grace of a mediator"; in this part it generally intimates that man became a prevaricator through the nonobservance of the Law which he was powerless to observe, as if "He who is just could command something impossible, or He who is pious would be likely to condemn man for that which he could not avoid" (from St. Caesarius Serm. 73, in append., St. Augustine, Serm. 273,
edit. Maurin; from St. August., De nat, et grat., c. 43; De grat. et lib. arb., c. 16; Enarr. in psalm. 56, n. 1),-false scandalous, impious, con- demned in Baius (seen. 1504). 20. In that part in which it is to be understood that man, while under the Law and without grace, could conceive a desire for the grace of a Mediator related to the salvation promised through Christ, as if "grace itself does not effect that He be invoked by us" ( from Cone. Araus. II, can. 3 [ v.n. 176]),-the proposition as it stands, deceitful, suspect, favor- able to the Semipelagian heresy.
Illuminating and Exciting Grace [Grace, sec. II] 21. The proposition which asserts "that the light of grace, when it is alone, effects nothing but to make us aware of the unhappiness of our state and the gravity of our evil; that grace, in such a case, produces the same effect as the Law produced: therefore, it is necessary that God create in our heart a sacred love and infuse a sacred delight contrary to the love dominating in us; that this sacred love, this sacred delight is properly the grace of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of charity by which, when it is perceived, we act by a sacred love; that this is that root from which grow good works; that this is the grace of the New Testament, which frees us from the servitude of sin, makes us sons of God"; since it intimates that that alone is properly the grace of Jesus Christ, which cre- ates in the heart a sacred love, and which impels us to act, or also, by which man, freed from the slavery of sin, is constituted a son of God; and that that grace is not also properly the grace of Jesus Christ, by which the heart of man is touched through an illumination of the Holy Spirit (TRID. sess. 6, c. 5 [ see n. 797]), and that no true interior grace of Christ is given, which is resisted,-false, deceitful, leading to the error condemned in the second proposition of Jansen as heretical, and renew- ing it [ see n. 1093].
Faith as the First Grace [Faith, sec. 1] 22. The proposition which declares that faith, "from which begins the series of graces, and through which, as the first voice, we are called to salvation and to the Church": is the very excellent virtue itself of faith by which men are called and are the faithful; just as if that grace were not prior, which "as it precedes the will, so it precedes faith also" ( from St. August., De dona persev., c. 16, n. 41 ),-suspected of heresy, and savoring of it, elsewhere condemned in Quesnel [ see n. 1377 ], erroneous.
The Twofold Love [ Grace, sec. 8]
23. The doctrine of the synod about the twofold love of dominating 1523 cupidity and of dominating charity, stating that man without grace is under the power of sin, and that in that state through the general influence of the dominating cupidity he taints and corrupts all his actions; since it insinuates that in man, while he is under the servitude or in the state of sin, destitute of that grace by which he is freed from the servitude of sin and is constituted a son of God, cupidity is so dominant that by its general influence all his actions are vitiated in themselves and cor- rupted; or that all his works which are done before justification, for whatsoever reason they may be done, are sins; as if in all his acts the sinner is a slave to the dominating cupidity,-false, dangerous, leading into the error condemned by the Tridentine Council as heretical, again condemned in Baius, art. 40 [seen. 817, I040].
Sec. 12
24. But in this part, indeed, no intermediate affections are placed be- 1524 tween the dominating cupidity and the dominating charity, planted by nature itself and worthy of praise because of their own nature, which, together with love of the beatitude and a natural inclination to good "have remained as the last outline and traces of the image of God" (from St. P. ugust., De spirit. et litt., c. 28); just as if "between the divine love which draws us to the kingdom, and illicit human love which is con- demned, there should not be given a licit human love which is not censured" (from St. August., Serm. 349 de car., edit. Maurin),-false, elsewhere condemned [seen. ro38, 1297].
Servile Fear [On Penance, sec. 3]
25. The doctrine which in general asserts that the fear of punishment 1525 "cannot be called evil if it, at least, prevails to restrain the hand"; as if the fear itself of hell, which faith teaches must be imposed on sin, is not in itself good and useful as a supernatural gift, and a motion inspired by God preparing for the love of justice,-false, rash, dangerous, injurious to the divine gifts, elsewhere condemned [see n. 746], contrary to the doctrine of the Council of Trent [ see n. 798, 898], and to the common opinion of the Fathers, namely "that there is need," according to the customary order of preparation for justice, "that fear should first enter, through which charity will come; fear is a medicine, charity is health" (from S. August., In [/] epist. lo., c. 4, tract. 9; in lo. evang., tract, 41,
n. ro; Enarr. in psalm. 127, n. 7; Serm. 157 de verbis Apost, n. 13; Serm. 16I de verbis Apost., n. 8; Serm. 349 de caritate, n. 7).
The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only [Baptism, sec. 3] 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions ( which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,-false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
[ C. Errors] about the Sacraments, and First about the Sacramental Form with a Condition Attached [Baptzsm, sec. 12] 27. The deliberation of the synod which, under pretext of clinging to ancient canons in the case of doubtful baptism, declares its intention of omitting mention of the conditional form,-rash, contrary to practice, to the law, to the authority of the Church.
The Partaking of the Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass [The Eucharist, sec. 6] 28. The proposition of the synod in which, after it states that "a par- taking of the victim is an essential part in the sacrifice," it adds, "never- theless, it does not condemn as illicit those Masses in which those present do not communicate sacramentally, for the reason that they do partake of the victim, although less perfectly, by receiving it spiritually," since it ir.sinuates that there is something lacking to the essence of the sacrifice in that sacrifice which is performed either with no one present, or with those present who partake of the victim neither sacramentally nor spirit- ually, and as if those Masses should be condemned as illicit, in which, with the priest alone communicating, no one is present who communi- cates either sacramentally or spiritually,-false, erroneous, suspected of heresy and savoring of it.
The Efficacy of the Rite of Consecration [The Eucharist, sec. 2] 29. The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding
the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it ( the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole sub3tance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith [ see n. 877, 884], and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [ see n. 997]; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,-dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of tran- substantiation, favorable to heretics.
The Application of the Fruit of the Sacrifice [The Eucharist, sec. 8]
30. The doctrine of the synod, by which, while it professes "to believe 1530 that the oblation of the sacrifice extends itself to all, in such a way, how- ever, that in the liturgy there can be made a special commemoration of certain individuals, both living and dead, by praying God specially for them," then it immediately adds: "Not, however, that we should believe that it is in the will of the priest to apply the fruit of the sacrifice to whom He wishes, rather we condemn this error as greatly offending the rights of God, who alone distributes the fruit of the sacrifice to whom He wishes and according to the measure which pleases Him"; and con- sequently, from this it derides "as false the opinion foisted on the people that they who give alms to the priest on the condition that he celebrate a Mass will receive from it special fruit"; thus understood, that besides the special commemoration and prayer a special offering itself, or applica- tion of the Sacrifice which is made by the priest does not benefit, other things being equal, those for whom it is applied more than any others, as if no special fruit would come from a special application, which the Church recommends and commands should be made for definite persons or classes of persons, especially by pastors for their flock, and which, as if coming down from a divine precept, has been clearly expressed by the sacred synod of Trent ( sess. 23, c. I de reform; BENED. XIV, Constit. "Cum semper oblatas," sec. 2),-false, rash, dangerous, injurious to the Church, leading into the error elsewhere condemned in Wycliffe [see n. 599].
The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship [The Eucharist, sec. 5] 3 r. The proposition of the synod enunciating that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine services and ancient custom, that there be only one altar in each temple, and therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom,-rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, espe- cially in the Latin Church.
[Ibid.]
32. Likewise, the prescription forbidding cases of sacred relics or flowers being placed on the altar,-rash, injurious to the pious and ap- proved custom of the Church.
[Ibid., sec. 61
33. The propos1t10n of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forget- fulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it ( the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had ema- nated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principl,es by which it should be regulated,-rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.
The Order of Penance [Penance, sec. 7J 34- The declaration of the synod by which, after it previously stated that the order of canonical penance had been so established by the Church, in accord with the example of the apostles that it was common to all, and not merely for the punishment of guilt, but especially for the disposition to grace, it adds that "it ( the synod) recognizes in that mar- velous and venerable order the whole dignity of so necessary a sacra- ment, free from the subtleties which have been added to it in the course of time"; as if, through the order in which without the complete course of canonical penance this sacrament has been wont to be administered, the dignity of the sacrament had been lessened,-rash, scandalous, in- ducing to a contempt of the dignity of the sacrament as it has been accustomed to be administered throughout the whole Church, injurious to the Church itself.
[Penance, sec. IO, n. 4] 35. The proposition conceived in these words: "If charity in the begin- 1535 ning is always weak, it behooves the priest, in obtaining an increase of this charity in the ordinary way, to make those acts of humiliation and penance which have been recommended in every age by the Church precede; to reduce those acts to a few prayers or to some fasting after absolution has already been conferred, seems to be a material desire of keeping for this sacrament the mere name of penance, rather than an illuminating and suitable means to increase that fervor of charity which ought to precede absolution; indeed we are far from blaming the prac- tice of imposing penances to be fulfilled after absolution; if all our good works have our defects always joined to them, how much more ought we to fear lest we admit very many imperfections into the very difficult and very important work of our reconciliation"; since it implies that the penances which are imposed, to be fulfilled after absolution, are to be considered as a supplement for the defects admitted in the work of our reconciliation, rather than as truly sacramental penances and satisfac- tions for the sins confessed, as if, in order that the true reason for the sacrament, not the mere name, be preserved, it would be necessary that in the ordinary way the acts of humiliation and penance, which are im- posed as a means of sacramental satisfaction, should precede absolution,- false, rnsh, injurious to the common practice of the Church, leading to the error contained in the heretical note in Peter of Osma [ see n. 728; cf. n. 1306 f.J.
The Previous Disposition Necessary for Admitting Penitents to Reconciliation [Grace, sec. I 5] 36. The doctrine of the synod, in which, after it stated that "when 1536 there are unmistakable signs of the love of God dominating in the heart of a man, he can deservedly be considered worthy of being admitted to participation in the blood of Jesus Christ, which takes place in the sacra- ments," it further adds, "that false conversions, which take place through attrition ( incomplete sorrow for sins), are not usually efficacious nor durable," consequently, "the shepherd of souls must insist on unmis- takable signs of the dominating charity before he admits his penitents to the sacraments"; which signs, as it ( the decree) then teaches ( sec. r7 ), "a pastor can deduce from a firm cessation of sin and from fervor in good works"; and this "fervor of charity," moreover, it prescribes (De poenit. sec. ro) as the disposition which "should precede absolution"; so understood that not only imperfect contrition, which is sometimes called by the name of attrition, even that which is joined with the love with
which a man begins to love God as the fountain of all justice [ cf. n. 798], and not only contrition formed by charity, but also the fervor of a domi- nating charity, and th:H, indeed, proved by a long continued practice through fervor in good works, is generally and absolutely required in order that a man may be admitted to the sacraments, and penitents espe- cially be admitted to the benefit of the absolution,-false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, contrary to the safe and approved practice of the Church, detracting from the efficacy of the sacrament and injurious to it.
The Authority for Absolving [Penance, sec. IO, n. 6] 37. The teaching of the synod, which declares concerning the author- ity for absolving received through ordination that "after the institution of dioceses and parishes, it is fitting that each one exercise this judgment over those persons subject to him either by reason of territory or some personal right," because "otherwise confusion and disturbance would be introduced"; since it declares that, in order to prevent confusion, after dioceses and parishes have been instituted, it is merely fitting that the power of absolving be exercised upon subjects; so understood, as if for the valid use of this power there is no need of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, without which the Tridentine Synod declares that absolu- tion conferred by a priest is of no value,-false, rash, dangerous, contrary and injurious to the Tridentine Synod [see no. 903], erroneous.
[I bid., sec. rr] 38. Likewise, that teaching in which, after the synod professed that "it could not but admire that very venerable discipline of antiquity, which ( as it says) did not admit to penance so easily, and perhaps never, that one who, after a first sin and a first reconciliation, had relapsed into guilt," it adds, that "through fear of perpetual exclusion froin com- munion and from peace, even in the hour of death, a great restraint will be put on those who consider too little the evil of sin and fear it less," contrary to canon 13 of the first Council of Nicea [see n. 57], to the decretal of Innocent I to Exuperius Tolos [ see n. 95], and then also to the decretal of Celestine I to the Bishops of Vienne, and of the Province of Narbon [ see n. r II], redolent of the viciousness at which the Holy Pontiff is horrified in that decretal.
The Confession of Venial Sins [Penance, sec. I2] 39. The declaration of the synod about the confession of venial sins, which it does not wish, it says, to be so frequently resorted to, lest con-
fessions of this sort be rendered too contemptible,-rash, dangerous, con- trary to the practice of the saints and the pious which was approved [see n. 899] by the sacred Council of Trent.
Indulgences [Penance, sec. 16]
40. The proposition asserting "that an indulgence, according to its 1540 precise notion, is nothing else than the remission of that part of the penance which had been established by the canons for the sinner"; as if an indulgence, in addition to the mere remission of the canonical penance, does not also have value for the remission of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for actual sins,-false, rash, injurious to the merits of Christ, already condemned in article 19 of Luther [seen. 759].
[Ibid.]
41. Likewise, in this which is added, i.e., that "the scholastics, puffed 1541 up by their subtleties, introduced the poorly understood treasury of the merits of Christ and of the saints, and, for the clear notion of absolution from canonical penance, they substituted a confused and false notion of the application of merits"; as if the treasures of the Church, whence the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints,- false, rash, injurious to the merits of Christ and of the saints, previously condemned in art. 17 of Luther [see n. 757; cf. n. 550 ff.].
[Ibid.]
42. Likewise, in this which it adds, that "it is still more lamentable 1542 that that fabulous application is meant to be transferred to the dead,"- false, rash, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Roman Pontiffs and to the practice and sense of the universal Church, leading to the error fixed [cf. n. 729] in the heretical note in Peter of Osma, again condemned in article 22 of Luther [ see n. 762].
[Ibid.]
43. In this, finally, that it most shamelessly inveighs against lists of 1543 indulgences, privileged altars, etc.,-rash, offensive to the ears of the pious, scandalous, abusive to the Supreme Pontiffs, and to the practice common in the whole Church.
The Reservation of Cases [Penance, sec. 19] 44. The proposition of the synod asserting that the "reservation of 1544 cases at the present time is nothing else than an improvident bond for
priests of lower rank, and a statement devoid of sense for penitents who are accustomed to pay no heed to this reservation,"-false, rash, evil- sounding, dangerous, contrary to the Council of Trent [ see n. 903], in- jurious to the hierarchic power.
[Ibid.] 45. Likewise, concerning the hope which it expressed that "when the Ritual and the order of penance had been reformed, there would be no place any longer for reservations of this sort"; in so far as, considering the careful generality of the words, it intimates that, by a reformation of the Ritual and of the order of penance made by a bishop or a synod, cases can be abolished which the Tridentine Synod ( sess. 14, c. 7 [n. 903]) declares the Supreme Pontiffs could reserve to their own special judg- ment, because of the supreme power given to them in the universal Church,-the proposition is false, rash, derogatory, and injurious to the Council of Trent and to the authority of the Supreme Pontiffs.
Censures [Penance, secs. 20 and 22] 46. The propos1t10n asserting that "the effect of excommunication is merely exterior, because by its nature it merely excludes from exterior communion with the Church"; as if excommunication were not a spirit- ual punishment, binding in heaven, obligating souls (from St. August., Epistle 250 to Bishop Auxilius; Tract 50 in lo., 12 ),-false, dangerous, condemned in art. 2 3 of Luther [ see n. 763], at least erroneous.
(Secs. 21 and 23] 47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, accord- ing to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, there- fore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,-false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
[Sec. 22] 48. Likewise, the proposition which says that "useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from ex- communications into which the faithful might have fallen,"-false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church.
[Sec. 24] 49. Likewise, the proposition which condemns as null and invalid 1549 "suspensions imposed from an informed conscience,"-false, pernicious, injurious to Trent.
[Ibid.]
50. Likewise, in that decree which insinuates that a bishop alone does 1550 not have the right to make use of the power which, nevertheless, Trent confers on him (sess. 14, c. r de reform.) of legitimately inflicting sus- pensions "from an informed conscience,"-harmful to the jurisdiction of the prelates of the Church.
Orders [ Orders, sec. 4]
51. The doctrine of the synod which says that in promoting to orders 1551 this method, from the custom and rule of the ancient discipline, was accustomed to be observed, "that if any cleric was distinguished for holi- ness of life and was considered worthy to ascend to sacred orders, it was the custom to promote him to the diaconate, or to the priesthood, even if he had not received minor orders; and that at that time such an ordina- tion was not called 'per saltum,' as afterwards it was so called,"-
[Sec. 5] 52. Likewise, the doctrine which intimates that there was no other 1552 title for ordinations than appointment to some special ministry, such as was prescribed in the Council of Chalcedon; adding (Sec. 6) that, as long as the Church conformed itself to these principles in the selection of sacred ministers, the ecclesiastical order flourished; but that those happy days have passed, and new principles have been introduced later, by which the discipline in the choice of ministers for the sanctuary was corrupted;-
[Sec. 7] 53. Likewise, that among these very principles of corruption it men- 1553 tions the fact that there has been a departure from the old rule by which, as it says (Sec. 5) the Church, treading in the footsteps of the Apostle, had prescribed that no one should be admitted to the priesthood unless he had preserved his baptismal innocence, since it implies that discipline has been corrupted by decrees and rules: 1) Whether by these ordinations "per saltum" have been forbidden;
2) or by these, for the need and advantage of churches, ordinations without special title of office are approved, as the ordination for the title of patrimony, specifically approved by Trent, that obedience h:n been assured by which those so ordained are obliged to serve the nece,wies of the Churches in fulfilling those duties, for which, considering 1 he time and the place, they were ordained by the bishop, just as it was accus- tomed to be done from apostolic times in the primitive Church; 3) or, by these a distinction was made by canon law of crime., which render the delinquents irregular; as if, by this distinction, the Church departed from the spirit of the Apostle by not excluding in general and without distinction from the ecclesiastical ministry all, whosoever they be, who have not preserved their baptismal i1rF,,ence,-the doctrine is false in its several individual parts, rash, disturbing to the order intro- duced for the need and advantage of the churches, injurious to the discipline approved by the canons and especially by the decrees of the Council of Trent,
[Sec. 13]
54. Likewise, the doctrine which notes as a shameful abuse ever to offer alms for the celebration of Masses, and for administering the sacra- ments, as well as to accept any offering so-called "of the stole," an<l, in general, any stipend and honorarium which may be offered on the occa- sion of prayers or of some parochial function; as if the ministers of the ':hurch should lw charged with a shameful abuse because they use the ri,)1t promulgated by the Apostle of accepting temporal aids from those tv whom they furnish spiritual ministrations [Gal. 6: 6],-false, rash, harmful to ecclesiastical and pastoral right, injurious to the Church and its ministers.
[Sec. 14]
55. Likewise, the doctrine by which it professes to desire very much that some way be found of removing the lesser clergy ( under which name it designates the clerics of minor orders) from cathedrals and col- leges by providing otherwise, namely through approved lay people of mature age, a suitable assigned stipend for the ministry of serving at Masses and for other offices such as that of acolyte, etc., as formerly, it says, was usually done when duties of that sort had not been reduced to mere form for the receiving of major orders; inasmuch as it censures the rule by which care is taken that "the functions of minor orders are to be performed or exercised only by those who have been established in them according to rank" (Cone. prov. IV of Milan), and this also according to the intention of the Tridentine Council ( sess. 23, c. 17) "that the duties
of sacred orders, from the diaconate to the porter, laudably received in the Church from apostolic times and neglected for a while in many places, should be renewed according to the sacred canons, and should not be considered useless as they are by heretics,"-a rash suggestion, offen- sive to pious ears, disturbing to the ecclesiastical ministry, lessening of the decency which should be observed as far as possible in celebrating the mysteries, injurious to the duties and functions of minor orders, as well as to the discipline approved by the canons and especially by the Tridentine Synod, favorable to the charges and calumnies of heretics against it.
[Sec. 18] 56. The doctrine which states that it seems fitting that, in the case of 1556 canonical impediments which arise from crimes expressed in the law, no dispensation should ever be granted or allowed,-harmful to the canonical equity and moderation which has been approved by the sacred council of Trent, derogatory to the authority and laws of the Church.
f/ bid., sec. 22] 57. The prescnpuon of the synod which generally and indiscrim- 1557 inately rejects as an abuse any dispensation that more than one residen- tial benefice be bestowed on one and the same person: likewise, in this which it adds that the synod is certain that, according to the spirit of the Church, no one could enjoy more than one benefice, even if it is a simple one,-for its generality, derogatory to the moderation of the Coun- cil of Trent (sess. 7, c. 5, and sess. 24, c. 17).
Betrothals and Matrimony [Memorial Booklet about Betrothals, etc. sec. 8] 58. The proposition which states that betrothals properly so-called con- 1558 tain a mere civil act which disposes for the celebrating of marriage, and that these same betrothals are altogether subject to the prescription of the civil laws; as if the act disposing for the sacrament is not, under this aspect, subject to the law of the Church,-false, harmful to the right of the Church in respect to the effects flowing even from betrothals by reason of the canonical sanctions, derogatory to the discipline established by the Church.
[Matrimony, secs. 7, 11, 12] 59. The doctrine of the synod asserting that "to the supreme civil 1559 power alone originally belongs the right to apply to the contract of
marriage impediments of that sort which render it null and are called nullifying": which "original right," besides, is said to be "essentially connected with the right of dispensing": adding that "with the secret consent or connivance of the principals, the Church could justly establish impediments which nullify the very contract of marriage"; as if the Church could not and cannot always in Christian marriages, establish by its own rights impediments which not only hinder marriage, but also render it null as regards the bond, and also dispense from those im- pediments by which Christians are held bound even in the countries of infi<lels,-destructive of canons 3, 4, 9, r2 of the 24th session of the Council of Trent, heretical [ see n. 973 ff.].
[Cit. Memorial Booklet about Betrothals, sec. 10] 60. Likewise, the proposal of the synod to the civil power, that "it remove from the number of impediments, whose origin is found in the Collection of Justinian, spiritual relationship and also that one which is called of public honor"; then, that "it should tighten the impediment of affinity and relationship from any licit or illicit connection of birth to the fourth degree, according to the civil computation through the lateral and oblique lines, in such a way, nevertheless, that there be left no hope of obtaining a dispensation"; in so far as it attributes to the civil power the right either of abolishing or of tightening impediments which have been established and approved by the authority of the Church; likewise, where it proposes that the Church can be despoiled by the civil power of the right of dispensing from impediments established or app;oved by the Church,-subversive of the liberty and power of the Church, con- trary to Trent, issuing from the heretical principle condemned above [ see n. 973 ff.] .
[ D. Errors] Concerning Duties, Practices, Rules Pertaining to Religious Worship
And First, the Adoration of the Humanity of Christ. [Faith, sec. 3] 6r. The proposition which asserts that "to adore directly the humanity of Christ, even any part of Him, would always be divine honor given to a creature"; in so far as, by this word "directly" it intends to reprove the worship of adoration which the faithful show to the humanity of Christ, just as if such adoration, by which the humanity and the very living flesh of Christ is adored, not indeed on account of itself as mere flesh, but because it is united to the divinity, would be divine honor imparted to a creature, and not rather the one and the same adoration with which
the Incarnate Word is adored in His own proper flesh ( from the 2nd Council of Constantinople, 5th Ecumenical Council, canon 9 [ see n. 221; cf. n. 120]) ,-false, deceitful, detracting from and injurious to the pious and due worship given and extended by the faithful to the humanity of Christ.
[Prayer, sec. 17]
62. The doctrine which rejects devotion to the most Sacred Heart of 1562 Jesus among the devotions which it notes as new, erroneous, or at least, dangerous; if the understanding of this devotion is of such a sort as has been approved by the Apostolic See,-false, rash, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Apostolic See.
[Prayer sec. 10, and the appendix n. J2]
63. Likewise, in this that it blames the worshipers of the Heart of 1563 Jesus also for this name, because they do not note that the most sacred flesh of Christ, or any part of Him, or even the whole humanity, cannot be adored with the worship of !atria when there is a separation or cutting off from the divinity; as if the faithful when they adore the Heart of Jesus, separate it or cut it off from the divinity; when they worship the Heart of Jesus it is, namely, the heart of the person of the Word, to whom it has been inseparably united in that manner in which the bloodless body of Christ during the three days of death, without separation or cutting off from divinity, was worthy of adoration in the tomb,-deceitful, injurious to the faithful worshipers of the Heart of Jesus.
The Order Prescribed in the Undertaking of Pious Exercises [Prayer, sec. 14, Appendix n. 34]
64. The doctrine which notes as universally superstitious "any efficacy 1564 which is placed in a fixed number of prayers and of pious salutations"; as if one should consider as superstitious the efficacy which is derived not from the number viewed in itself, but from the prescript of the Church appointing a certain number of prayers or of external acts for obtaining indulgences, for fulfilling penances and, in general, for the performance of sacred and religious worship in the correct order and due form,- false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, injurious to the piety of the faithful, derogatory to the authority of the Church, erroneous.
[Penance, sec. 10]
65. The proposition stating that "the unregulated clamor of the new 1565 institutions which have been called exercises or missions ..• , perhaps
never, or at least very rarely, succeed in effecting an absolute conversion; and those exterior acts of encouragement which have appeared were nothing else than the transient brilliance of a natural emotion,"-rash, evil-sounding, dangerous, injurious to the customs piously and salutarily practiced throughout the Church and founded on the Word of God.
The Manner of Uniting the Voice of the People with the Voice of the Church in Public Prayers [Prayer, sec. 24] 66. The proposition asserting that "it would be against apostolic prac- tice and the plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the peo- ple to unite their voice with that of the whole Church"; if understood to signify introducing of the use of popular language into the liturgical prayers,-false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebra- tion of the mysteries, easily productive of many evils.
The Reading of Sacred Scripture [From the note at the end of the decree on grace] 67. The doctrine asserting that "only a true impotence excuses" from the reading of the Sacred Scriptures, adding, moreover,' that there is produced the obscurity which arises from a neglect of this precept in regard to the primary truths of religion,-false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, condemned elsewhere in Quesnel [sec. 1429ff.].
The Reading of Proscribed Books Publicly in Church [Prayer, 29] 68. The praise with which the synod very highly commends the com- mentaries of Quesnel on the New Testament, and some works of other writers who favor the errors of Quesnel, although they have been pro- scribed; and which proposes to parish priests that they should read these same works, as if they were full of the solid principles of religion, each one in his own parish to his people after other functions,-false, rash, scandalous, seditious, injurious to the Church, fostering schism and heresy.
Sacred Images [Prayer, sec. 17] 69. The prescription which in general and without discrimination in- cludes the images of the incomprehensible Trinity among the images to be removed from the Church, on the ground that they furnish an occasion of error to the untutored,-because of its generality, it is rash, and con-
39 1 trary to the pious custom common throughout the Church, as if no images of the Most Holy Trinity exist which are commonly approved and safely permitted ( from the Brief "Sollicitudini nostrae" of Benedict XIV in the year 1745). 70. Likewise, the doctrine and prescription condemning in general 1570 every special cult which the faithful are accustomed to attach specifically to some image, and to have recourse to, rather than to another,-rash, dangerous, injurious to the pious custom prevalent throughout the Church and also to that order of Providence, by which "God, who apportions as He wishes to each one his own proper characteristics, did not want them to be common in every commemoration of the saints ( from St. Augus- tine, Epistle 78 to the clergy, elders, and people of the church at Hippo). 71. Likewise, the teaching which forbids that images, especially of the 1571 Blessed Virgin, be distinguished by any title other than the denomina- tions which are related to the mysteries, about which express mention is made in Holy Scripture; as if other pious titles could not be given to images which the Church indeed approves and commends in its public prayers,-rash, offensive to the ears of the pious, and especially injurious to the due veneration of the Blessed Virgin. 72. Likewise, the one which would extirpate as an abuse the custom 1572 by which certain images are kept veiled,-rash, contrary to the custom prevalent in the Church and employed to foster the piety of the faithful.
Feasts [Libel!. memor. for the reformation of feasts, sec. 3]
73. The proposition stating that the institution of new feasts derived 1573 its origin from neglect in the observance of the older feasts, and from false notions of the nature and end of these solemnities,-false, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against the feast days celebrated by the Church.
[Ibid., sec. 8]
74. The deliberation of the synod about transferring to Sunday feasts 1574 distributed through the year, and rightly so, because it is convinced that the bishop has power over ecclesiastical discipline in relation to purely spiritual matters, and therefore of abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on those days, on which according to the early law of the Church, even then that precept flourished; and then, also, in this statement which it ( the synod) added about transferring to Advent by episcopal author- ity the fasts which should be kept throughout the year according to the precept of the Church; insomuch as it asserts that it is lawful for a bishop in his own right to transfer the days prescribed by the Church for cele-
brating feasts or fasts, or to abrogate the imposed precept of hearing Mass,-a false proposition, harmful to the law of the general Councils and of the Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favorable to schism.
Oaths [Libel!. memor. for tl1e reformation of oaths, sec. 4] 75. The teaching which says that in the happy days of the early Church oaths seemed so foreign to the model of the divine Preceptor and to the golden simplicity of the Gospel that "to take an oath without extreme and unavoidable need had been reputed to be an irreligious act, unworthy of a Christian person," further, that "the uninterrupted line of the Fathers shows that oaths by common consent have been con- sidered as forbidden"; and from this doctrine proceeds to condemn the oaths which the ecclesiastical curia, having followed, as it says, the norm of feudal jurisprudence, adopted for investitures and sacred ordinations of bishops; and it decreed, therefore, that the law should be invoked by the secular power to abolish the oaths which are demanded in ecclesias- tical curias when entering upon duties and offices and, in general, for any curial function,-false, injurious to the Church, harmful to ecclesi- astical law, subversive of discipline imposed and approved by the Canons.
Ecclesiastical Conferences [Ecclesiastzcal Conferences, sec. I]
76. The charge which the synod brings against the scholastic method as that "which opened the way for inventing new systems discor<lant with one another with respect to truths of a greater value and which led finally to probabilism and laxism"; in so far as it charges against the scholastic method the faults of individuals who could misuse and have misused it,- false, rash, against very holy and learned men who, to the great good of the Catholic religion, have developed the scholastic method, injurious, favorable to the criticism of heretics who are hostile to it.
[Ibid.]
77. Likewise in this which adds that "a change in the form of ecclesi- astical government, by which it was brought about that ministers of the Church became forgetful of their rights, which at the same time are their obligations, has finally led to such a state of affairs as to cause the primi- tive notions of ecclesiastical ministry and pastoral solicitude to be for- gotten"; as if, by a change of government consonant to the discipline established and approved in the Church, there ever could be forgotten and lost the primitive notion of ecclesiastical ministry or pastoral solici- tude,-a false proposition, rash, erroneous.
[Sec. 14] 78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting busi- 1578 ness in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distin- guished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burden- some for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to super- stitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and material- ism,-false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
Complaints Against Some Opinions Which are Still Discussed in "Catholic Schools" [ Oration to the Synod, sec. I] 79. The assertion which attacks with slanderous charges the opinions 1579 discussed in Catholic schools about which the Apostolic See has thought that nothing yet needs to be defined or pronounced,-false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools, detracting from the obedience to the Apostolic Con- stitutions.
[E. Errors Concerning the Reformation of Regulars]
The "three rules" set down as fundamental by the Synod "for the reformation of regulars" [Libel!. memor. for the reformation of regulars, sec. 9] 80. Rule I which states universally and without distinction that "the 1580 regular or monastic state by its very nature cannot be harmonized with the care of souls and with the duties of parochial life, and therefore, can- not share in the ecclesiastical hierarchy without adversely opposing the principles of monastic life itself"-false, dangerous to the most holy Fathers and heads of the Church, who harmonized the practices of the regular life with the duties of the clerical order,-injurious, contrary to the old, pious, approved custom of the Church and to the sanctions of
the Supreme Pontiff; as if "monks, whom the gravity of their manners and of their life and whom the holy institution of Faith approves," could not be duly "entrusted with the duties of the clergy," not only without harm to religion, but even with great advantage to the Church. (From the decretal epistle of St. Siricius to Himerius of Tarraco c. 13 [see n. 90].) t St. Likewise, in that which adds that St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure were so occupied in protecting Orders of Mendicants against the best of men that in their defenses less heat and greater accuracy were to be de- sired,-scandalous, injurious to the very holy Doctors, favorable to the impious slanders of condemned authors. 82. Rule II, that "the multiplicity and diversity of orders naturally produce confusion and disturbance," likewise, in that which sec. 4 sets forth, "that the founders" of regulars who, after the monastic institutions came into being, "by adding orders to orders, reforms to reforms have accomplished nothing else than to increase more and more the primary cause of evil"; if understood about the orders and institutes approved by the Holy See, as if the distinct variety of pious works to which the distinct orders are devoted should, by its nature, beget disturbance and confusion, -false, calumnious, injurious not only to the holy founders and their faithful disciples, but also to the Supreme Pontiffs themselves. 83. Rule III, in which, after it stated that "a small body living within a civil society without being truly a part of the same and which forms a small monarchy in the state, is always a dangerous thing," it then charges with this accusation private monasteries which are associated by the bond of a common rule under one special head, as if they were so many special monarchies harmful and dangerous to the civic common- wealth,-false, rash, injurious to the regular institutes approved by the Holy See for the advancement of religion, favorable to the slanders and calumnies of heretics against the same institutes.
Concerning the "system" or list of ordinances drawn from rules laid down and contained in the eight following articles "for the reformation of regulars" , [Sec. 10] 84. Art. I. "Concerning the one order to be retained in the Church, and concerning the selection of the rule of St. Benedict in preference to others, not only because of its excellence but also on account of the well-known merits of his order; however, with this condition that in those items which happen to be less suitable to the conditions of the
1 Add URBAN II, in the synod of Nemausen., 1096, can. 2 and 3.
times, the way of life instituted at Port-Royal 1 is to furnish light for discovering what it is fitting to add, what to take away; Art. II. "Those who have joined this order should not be a part of 1585 the ecclesiastical hierarchy; nor should they be promoted to Holy Orders, except one or two at the most, to be initiated as superiors, or as chaplains of the monastery, the rest remaining in the simple order of the laity; Art. III. "One monastery only should be allowed in any one city, and 1586 this should be located outside the walls of the city in the more retired and remote places; Art. IV. "Among the occupations of the monastic life, a proper pro- 1587 portion should be inviolably reserved for manual labor, with suitable time, nevertheless, left for devotion to the psalmody, or also, if someone wishes, for the study of letters; the psalmody should be moderate, be- cause too much of it produces haste, weariness, and distraction; the more psalmody, orisons, and prayers are increased beyond a just proportion of the whole time, so much are the fervor and holiness of the regulars di- minished; Art. V. "No distinction among the monks should be allowed, whether 1588 they are devoted to choir or to services; such inequality has stirred up very grave quarrels and discords at every opportunity, and has driven out the spirit of charity from communities of regulars; Art. VI. "The vow of perpetual stability should never be allowed; the 1589 older monks did not know it, who, nevertheless, were a consolation of the Church and an ornament to Christianity; the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience should not be admitted as the common and stable rule. If anyone shall wish to make these vows, all or anyone, he will ask advice and permission from the bishop who, nevertheless, will never permit them to be perpetual, nor to exceed the limits of a year; the opportunity merely will be given of renewing them under the same conditions; Art. VII. "The bishop will conduct every investigation into their 1590 lives, studies, and advancement in piety; it will be his duty to admit and to dismiss the monks, always, however, after taking counsel with their fellow monks; Art. VIII. "Regulars of orders which still survive, although they are 1591 priests, may also be received into this monastery, provided they desire to be free in silence and solitude for their own sanctification only; in which case, there might be provision for the dispensation stated in the general rule, n. II, in such a way, however, that they do not follow a rule of life different from the others, and that not more than one, or at most two Masses be celebrated each day, and that it should be satisfactory to the other priests to celebrate in common together with the community; 1 Port-Royal in France, near Paris.
Likewise "for the reformation of nuns" [Sec. nJ "Perpetual vows should not be permitted before the age of 40 or 45; nuns should be devoted to solid exercises, especially to labor, turned aside from carnal spirituality by which many are distracted; considera- tion must also be given as to whether, so far as they are concerned, it would be more satisfactory to leave the monastery in the city;~ The system is subversive to the discipline now flourishing and already approved and accepted in ancient times, dangerous, opposed and in- jurious to the Apostolic Constitutions and to the sanctions of many Councils, even general ones, and especially of the Council of Trent; favorable to the vicious calumnies of heretics against monastic vows and the regular institutes devoted to the more stable profession of the evangelical counsels.
[F. Errors] About Convoking a National Council [Libel!. memor. for convo!(ing a national council, sec. 1] 85. The proposition stating that any knowledge whatsoever of ec- clesiastical history is sufficient to allow anyone to assert that the convoca- tion of a national council is one of the canonical ways by which controversies in regard to religion may be ended in the Church of the respective nations; if understood to mean that controversies in regard to faith or morals which have arisen in a Church can be ended by an irrefutable decision made in a national council; as if freedom from error in questions of faith and morals belonged to a national council,- schismatic, heretical. Therefore, we command all the faithful of Christ of either sex not to presume to believe, to teach, or to preach anything about the said propositions and doctrines contrary to what is declared in this Constitu- tion of ours; that whoever shall have taught, defended or published them, or anyone of them, all together or separately, except perhaps to oppose them, will be subject ipso facto and without any other declaration to ecclesiastical censures, and to the other penalties stated by law against those perpetrating similar offenses. But, by this expressed condemnation of the aforesaid propositions and doctrines, we by no means intend to approve other things contained in the same book, particularly since in it very many propositions and doctrines have been detected, related either to those which have been condemned above, or to those which show an attitude not only of rash contempt for the commonly approved doctrine and discipline, but of special hostility toward the Roman Pontiffs and the Apostolic See. In-
deed, we think two must be noted especially, concerning the most august mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, sec. 2 of the decree about faith, which have issued from the synod, if not with evil intent, surely rather im- prudently, which could easily drive into error especially the untutored and the incautious. The first, after it is rightly prefaced that God in His being remains 1596 one and most simple, while immediately adding that God is distinct in three persons, has erroneously departed from the common formula ap- proved in institutions of Christian Doctrine, in which God is said to be one indeed "in three distinct persons," not "distinct in three persons''; and by the change in this formula, this risk of error crept into the mean- ing of the words, so that the divine essence is thought to be distinct in persons, which (essence) the Catholic faith confesses to be one in distinct persons in such a way that at the same time it confesses that it is absolutely undivided in itself. The second, which concerns the three divine Persons themselves, that 1597 they, according to their peculiar personal and incommunicable prop- erties, are to be described and named in a more exact manner of speaking, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit; as if less proper and exact would be the name "Son," consecrated by so many passages of Scripture, by the very voice of the Father coming from the heavens and from the cloud, and by the formula of baptism prescribed by Christ, and by that famous confession in which Peter was pronounced "blessed" by Christ Himself; and as if that statement should not rather be retained which the Angelic Doctor,1 having learned from Augustine, in his turn taught that "in the name of the Word the same peculiar property is meant as in the name of the Son," Augustine 2 truly saying: "For the same reason he is called the Word as the Son." Nor should the extraordinary and deceitful boldness of the Synod be 1598 passed over in silence, which dared to adorn not only with most ample praises the declaration ( n. I 322 fl.) of the Gallican Council of the year 1682, which had long ago been condemned by the Apostolic See, but in order to win greater authority for it, dared to include it insidiously in the decree written "about faith," openly to adopt articles contained in it, and to seal it with a public and solemn profession of those articles which had been handed down here and there through this decree. Therefore, surely, not only a far graver reason for expostulating with them is afforded us by the Synod than was offered to our predecessors by the assemblies, but also no light injury is inflicted on the Gallican Church itself, because the synod thought its authority worth invoking in support of the errors with which that decree was contaminated. 1 St. Thomas, Summa T heal. Ia, q. 34, a. 2, ad 3. 2 St. Augustine, De Trinitate I, 7 c. 2 [ML 42 (Aug. VIII), 936].
Therefore, as soon as the acts of the Gallican convention appeared, Our predecessor, Venerable Innocent XI, by letters in the form of a Brief on the I 1th day of April, in the year 1682, and afterwards, more expressly, Alexander VIII in the Constitution, "inter multiplices" on the 4th day of August, in the year 1690 (see n. 1322 ff.), by reason of their apostolic duty "condemned, rescinded, and declared them null and void"; pastoral solicitude demands much more strongly of Us that we "reject and condemn as rash and scandalous" the recent adoption of these acts tainted with so many faults, made by the synod, and, after the publication of the decrees of Our predecessors, "as especially injurious" to this Apostolic See, and we, accordingly, reject and condemn it by this present Constitution of Ours, and we wish it to be held as rejected and condemned.
The Indissolubility of Marriage 1 [From the Brief to Charles of Dalberg, Archbishop of Mainz, November 8, 1803]
"To the doubts proposed to him the Supreme Pontiff, among other remarks, responds": The decision of lay tribunals and of Catholic as- semblies by which the nullity of marriages is chiefly declared, and the dissolution of their bond attempted, can have no strength and absolutely no force in the sight of the Church .••• Those pastors who would approve these nuptials by their presence and confirm them with their blessing would commit a very grave fault and would betray their sacred ministry. For they should not be called nuptials, but rather adulterous unions .•••
Versions of Sacred Scripture 2 [From the epistle "Magno et acerbo" to the Archbishop of Mohileff, September 3, 1816]
We were overcome with great and bitter sorrow when We learned that a pernicious plan, by no means the first, had been undertaken, whereby the most sacred books of the Bible are being spread every- where in every vernacular tongue, with new interpretations which are contrary to the wholesome rules of the Church, and are skillfully turned into a distorted sense. For, from one of the versions of this sort already 1 RskMm II 86 ff. 2 ASS 9 (ed. 1, 1876, ed. 2, 1885) 582 ff.
presented to Us we notice that such a danger exists against the sanctity of purer doctrine, so that the faithful might easily drink a deadly poison from those fountains from which they should drain "waters of saving wisdom" [Ecclus. 15:3] . . . . For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our 1603 predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage. Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription ( see n. 785 f.) of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be "of one tongue and of the same speech" [ Gen. r r: r]. Since in vernacular speech we notice very frequent interchanges, 1604 varieties, and changes, surely by an unrestrained license of Biblical versions that changelessness which is proper to the divine testimony would be utterly destroyed, and faith itself would waver, when, especially, from the meaning of one syllable sometimes an understanding about the truth of a dogma is formed. For this purpose, then, the heretics have been accustomed to make their low and base machinations, in order that by the publication of their vernacular Bibles, ( of whose strange variety and discrepancy they, nevertheless, accuse one another and wrangle) they may, each one, treacherously insert their own errors wrapped in the more holy apparatus of divine speech. "For heresies are not born," St. Augustine used to say, "except when the true Scriptures are not well understood and when what is not well understood in them is rashly and boldly asserted." 1 But, if we grieve that men renowned for piety and wisdom have, by no means rarely, failed in interpreting the Scriptures, what should we not fear if the Scriptures, translated into every vulgar tongue whatsoever, are freely handed on to be read by an inexperienced people who, for the most part, judge not with any skill but with a kind of rashness? . . . Therefore, in that famous letter of his to the faithful of the Church 1605 at Meta, Our predecessor, Inr.ocent III,2 quite wisely prescribes as fol- lows: "In truth the secret mysteries of faith are not to be exposed to all everywhere, since they cannot be understood by all everywhere, but only by those who can grasp them with the intellect of faith. Therefore, to the more simple the Apostle says: "I gave you milk to drink as unto little ones in Christ, not meat" [I Cor. 3:2]. For solid food is for the 1 St. Augustine, In lo., tr. 18, c. I [ML 35 (Aug. III b), 1536]. 2 Reg. II, Ep. 141 "Cum ex iniuncto," 1199 [ML 214, 696 CD].
elders, as he said: "We speak wisdom ..• among the perfect" [I Cor. 2:6]; "for I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified" [I Cor. 2:2]. For so great is the depth of Divine Scripture that not only the simple and the unlettered, but even the learned and prudent are not fully able to explore the understanding of it. Therefore, Scripture says that many "searching have failed in their search" [Ps. 63 :7]. "So it was rightly stated of old in the divine law, that even the beast which touched the mountain should be stoned" [Heb. 12:20; Exod. 19:12], lest, indeed, any simple and ignorant person should presume to reach the sublimity of Sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others. For it is written: Seek not the things that are too high for thee [Ecclus. 3:22]. Therefore, the Apostle warns "not to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety" [Rom. 12:3]. But, noteworthy are the Constitutions, not only of Innocent III, just mentioned, but also of Pius IV,1 Clement VIII,2 and Benedict XIV 3 in which the precaution was laid down that, if Scripture should be easily open to all, it would perhaps become cheapened and be exposed to contempt, or, if poorly understood by the mediocre, would lead to error. But, what the mind of the Church is in regard to the reading and interpretation of Scripture, your fraternity may know very clearly from the excellent Constitution of another of Our predecessors, CLEMENT XI, "Unigenitus," in which those doctrines were thoroughly condemned in which it was asserted that it is useful and necessary to every age, to every place, to every type of person to know the mysteries of Sacred Scripture, the reading of which was to be open to all, and that it was harmful to withdraw Christian people from it, nay more, that the mouth of Christ was closed for the faithful when the New Testament was snatched from their hands [Propositions of Quesnel 79-85; n. 1429-1435].
The Versions of Sacred Scripture 4 [From the Encyclical "Ubi primum," May 5, 1824]
The wickedness of our enemies is progressing to such a degree that, besides the flood of pernicious books hostile in themselves to 1 The Letter, "Dominici gregis," March 24, 1564 [MBR (L) 2, r r6 f.; Hrd X 205 A],
in which are approved "Ten Rules about Prohibited Books" (Third and Fourth Rules about the Versions of Sacred Scripture)]. 2 The Letter, "Sacrosanctum catholicae fidei," where the rules of the Index of PIUS
IV are confirmed (Oct. 17, 1595) [MBR (L) 3, 56 f.]. 3 The Constitution, "Sollicita ac provida," July 9, 1753 [MBR (L) 19, 59 ff.]. • BRC r6, 47 bf.; ASS 9 (ed. 1, 1876, ed. 2, 1885) 591 £.
religion, they are endeavoring to turn to the harm of religion even the Sacred Literature given to us by divine Providence for the progress of religion itself. It is not unknown to you, Venerable Brethren, that a certain "Society," commonly called "Biblical," is boldly !tpreading through the whole world, which, spurning the traditions of the Holy Fathers and against the well-known decree [ see n. 786] of the Council of Trent, is aiming with all its strength and means toward this: to translate-or rather mistranslate-the Sacred Books into the vulgar tongue of every nation . . • . And to avert this plague, Our predecessors have published many 1608 Constitutions [e.g., PIUS VII; seen. 1602 ff.] .... We, also, in accord with our Apostolic duty, encourage you, Venerable Brothers, to be zealous in every way to remove your flock away from these poisonous pastures. "Reprove, entreat, be instant in season, out of season, in all patience and doctrine" [II Tim. 4:2], so that your faithful people, clinging exactly to the regulations of our Congregation of the Index, may be persuaded that, "if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere without discrimina- tion in the vulgar tongue, more harm will arise therefrom than advan- tage, because of the boldness of men." Experience demonstrates the truth of this and, besides other Fathers, St. Augustine has declared in these words: "For not ••• " [seen. 1604].
Usury 1 [Response of Pius VIII to the Bishop of Rheims,2 gi\'en in audience, August rS, 1830 J
The Bishop of Rheims in France explains that. . . , the confessors of 1609 his diocese do not hold the same opinion concerning the profit received from money given as a loan to business men, in order that they may be enriched thereby. There is bitter dispute over the meaning of the En- cyclical Letter, "Vix pervenit" [seen. 1475 ff.]. On both sides arguments are produced to defend the opinion each one has embraced, either favorable to such profit or against it. Thence come quarrels, dissensions, denial of the sacraments to many business men engaging in that method of making money, and countless damage to souls. To meet this harm to souls, some confessors think they can hold a middle course between both opinions. If anyone consults them about gain of this sort, they try to dissuade him from it. If the penitent perseveres in his plan of giving money as a loan to business men, and 1 CL VI 681 £.; MThCc 16, 1066 £. 2 Rheims in France.
Gregory XVI, 18p-1846 objects that an opinion favorable to such a loan has many patrons, and, moreover, has not been condemned by the Holy See, although more than once consulted about it, then these confessors demand that the penitent promise to conform in filial obedience to the judgment of the Holy Pontiff whatever it may be, if he should intervene; and having obtained this promise, they do not deny them absolution, although they believe an opinion contrary to such a loan is more probable. If a penitent does not confess the gain from money given as a loan, and appears to be in good faith, these confessors, even if they know from other sources that gain of this sort has been taken by him and is even now being taken, they absolve him, making no interrogation about the matter, because they fear that the penitent, being advised to make restitution or to re- frain from such profit, will refuse. Therefore the said Bishop of Rheim: inquires: I. Whether he can approve the method of acting on the part of these latter confessors. II. Whether he could encourage other more rigid confessors who come to consult him to follow the plan of action of those others until the Holy See brings out an express opinion on this question. Pius VIII responded: To I: They are not to be disturbed. To II: Provided for in the first.
Usury 1 [Declarations about a response of PIUS VIII 2 ]
A. To the doubts of the Bishop of Viviers: 3 I. "Whether the aforesaid judgment of the Most Holy Pontiff must be understood as its words sound, and aside from the title of the law of the prince, about which the Most Eminent Cardinals speak in these responses, so that it is just a matter of a loan made to business men. 2. "Or whether the title from the law of the prince, about which the Eminent Cardinals speak, must be so understood that it is enough that the law of the prince declares that it is licit for anyone to agree about a gain made from a loan only, as happens in the civil code of the Franks, without saying that it ( law of the prince) grants the right to receive such gain." 1 CL VI 6S9cd; MThCc 16, rn73, 1083. 2 See this response in MThCc 16, 1070, Deer. VIII. 3 Viviers in France.
The Congregation of the Holy Office responded August JI, 1831: This has been taken care of in the decree of Wednesday, August 18, 1830, and let the decrees be given.
B. To the doubt of the Bishop of Nicea: "Whether penitents, who have taken a moderate gain from a loan only, under title of the law, in doubtful or bad faith, can be sacramentally absolved without the imposition of the burden of restitution, provided they are sincerely sorry for the sin committed because of doubtful or bad faith, and are ready in filial obedience to observe the commands of the Holy See." The Congregation of the Holy Office responded fan. 17, 1838: Yes, provided they are ready to observe the commands of the Holy See. . . •1
Indifferentism (against Felicite de Lamennais) 2 [From the Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur," Aug. 15, 1832]
Now we examine another prolific cause of evils by which, we lament, 1613 the Church is at present afflicted, namely indifferentism, or that base opinion which has become prevalent everywhere through the deceit of wicked men, that eternal salvation of the soul can be acquired by any profession of faith whatsoever, if morals are conformed to the standard of the just and the honest. . . . And so from this most rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone. Indeed, to this most unhealthy error that full and immoderate liberty 1614 of opinions which is spreading widely to the destruction of the sacred and civil welfare opens the way, with some men repeatedly asserting with supreme boldness that some advantage flows therefrom to religion itself. But "what death of the soul is worse than freedom for error?" Augustine used to say [ ep. 166 3 ]. For, since all restraint has been re-
1 In the same sense were responses from the Sacred Penitentiary, Sept. 16, 1830, Aug. 14, 1831, Nov. 11, 1831, Feb. 11, 1832, Nov. 23, 1832, and from the Sacred Office in a resolution Aug. 31, 1831, approved by GREGORY XVI; cf. CL VI 677 ff.; MThCc 16, 1067 ff. "BRC 19, 129 a ff.; ASS 4 (1868) 34 ff.; RskRP IV 100 ff.-Felicite de Lamennais, born June 19, 1782, in Saint Malo in Lower Brittany, together with Montalembcrt and Lacordaire founded in 1830 the journal "L'Avenir" to defend the rights of the Church, which he was compelled to suspend when it was infected with errors. At first he was submissive to the condemnation, but afterwards he bitterly attacked the Church. He died at Paris without giving any sign of retraction on Feb. 27, 1854. 3 Elsewhere, 105; 2, IO (ML 33, 400).
moved by which men are kept on the paths of truth, since their nature inclined to evil is now plunging headlong, we say that the "bottom of the pit" has truly been opened, from which John [Apoc. 9:3] saw "smoke arising by which the sun was darkened with locusts" coming out of it to devastate the earth . . . . Nor can we foresee more joyful omens for religion and the state from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the State, and that the mutual concord of the government with the sacred ministry be broken. For it is certain that that concord is greatly feared by lovers of this most shameless liberty, which has always been fortunate and salutary for the ecclesiastical and the civil welfare. Having embraced with paternal affection those especially who have applied their mind particularly to the sacred disciplines and to philo- sophic questions, encourage and support them so that they may not, by relying on the powers of their own talents alone, imprudently go astray from the path of truth into the way of the impious. Let them remember "that God is the guide of wisdom and the director of the wise" [ cf. Wisd. T 15], and that it is not possible to learn to know God without God, who by means of the Word teaches men to know God. 1 It is characteristic of the proud, or rather of the foolish man to test the mysteries of faith "which surpasseth all understanding" [ Phil. 4 :7] by human standards, and to entrust them to the reasoning of our mind, which by reason of the condition of our human nature is weak and infirm.
The False Doctrines of Felicite de Lamennais 2 [From the Encyclical, "Singulari nos affecerant gaudio" to the Bishops of France, June 25, 1834]
But it is a very mournful thing, by which the ravings of human reason go to ruin when someone is eager for revolution and, against the advice of the Apostle, strives "to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise" [cf. Rom. 12:3], and trusting too much in himself, affirms that 1 Cf. S. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.4, c.6 (MG 7, 980 C ff.). 2 BRC 19, 380 b; RskRP IV 127.-When the Supreme Pontiff, by Encyclical Letters
dated Aug. 15, 1832, condemned the doctrine of Felicitc Robert de Lamennais and of the said journal, "L'Avenir," because, in order to protect the freedom of the Church, it was preaching rebellion and full separation of the Church from the State, and was bringing forward some inharn1onious things about the powers of reason, Larnennais, indeed, for a time seemed to yield, but a little afterwards he published an infamous book with the title, "Paroles d'un croyant." The Pontiff, therefore, in this Encyclical condemns the book, and he complains bitterly that bv repeated changes contrary to the doctrine of the former Encyclical he had impugned the obedience due to the principle, and taught indifferentisrn and all manner of liberty of conscience. Then he added those things about faith and reason which arc gathered above.
truth must be sought outside of the Catholic Church in which truth itself is found far from even the slightest defilement of error, and which therefore, is called and is "the pillar and ground of the truth" [I Tim. 3: r 5]. But you well understand, Venerable Brothers, that We are here speaking in open disapproval of that false system of philosophy, not so long ago introduced, by which, because of an extended and unbridled desire of novelty, truth is not sought where it truly resides, and, with a disregard for the holy and apostolic traditions, other vain, futile, un- certain doctrines, not approved by the Church are accepted as true, on which very vain men mistakenly think that truth itself is supported and sustained.
Condemnation of the Works of George Hermes 1 [From the Brief "Dum acerbissimas," Sept. 26, 1835]
To increase the anxieties by which we are overwhelmed day and 1618 night because of this (namely, persecutions of the Church), the following calamitous and highly lamentable circumstance is added: Among those who strive in behalf of religion by published works some dare to intrude themselves insincerely, who likewise wish to seem and who show that they are fighting on behalf of the same religion, in order that, though retaining the appearance of religion yet despising the truth, they can the more easily seduce and pervert the incautious "by philosophy" or by their false philosophic treatises "and vain deceit" [Col. 2:8], and hence de- ceive the people and extend helping hands more confidently to the enemies who openly rage against it (religion). Therefore, when the impious and insidious labors of any one of these writers have become known to us, we have not delayed by means of our encyclicals and other Apostolic letters to denounce their cunning and depraved plans, and to condemn their errors, and, at the same time, to expose the deadly deceits by which they very cunningly endeavor to overthrow completely the divine constitution of the Church and ecclesiastical discipline, nay, even the whole public order itself. Indeed, it has been proved by a very sad 1 RSkRP IV 150 ff.; A Col 227 ff.-George Hermes, born April 22, 1775, in the village of Dreierwalde on the Rhine in Westphalia, was professor of theology at Munster in 1 807, at Bonn in 1 820, where on May 26, 1831, he died.-In this Brief are condemned Part 1 (philosophical) and Part 2 ( theological) of the "Introduction in Theologiam Christiano-Catholicam" [ Philosoplzic Introduction to C!11"istia11-Catholic Tlzeology, Munster, 1819, and Positive Introduction to Christian-Catholic Theology, ibid. 1829 J; Part I of "Dogmatics" ( Cltristian-Catholic Dogmatics, Munster, 1834), is condemned in the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, Sept. 26, 183 5 (Analecta Iuris Pont. II 1442 £.). The Supreme Pontiff, Jan. 7, 1836, ordered that Parts 2 and 3, also of the "Dogmatics" (Munster 1835) be declared to be comprehended by the aforesaid decree. PIUS XI on July 25, 1847, confirmed both decrees.
fact that at length, laying aside the veil of pretense, they have already raised on high the banner of hostility against whatever power has been established by God. But this alone is not the most grievous cause for mourning. For in addition to those who, to the scandal of all Catholics, have given them- selves over to the enemy, to add to our bitter sorrow we see some enter- ing even into the study of theology who, through a desire and passion for novelty "ever learning and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth" [II Tim. 3:7], are teachers of error, because they have not been disciples of truth. In fact, they infect sacred studies with strange and unapproved doctrines, and they do not hesitate to profane even the office of teacher, if they hold a position in the schools and academies; they are known to falsify the most sacred deposit of faith itself, while boasting that they are protecting it. Among the teachers of this sort of error, because of his constant and almost universal reputation throughout Germany, George Hermes is numbered as one who boldly left the royal path, which universal tradition and the most Holy Fathers have marked out in explaining and vindicating the truths of faith; nay, even haughtily despising and condemning it, he is now building a darksome way to error of all kinds on positive doubt as a basis for all theological inquiry, and on the principle which states that reason is the chief norm and only me- dium whereby man can acquire knowledge of supernatural truths . . . . Therefore, we ordered that these books be handed over to the theo- logians most skilled in the German language to be diligently scrutinized in every part. . . . At length . . . [ the most Eminent Cardinal In- quisitors], weighing each and everything with great care, as the gravity of the matter demanded, judged that the author "was growing vain in his thoughts" [Rom. 1:21], and had woven into the said works many absurd ideas foreign to the teaching of the Catholic Church; but es- pecially concerning the nature of faith and the rule of things to be believed, about Sacred Scripture, tradition, revelation, and the teaching office of the Church; about motives of credibility, about proofs by which the existence of God is wont to be established and confirmed; about the essence of God Himself, His holiness, justice, liberty, and His purpose in works which the theologians call external; and also about the necessity of grace, the distribution of it and of gifts, recompense of awards, and the infliction of penalties, about the state of our first parents, original sin, and the powers of fallen man; these same books, inasmuch as they contain doctrines and propositions respectively false, rash, captious, in- ducive to skepticism and indifferentism, erroneous, scandalous, injurious to Catholic schools, destructive of divine faith, suggesting heresy and other things condemned by the Church ( the Most Eminent Cardinals) decree must be prohibited and condemned.
And so we condemn and reject the aforesaid books wherever and in 1621 whatever idiom, in every edition or version so far published or to be published in the future, which God forbid, under tenor of these present letters, and we further command that they be placed on the Index of forbidden books.
Faith and Reason (against Louis Eugene Bautain) 1 (Theses written by Bautain under order of his bishop, Sept. 8, 1840]
r. Reason can prove with certitude the existence of God and the 1622 infinity of His perfections. Faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation; hence it cannot be brought forward against an atheist to prove the ex- istence of God [cf. n. 1650]. 2. The divinity of the Mosaic revelation is proved with certitude by 1623 the oral and written tradition of the synagogue and of Christianity. 3. Proof drawn from the miracles of Jesus Christ, sensible and striking 1624 for eyewitnesses, has in no way lost its force and splendor as regards subsequent generations. We find this proof with all certitude in the authenticity of the New Testament, in the oral and written tradition of all Christians. By this double tradition we should demonstrate it ( namely, revelation) to those who either reject it or, who, not having admitted it, are searching for it. 4. We do not have the right to expect from an unbeliever that he 1625 admit the resurrection of our divine Savior before we shall have proposed definite proofs to him; and these proofs are deduced by reason from the same tradition. 5. In regard to these various questions, reason precedes faith and should 1626 lead us to it [cf. n. 1651]. 6. Although reason was rendered weak and obscure by original sin, 1627 yet there remained in it sufficient clarity and power to lead us with
1 Cf. Ass. 3 (1867) 224.-Louis Eugene Marie Bautain, born Feb. 17, 1796, at Paris, for a long time professor at Agentoratus (now Strassburg), when he had brought forth (published) certain doctrines about reason and faith different from the common opinions, was warned by his bishop (de Trcvern), who also published a pastoral in- struction about this matter. Gregory XVI in a Brief dated Dec. 20, 1834, praised the zeal of the bishop, and expressed the hope that the priest would retract his opinions. Bautain, a man highly deserving in other respects, laudably subjected himself, and on Nov. 18, 1835, wrote six orthodox propositions. Nevertheless, when the danger threat- ened that all his works would be condemned, he set out for Rome and submitted his principal work, "La Philosophic du christianisme," to ecclesiastical judgment and on Sept. 8, 1840, he rewrote the propositions mentioned above, but slightly changed, which, translated word for word (together with the original text) we present. (Cf. De Regny, L'Abbe Bautain, Paris, 1884, 248).-He died on the 15th of October, 1867.
certitude to a knowledge of the existence of God, to the revelation made to the Jews by Moses, and to Christians by our adorable Man-God. 1
The Matter of Extreme Unction 2 [From the decree of the Sacred Office under Paul V, Jan. 13, 16u, and Gregory XVI, Sept. 14, 1842]
r. Proposition: "that without doubt the sacrament of extreme unction can be validly administered with oil not consecrated by episcopal bless- ing." The Sacred Office on fan. 13, 16n, declared: it is destructive and very close to error. 2. Similarly, to the doubt: whether in a case of necessity as regards the validity of the sacrament of extreme unction, a parish priest could use oil blessed by himself. The Sacred Office, Sept. 14, 1842, replied: negatively, according to the form of the decree of Thursday in the presence of His Holiness, Jan. 13, r6rr, which resolution Gregory XVI approved on the same day. 1 The original text (written in the French language) in Der Katholik 79 (1841), LVI fI.-The theses already written by Bautain Nov. 18, 1835, at the order of his bishop are these: I. Reasoning can prove with certainty the existence of God.-Faith, a gift from heaven, is posterior to revelation; therefore, it cannot suitably be brought forward against an atheist as a proof of the existence of God.-2. The Mosaic revelation is proved with certainty by the oral and written tradition of the synagogue and of Christianity.-3. The proof of Christian revelation, drawn from the miracles 0f Jesus Christ, sensitive and striking for eyewitnesses, has not at all lost its strength and its brilliance for subsequent generations. We find this proof in the oral and written tradi- tion of all Christians. It is by this double tradition that we should demonstrate it to those who reject it or who, without yet admitting it, desire it.-4. We have no right to expect an unbeliever to admit the resurrection of our divine Savior before we have given him certain proofs of it; and these proofs are deduced from the same tradition by reasoning.-5. The use of reason precedes faith and leads man to it by revelation and grace.-6. Reason can prove with certainty the authenticity of the revelation made to the Jews by Moses and to the Christians by Jesus Christ (Der Katholik, 59 [ 1836] XXV).-Bautain, April 26, 1844 (when he had in mind to found a religious com- munity) was ordered by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars to promise in writing: 1. Never to teach that with the sole light of right reason, leaving divine revelation out of account, one cannot give a true demonstration of the existence of God.-2. . . . that with reason alone one cannot demonstrate the spirituality and im- mortality of the soul or any other purely natural, rational or moral truth.-3. that with reason alone one cannot have knowledge of principles or of metaphysics, as well as of the truths which depend on them, as a knowledge quite distinct-from the supernatural theology which is founded on divine revelation.-4. . .. that reason cannot acquire a true and full certainty of the motives of credibility, that is to say, of those motives that render divine revelation clearly believable, such as are especially the miracles and the prophecies, particularly the resurrection of Jesus Christ" [see n. 1650 f.J, (Diet. de Theo/. Catha/., II, 482). 2 A Col 1860, 232.
Versions of Sacred Scripture 1 [From the Encyclical, "Inter praecipuas," May 6, 1844]
Indeed, you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, 1630 it has been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the tradi- tional Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or alter the explanation of the meaning. In short, you are not ignorant of how much diligence and wisdom is needed to translate faithfully into another tongue the words of the Lord; so that, surely, nothing could happen more easily than that in the versions of these Scriptures, multiplied by the Biblical societies, very grave errors creep in from the imprudence or deceit of so many translators; further, the very multitude and variety of those versions conceal these errors for a long time to the destruction of many. However, it is of little or no interest at all to these societies whether the men likely to read these Bibles translated into the vulgar tongue, fall into some errors rather than others, provided they grow accustomed little by little to claiming free judgment for themselves with regard to the sense of the Scriptures, and also to despising the divine tradition of the Fathers which has been guarded by the teaching of the Catholic Church, and to re- pudiating the teaching office itself of the Church. Toward this end those same Biblical associates do not cease to slander 1631 the Church and this Holy See of PETER, as if it were attempting for these many centuries to keep the faithful people from a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures; although, on the other hand, there are extant many very illuminating documents of remarkable learning which the Supreme Pontiffs and other Catholic bishops under their leadership, have used in these more recent times, that Catholic peoples might be educated more exactly according to the written and traditional word of God. Among those rules, which have been written by the Fathers chosen 1632 by the Council of Trent and approved by Pius IV 2 • • • and set in the front part of the Index of prohibited books, in the general sanction of the statutes one reads that Bibles published in a vulgar tongue were not permitted to anyone, except to those to whom the reading of them was judged to be beneficial for the increase of their faith and piety. To this same rule, limited immediately by a new caution because of the persistent deceits of heretics, this declaration was at length appended by the au- thority of Benedict XIV, that permission is granted for reading vernacular versions which have been approved by the Apostolic See, or have been edited with annotations drawn from the Holy Fathers of the Church or 1 ASS 9 (1876) 621 ff. 2 See n. I 606, note 2.
from learned Catholic men. . . . All the aforesaid Biblical societies, condemned a short time ago by our predecessors, we again condemn with Apostolic authority. Hence, let it be known to everyone that all those will be guilty of a very grave fault in the eyes of God and of the Church who persume to enroll in any one of these societies, or to adapt their work to them or to favor them in any way whatsoever.
Faith and Reason 1 [From the Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846]
For you know, Venerable Brethren, that these hostile enemies of the Christian name, unhappily seized by a certain blind force of mad impiety, proceed with this rashness of thought that "opening their mouth unto blasphemies against God" [cf. Apoc. 13:6] with a boldness utterly unknown, are not ashamed to teach openly and publicly that the most holy mysteries of our religion are the fictions and inventions of men; that the teachi~g of the Catholic Church is opposed [ see n. 1740] to the good and to the advantage of society, and they do not fear even to abjure Christ Himself and God. And, to delude the people more easily and to deceive especially the incautious and the inexperienced, and to drag them with themselves into error, they pretend that the ways to prosperity are known to them alone; and do not hesitate to arrogate to themselves the name of philosophers, just as if philosophy, which is occupied wholly in investigating the truth of nature, ought to reject those truths which the supreme and most clement God Himself, author of all nature, deigned to manifest to men with singular kindness and mercy, in order that men might obtain true happiness and salvation. Hence, by a preposterous and deceitful kind of argumentation, they never cease to invoke the power and excellence of human reason, to proclaim it against the most sacred faith of Christ, and, what is more, they boldly prate that it (faith) is repugnant to human reason [ see n. 1706]. Certainly, nothing more insane, nothing more impious, nothing more repugnant to reason itself can be imagined or thought of than this. For, even if faith is above reason, nevertheless, no true dissension or disagreement can ever be found between them, since both have their origin from one and the same font of immutable, eternal truth, the excellent and great God, and they mutually help one another so much that right reason demonstrates the truth of faith, protects it, defends it; 1 Aexq 5 ff.; AP I 6 ff.; ACol 232 ff.
but faith frees reason from all errors and, by a knowledge of divine things, wonderfully elucidates it, confirms, and perfects it [ cf. n. 1799 l, And with no less deceit certainly, Venerable Brothers, those enemies 1636 of divine revelation, exalting human progress with the highest praise, with a rash and sacrilegious daring would wish to introduce it into the Catholic religion, just as if religion itself were not the work of God but of men, or were some philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means [ cf. n. 1705]. Against such unhappily raving men applies very conveniently, indeed, what Tertullian deservedly made a matter of reproach to the philosophers of his own time: "Who have produced a stoic and platonic and dialectic Christianity." 1 And since, indeed, our most holy religion has not been invented by human reason but has been mercifully disclosed to men by God, thus everyone easily understands that religion itself acquires all its force from the authority of the same God speaking, and cannot ever be drawn from or be perfected by human reason. Indeed, human reason, lest it be deceived and err in a matter of so 1637 great importance, ought to search diligently for the fact of divine reve- lation so that it can know with certainty that God has spoken, and so render to Him, as the Apostle so wisely teaches, "a rational service" [Rom. 12:1]. For who does not know, or cannot know that all faith is to be given to God who speaks, and that nothing is more suitable to reason itself than to acquiesce and firmly adhere to those truths which it has been established were revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? But, how many, how wonderful, how splendid are the proofs at hand 1638 by which human reason ought to be entirely and most clearly convinced that the religion of Christ is divine, and that "every principle of our dogmas has received its root from above, from the Lord of the heavens," 2 and that, therefore, nothing is more certain than our faith, nothing more secure, that there is nothing more holy and nothing which is supported on firmer principles. For, in truth, this faith is the teacher of life, the index of salvation, the expeller of all faults, and the fecund parent and nurse of virtues, confirmed by the birth, life, death, resurrection, wisdom, miracles, prophecies of its author and consummator, Christ Jesus; every- where resplendent with the light of a supernatural teaching and enriched with the treasures of heavenly riches, especially clear and significant by the predictions of so many prophets, by the splendor of so many miracles, by the constancy of so many martyrs, by the glory of so many saints, revealing the salutary laws of Christ and acquiring greater strength every day from these most cruel persecutions, ( this faith) has pervaded 1 Tertullian, De praescript. haer., c. 7 [ML 2, 20 BJ. 2 S. Chrysost., Interpretation on Isaias the prophet, c. I (MG 56, 14).
the whole earth by land and sea, from the rising to the setting of the sun, under the one standard of the Cross, and also, having overcome the deceits of idolaters and torn away the mist of errors and triumphed over enemies of every kind, it has illuminated with the light of divine knowl- edge all peoples, races, nations, howsoever barbarous in culture and different in disposition, customs, laws, and institutions; and has sub- jected them to the most sweet yoke of Christ Himself, "announcing peace" to all, "announcing good" [Isa. 52:7 ]. All of this certainly shines everywhere with so great a glory of divine wisdom and power that the mind and intelligence of each one clearly understands that the Christian Faith is the work of God. And so, human reason, knowing clearly and openly from these most splendid and equally strong proofs that God is the author of the same faith, can proceed no further; but, having completely cast aside and removed every difficulty and doubt, it should render all obedience to this faith, since it holds as certain that whatever faith itself proposes to man to be believed or to be done, has been transmitted by God. 1
Civil Marriage 2 [From the Allocution, "Acerbissimum vobiscum," Sept. 27, 1852]
We say nothing about that other decree in which, after completely despising the mystery, dignity, and sanctity of the sacrament of matri- mony; after utterly ignoring and distorting its institution and nature; and after completely spurning the power of the Church over the same sacrament, it was proposed, according to the already condemned errors of heretics, and against the teaching of the Catholic Church, that mar- riage should be considered as a civil contract only, and that divorce, 1 When the Hermesians dared to interpret these words of the Pontiff as if he were confirming and protecting the doctrine of Hermes, PIUS IX wrote letters, dated July 25, 1847, to John, Archbishop of Cologne, later His Reverend Eminence Cardinal de G~issel, in which he confirmed the Brief of GREGORY XVI, Sept. 26, 1835, and the added decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and he rejected and condemned the works of Hermes. 2 Aexq 117; AP I 392 £.;cf.ASS 1 (1865), 508 ff.-The commonwealth of New
Granada had already in the year 1845 passed a law injurious to the rights of the Church, which merited the attention of GREGORY XVI. But the rulers of that region were so far from withdrawing their steps from the road they had undertaken (or, from the journey they had begun) that they harassed the religious orders by new decrees, appropriated ecclesiastical goods for secular uses, persecuted the bishops who were resisting with invincible faith, and finally violated the sanctity of the sacrament by introducing civil marriage. Therefore the Supreme Pontiff decided that he should cry out publicly against such iniquitous laws. Newspapers reported that the Supreme Pontiff exposed the same doctrine about civil marriage, in a letter elated Sept. 19, 1 852, to the King of Sardinia, in whose realm this innovation was introduced.
41 3 strictly speaking, should be sanctioned in various cases ( see n. 1767); and that all matrimonial cases should be deferred to lay tribunals and be judged by them (seen. 1774); because no Catholic is ignorant or cannot know that matrimony is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, and that for that reason, there can be no marriage between the faithful without there being at one and the same time a sacrament, and that, therefore, any other union of man and woman among Christians, except the sacramental union, even if contracted under the power of any civil law, is nothing else than a disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage very frequently condemned by the Church, and, hence, that the sacrament can never be separated from the conjugal agreement (see n. 1773), and that it pertains abso- lutely to the power of the Church to discern those things which can pertain in any way to the same matrimony.
Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M. 1 [From the Bull, "Ineflabilis Deus," Dec. 8, 1854]
To the honor of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, to the glory 1641 and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the au- thority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own, We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and on this account must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faith- ful. Wherefore, if any should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; and what is more, that by their own act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they
1 CL VI 842 cf.; AP I 616; ACol 238; Analecta foris Pontificii I, 1218.-PIUS IX promulgated the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the whole Catholic world asking for it and approving. Afterwards, at the time of the Vatican Council, 204 bishops and theologians urged a dogmatic definition con- cerning the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary for this reason: that, unless the "very firm belief of the Church regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is to be called a very tenuous belief-which it is impious to think of-, it should be most firmly held, that it (the Assumption) has its origin from the divine-apostolic tradi- tion, i.e., revelation" [CL VII 868 ff.].
think in their heart, they should dare to signify by word or writing or any other external means.
Rationalism and Indifferentism 1 [From the Allocution, "Singulari quadem," Dec. 9, 1854]
There are, besides, Venerable Brothers, certain men pre-eminent in learning, who confess that religion is by far the most excellent gift given by God to men, who, nevertheless, hold human reason at so high a value, exalt it so much, that they very foolishly think that it is to be held equal to religion itself. Hence, according to the rash opinion of these men, theological studies should be treated in the same manner as philo- sophical studies [ see n. 1708], although, nevertheless, the former are based on the dogmas of faith, than which nothing is more fixed and certain, while the latter are explained and illustrated by human reason, than which nothing is more uncertain, inasmuch as they vary according to the variety of natural endowments and are subject to numberless errors and delusions. Therefore, the authority of the Church being rejected, a very broad field lies open to every difficult and abstract question, and human reason, trusting too freely in its own weak strength, has fallen headlong into most shameful errors, which there is neither time nor inclination to mention here; for, they are well known to you and have been examined by you, and they have brought harm, and that very great, to both religious and civil affairs. Therefore, it is necessary to show to those men who exalt more than is just the strength of human reason that it ( their attitude) is definitely contrary to those true words of the Doctor of the Gentiles: "If any man think himself to be something, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself" [Gal. 6:3]. And so it is necessary to show them how great is their arrogance in examining the mysteries which God in His great goodness has deigned to reveal to us, and in pretending to understand and to comprehend them by the weak- ness and narrowness of the human mind, since those mysteries far exceed the power of our intellect which, in the words of the same Apostle, should be made captive unto the obedience of faith [cf. II Cor. rn:5]. And so, such followers, or rather worshipers of human reason, who set up reason as a teacher of certitude, and who promise themselves that all things will be fortunate under its leadership, have certainly forgotten how grave and terrible a wound was inflicted on human nature from the fault of our first parent; for darkness has spread over the mind, and the will has been inclined to evil. For this reason, the famous philosophers of ancient times, although they wrote many things very clearly, have 1 CL VI 844 d ff.; Aexq 122 ff.; AP I 623 ff.; Rsk RP IV 370 ff.
nevertheless contaminated their teachings with most grave errors; hence that constant struggle which we experience in ourselves, of which the Apostle says: "I see a law in my members fighting against the law of my mind" [Rom. 7=23]. Now, since it is agreed that by the original sin propagated in all the 1644 posterity of Adam, the light of reason has been decreased; and since the human race has most miserably fallen from its pristine state of justice and innocence, who could think that reason is sufficient to attain to truth? Who, lest he fall and be ruined in the midst of such great dangers and in such great weakness of his powers, would deny that he needs the aid of a divine religion, and of heavenly grace for salvation? These aids, indeed, God most graciously bestows on those who ask for them by humble prayer, since it is written: "God resisteth the pro~d and giveth grace to the humble" [Jas. 4:6]. Therefore, turning toward the Father, Christ our Lord affirmed that the deepest secrets of truth have not been disclosed "to the wise and prudent of this world," who take pride in their own talents and learning, and refuse to render obedience to faith, but rather (have been revealed) to humble and simple men who rely and rest on the oracle of divine faith [cf. Matt. rr:25; Luke ro:21]. You should inculcate this salutary lesson in the souls of those who 1645 exaggerate the strength of human reason to such an extent that they venture by its help to scrutinize and explain even mysteries, although nothing is more inept, nothing more foolish. Strive to withdraw them from such perversity of mind by explaining indisputably that nothing more excellent has been given by the providence of God to man than the authority of divine faith; that this is for us, as it were, a torch in the darkness, a guide which we follow to life; that this is absolutely neces- sary for salvation; for, "without faith •.. it is impossible to please God" [Heb. n:6] and "he that believeth not, shall be condemned" [Mark 16:16]. Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less de- 1646 structive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ [seen. 1717]. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgments of God" which are "a great deep" [Ps. 35:7] and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and
vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice. For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" (I John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, "for the hand of the Lord is not shortened" [ Isa. 9: 1] and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls.
False Traditionalism (against Augustine Bonnetty) 1 [From the Decree of the S.C. of the Index, rr, (15) June, 1855]
I. "Although faith is above reason, nevertheless no true dissension, no disagreement can ever be found between them, since both arise from the one same immutable source of truth, the most excellent and great God, and thus bring mutual help to each other" 2 [ cf. n. 1635 and 1799 ]. 1 ASS 3 (1867) 224.-Augustine Bonnetty, born April 9, 1798, in the town of Entrevaux, France, besides various other philosophical writings, founded the journal: "Annales de philosophie chretienne." He subscribed to the theses proposed to him by the Sacred Council of the Index; he died March 29, 1879. 2 From the Encyclical of Pius IX, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 [cf. n. 1634 ff.].
2. Reason can prove with certitude the existence of God, the spiritual- 1650 ity of the soul, the freedom of man. Faith is posterior to revelation, and hence it cannot be conveniently alleged to prove the existence of God to an atheist, or to prove the spirituality and the freedom of the rational soul against a follower of naturalism and fatalism [ cf. n. 1622, 1625]. 3. The use of reason precedes faith and leads men to it by the help 1651 of revelation and of grace [ cf. n. 1626]. 4. The method which St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure and other 1652 scholastics after them used does not lead to rationalism, nor has it been the reason why philosophy in today's schools is falling into naturalism and pantheism. Therefore, it is not lawful to charge as a reproach against these doctors and teachers that they made use of this method, especially since the Church approves, or at least keeps silent.1
The Misuse of Magnetism 2 (From the Encyclical of the Holy Office, Aug. 4, 1856]
Already some responses on this subject have been given by the 1653 Holy See to particular cases, in which those experiments are condemned as illicit which are arranged for a purpose not natural, not honest, and not attained by proper means; therefore, in similar cases it was decreed on Wednesday, April 21, 1841: "The use of magnetism, as it is ex- plained, is not permitted." Similarly, the Sacred Congregation decreed that certain books stubbornly disseminating errors of this kind should be condemned. But because, aside from particular cases, the use of magnetism in general had to be considered, by way of a rule therefore it was so stated on Wednesday, July 28, 1847: "When all error, sooth- saying, explicit or implicit invocation of the demon is removed, the use of magnetism, i.e., the mere act of employing physical media otherwise licit, is not morally forbidden, provided it does not tend to an illicit end or to one that is in any manner evil. However, the application of prin- ciples and purely physical means to things and effects truly supernatural, in order to explain them physically, is nothing but deception altogether illicit and heretical." Although by this general decree the lawfulness and unlawfulness in the 1654 use or misuse of magnetism were satisfactorily explained, nevertheless the wickedness of men grew to such an extent that neglecting the legit- imate study of the science, pursuing rather the curious, with great loss to souls and detriment to civil society itself, they boast that they have discovered the principle of foretelling and divining. Thus, girls with the 1 These propositions are contradictory to the propositions asserted here and there by Bonnetty. 2 ASS I (1865) 177 f.; CL VI 103 a; cf. The Compilation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, I (1907), n. 1128.
tricks of sleepwalking and of clear-gazing, as they call it, carried away by delusions and gestures not always modest, proclaim that they see the invisible, and they pretend with rash boldness to hold talks even about religion, to evoke the souls of the dead, to receive answers, to reveal the unknown and the distant, and to practice other superstitious things of that sort, intending to acquire great gain for themselves and for their masters through their divining. Therefore, in all these, whatever art or illusion they employ, since physical media are used for unnatural effects, there is deception altogether illicit and heretical, and a scandal against honesty of morals. 1
The False Doctrine of Anton Guenther 2 [From the Brief, "Eximiam tuam" to Cardinal de Geissel, Archbishop of Cologne, June 15, 1857]
Not without sorrow are We especially aware that in these books that erroneous and most dangerous system of rationalism, often condemned by this Apostolic See, is particularly dominant; and likewise we know that in the same books these items among many others are found, which are not a little at variance with the Catholic Faith and with the true explanation of the unity of the divine substance in three distinct, eternal Persons. Likewise, we have found that neither better nor more accurate are the statements made about the mystery of the Incarnate Word, and about the unity of the divine Person of the Word in two natures, divine and human. We know that in the same books there is harm to the Catholic opinion and teaching concerning man, who is so composed of body and soul that the soul, and that rational, may of itself be the true and immediate form of the body. 3 And we are not unaware that in the
1 Cf. the Response of the Sacred Office, July 26, 1899, about the experiments of hypnotism [Compilation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, II (1907) n. 2061 ]. 2 ASS 8 (1874) 446 f.; Aexq 166 f.; AP II 587 f.; RskRP IV 383 f.; ACol 241;
Analecta luris Pontzficii, II, 1445 £.~Anton Guenther, horn Nov. 17, 1783, in the town of Lindenau, Bohemia, was ordained a priest in 1820; he lived at Vienna from 1824 until his death Feb. 24, 1863, and wrote while there various philosophical and theological works. His works were stopped by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, promulgated on Jan. 8, 1857, and approved by the Supreme Pontiff on Feb. 17, 1857, to which decree the author submitted in a praiseworthy manner. But when certain followers of Guenther, because his opinions were not enumerated in- dividually in that general decree, took occasion from it to think that he was permitted to persist in them, the Supreme Pontiff in a letter sent to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne noted individually the errors of Guenther in these words. 3 PIUS IX in the letter, "Dolore haud mediocri," to the Bishop of Wratislava (Breslau) on the 30th of April, 1860, declares: "The opinion which places in man one principle of life namely the rational soul, from which the body also receives movement,
same books those teachings are stated and defended which are plainly opposed to the Catholic doctrine about the supreme liberty of God, who is free from any necessity whatsoever in creating things. And also that extremely wicked and condemned doctrine which in 1656 Guenther's books rashly attributes the rights of a master both to human reason and philosophy, whereas they should be wholly handmaids, not masters in religious matters; and therefore all those things are disturbed which should remain most stable, not only concerning the distinction between science and faith, but also concerning the eternal immutability of faith, which is always one and the same, while philosophy and human studies are not always consistent, and are not immune to a multiple variety of errors. In addition, the Holy Fathers are not held in that reverence which 1657 the canons of the Councils prescribe, and which these splendid lights of the Catholic Church so altogether deserve, nor does he refrain from the slurring remarks against Catholic Schools, which Our predecessor of cherished memory, PIUS VI, solemnly condemned [see n. 1576]. Nor shall we pass over in silence that in Guenther's books "the sound 1658 form of speaking" is completely outraged, as if it were lawful to forget the words of the Apostle Paul [ II Tim. 1: 13], or those which Augustine most earnestly advised: "It is right for us to speak according to a fixed rule, lest liberty with words give birth to an impious opm10n, even about the things which are signified by them" 1 [seen. 1714 a].
Errors of the Ontologists 2 [From the decree of the Sacred Office, Sept. 18, 1861, "they cannot be safely taught"]
1. Immediate knowledge of God, habitual at least, is essential to the 1659 human intellect, so much so that without it the intellect can know nothing, since indeed it is itself intellectual light. 2. That being which is in all things and without which we under- 1660 stand nothing, is the divine being. 3. Universals considered on the part of the thing are not really distin- 1661 guished from God. and all life, and sense, is the most common in the Church of God, and to many highly approved doctors it seems to be so intimately joined with the dogma of the Church that this is the sole legitimate, true interpretation of it, and hence not without error in faith could it be denied." [Aexq 178; RskRP IV 399; A Franz, I B. Baltzer 40]. Therefore, the Cologne Council says: "There can be no doubt that, according to the mind of the Councils, all the operations of our life are accomplished by the rational soul itself created by God" . . . [CL V 293 b; ACol 32; cf. n. 19n f.]. 1 St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 1, 10, c. 23 [ML 41 (Aug. VII) 300]. 2 ASS 3 (1867) 204 f.
4. Congenital knowledge of God as being simply involves in an eminent way all other cognition, so that by it we hold as known im- plicitly all being, under whatever aspect it is knowable. 5. All other ideas do not exist except as modifications of the idea by which God is understood as Being simply. 6. Created things exist in God as a part in the whole, not indeed in the formal whole, but in the infinite whole, the most simple, which puts its parts, as it were, without any division and diminution of itself out- side itself. 7. Creation can be thus explained: God, by that special act by which He knows Himself, and wills Himself as distinct from a determined creature, man, for example, produces a creature.
The False Freedom of Science (against James Frohschammer) 1 [From the epistle, "Gravissimas inter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. II, 1862]
Amidst the terrible anguish by which we are pressed on all sides in the great restlessness and iniquity of these times, we are sorely grieved to learn that in various regions of Germany are found some men, even Catholics, who, betraying sacred theology as well as philosophy, do not hesitate to introduce a certain freedom of teaching and writing hitherto unheard of in the Church, and to profess openly and publicly new and altogether reprehensible opinions, and to disseminate them among the people. Hence, We were affected with no light grief, Venerable Brother, when the sad message reached Us that the priest, James Frohschammer, teacher of philosophy in the Academy at Munich, was displaying, beyond all the rest, freedom of teaching and writing in this manner, and was defending these most dangerous errors in his works that have been published. Therefore, with no delay We commanded Our Congregation appointed for censuring books to weigh with great diligence and care the particular volumes which are circulating under the name of the same priest, Froh- schammer, and to report all findings to Us. These volumes written in German have the title: lntroductio in Philophiam, De Libertate scientiae, Athenaeum, the first of which was published in the year 1858, the second in the year 186r, but the third at the turn of this year 186z, by the Munich press. And so the said Congregation .•. judged that the
1 ASS 8 (1874) 429 ff.; Aexq 219 ff.; AP III 548 ff.; RskRP IV 458 ff.-Jacob Frohschammer, born, Jan. 6, 1821, in the village of Illkofen, Bavaria, taught in the University of Munich from the year 1854; he died June 14, 1893.
author in many matters does not think correctly, and that his doctrine is far from Catholic truth. And this, especially in a twofold direction; the first, indeed, because 1668 the author attributes such powers to human reason which are not at all appropriate to reason itself; and the second, because he grants to the same reason such liberty of judging all things, and of always venturing any- thing, that the rights of the Church itself, its office and authority are completely taken away. For the author teaches especially that philosophy, if a right notion of 1669 it is held, cannot only perceive and understand those Christian dogmas which natural reason has in common with faith ( as, for instance, a common object of perception), but also those which particularly and properly affect Christian religion and faith, namely, the supernatural end of man, and all that is related to it; and also, that the most holy mystery of the Incarnation of the Lord belongs to the province of human reason- ing and philosophy; and that reason, when this object is presented to it, can by its own proper principles, arrive at those (dogmas) with under- standing. But, although the author makes some distinction between these (natural) dogmas and those (Christian), and assigns these latter with less right to reason, nevertheless, he clearly and openly teaches that these (Christian) dogmas also are contained among those which con- stitute the true and proper matter of science or philosophy. Therefore, according to the teaching of the same author, it can and should be def- initely concluded that, even in the deepest mysteries of divine wisdom and goodness, nay, even of Its free will, granted that the object of revelation be posited, reason can of itself, no longer on the principle of divine authority, but on its own natural principles and strength, reach understanding or certitude. How "false" and "erroneous" this teaching of the author is, there is no one, even though lightly imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, who does not see immediately and clearly understand. For, if these worshipers of philosophy were protecting the true and 1670 sole principles and rights of reason and philosophic study, they should certainly be honored with merited praise. Indeed, true and sound phi- losophy has its own most noble position, since it is the characteristic of such philosophy to search diligently into truth, and to cultivate and illustrate rightly and carefully human reason, darkened as it is by the guilt of the first man, but by no means extinct; and to perceive, to understand well, to advance the object of its cognition and many truths; and to demonstrate, vindicate, and defend, by arguments sought from its own principles, many of those truths, such as the existence, nature, attributes of God which faith also proposes for our belief; and, in this way, to build a road to those dogmas more correctly held by faith, and
even to those more profound dogmas which can be perceived by faith alone at first, so that they may in some way be understood by reason. The exacting and most beautiful science of true philosophy ought, in- deed, to do such things and to be occupied with them. If the learned men in the academies of Germany would make efforts to excel in this, in proportion to that peculiar well-known inclination of that nation to culti- vate the more serious and exacting studies, their zeal would be approved and commended by Us, because they would b~ turning to the utility and progress of sacred things that which they have learned for their own uses, But, in truth, We can never tolerate that in so grave a matter as this surely is, that all things be rashly confused, and that reason should seize upon and disturb those things which pertain also to faith, since the limits beyond which reason in its own right has never advanced nor can advance, are fixed and well-known to all. To dogmas of this sort per- tain particularly and openly all those which treat of the supernatural elevation of man and his supernatural intercourse with God, and which are known to have been revealed for this purpose. And surely, since these dogmas are above nature, they cannot, therefore, be reached by natural reason and natural principles. For, indeed, reason by its own natural principles can never be made fit to handle scientifically dogmas of this sort. But, if those men dare to assert this rashly, let them know that they are withdrawing, not merely from the opinion of a few learned persons, but from the common and never changing doctrine of the Church. For, from the divine Scriptures and from the tradition of the Holy Fathers, it is agreed indeed that the existence of God and many other truths were known [ cf. Rom. r] by the natural light of reason, even by those who had not yet received the faith, but that God alone manifested those more hidden dogmas when He wished to make known "the mystery, which had been hidden from ages and generations" [Col. r :26]. And in such a way indeed that, "at sundry times and in diverse manners He had formerly spoken to the fathers by the prophets, last of all . . . He might speak to us by His Son, . . . by whom He also made the world" [Heb. r:r f.]. For "no man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him" [John r:r8]. Therefore, the Apostle who testifies that the gentiles knew God by those things which were made, discoursing about "grace and truth" which "came by Jesus Christ" [John r:r7], says, "We speak of the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hid- den . . . which none of the princes of this world know . . . But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For, what man knoweth the things
42 3 of man but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God, no man knoweth but the Spirit of God" [I Cor. 2:7 f]. Adhering to these and other almost innumerable divine texts, the 1673 Holy Fathers, in transmitting the teaching of the Church, have con- stantly taken care to distinguish the knowledge of divine things which is common to all by the power of natural intelligence, from the knowledge of those things which is received on faith through the Holy Spirit; and they have continuously taught that through this (faith) those mysteries are revealed to us in Christ which transcend not only human philosophy but even the angelic natural intelligence, and which, although they are known through divine revelation and have been accepted by faith, never- theless, remain still covered by the sacred veil of faith itself, and wrapped in an obscuring mist as long as we are absent from the Lord 1 in this mo.rtal life. From all this, it is clear that the proposition of Frohscham- mer is wholly foreign to the teaching of the Catholic Church, since he does not hesitate to assert that all the dogmas of the Christian religion without discrimination are the object of natural science or philosophy, and that human reason, cultivated so much throughout history, pro- vided these dogmas have been proposed to reason itself as an object, can from its own natural powers and principle, arrive at the true understand- ing concerning all, even the more hidden dogmas [see n. 1709]. But now, in the said writings of this author another opinion prevails 1674 which is plainly opposed to the teaching and understanding of the Catholic Church. For, he attributes that freedom to philosophy which must be called not the freedom of science but an utterly reprobate and intolerable license of philosophy. For, having made a certain distinction between a philosopher and philosophy, he attributes to a "philosopher" the right and duty of submitting himself to the authority which he him- self has approved as true, but he denies both ( right and duty) to philosophy, so that taking no account of revealed doctrine he asserts that it (philosophy) ought never and can never submit itself to authority. And this might be tolerable and perhaps admissible, if it were said only about the right which philosophy has to use its own principles or methods, and its own conclusions, as also the other sciences, and if its liberty consisted in employing this right in such a way that it would admit nothing into itself which had not been acquired by it under its -0wn conditions, or was foreign to it. But, such true freedom of philos-
1 St. John Chrysostom, Homily 7 (9) on I Cor. (MG 6r, 53); St. Ambrose, De fide, to Grat. I, ro (ML r6, 542 D); St. LEO, Sermon on the Nativity of the Lord 9 (sermo 29: ML 54, 226 B); St. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Nestorius r, 3 in the be- ginning [MG 76, rrr A]; Commentary on John r, 9 [MG 73, 124 CJ; St. John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, r, 2 [MG 94, 794 B]; St. Jerome, Commentary on Gal. 3, 2 [ML 26, 348 C].
ophy must understand and observe its own limitations. For, it will never be permitted either to a philosopher, or to philosophy, to say any- thing contrary to those things which divine revelation and the Church teaches, or to call any of them into doubt because (he or it) does not understand them, or to refuse the judgment which the authority of the Church decides to bring forward concerning some conclusion of philos- ophy which was hitherto free. It also happens that the same author so bitterly, so rashly fights for the liberty, or rather the unbridled license .of philosophy that he does. not at all fear to assert that the Church not only ought never to pay any attention to philosophy, but should even tolerate the errors of phi- losophy itself, and leave it to correct itself [ see n. 17u]; from which it happens that philosophers necessarily share in this liberty of philosophy, and so even they are freed from all law. Who does not see how force- fully an opinion and teaching of this sort of Frohschammer's should be rejected, reproved, and altogether condemned? For the Church, from her divine institution, has the duty both to hold most diligently to the deposit of faith, whole and inviolate, and to watch continually with great earnestness over the salvation of souls, and with the greatest care to remove and eliminate all those things which can be opposed to faith or can in any way endanger the salvation of souls. Therefore, the Church, by the power entrusted to it by its divine Founder, has not only the right, but particularly the duty of not tolerat- ing but of proscribing and condemning all errors, if the integrity of faith and the salvation of souls so demand; and on every philosopher who wishes to be a son of the Church, and also on philosophy, it lays this duty-never to say anything against those things which the Church teaches, and to retract those about which the Church has warned them. Moreover, We proclaim and declare that a doctrine which teaches the contrary is entirely erroneous and especially harmful to faith itself, to the· Church and its authority.
Indifferentism 1 [From the Encyclical, "Quanta conficiamur moerore," to the bishops of Italy, Aug. IO, 1863]
And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are un- happily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [ see n. 1717 ]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teach-
1 Aexq 229 £.; AP III 613 f.
ing. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ig- norance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved out- side the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom "the guard- ianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior," 1 cannot obtain eternal salvation. But, God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way 1678 be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or affiicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and "being fruitful in every good work" [ Col. 1: IO], they may attain eternal salvation.
The Conventions of the Theologians of Germany 2 [From the letter, "Tuas libenter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. 21, 1863]
••• Indeed we were aware, Venerable Brother, that some Catholics 1679 who devote their time to cultivating the higher studies, trusting too much in the powers of human ability, have not been frightened by the dangers of errors, lest, in asserting the false and insincere liberty of science, they be snatched away beyond the limits beyond which the obedience due to the teaching power of the Church, divinely appointed to preserve the integrity of all revealed truth, does not permit them to proceed. There- fore, it happens that Catholics of this sort are unhappily deceived, and
1 Council of CHALCEDON in relation to Leo I [cf. n. 149]. 2 ASS 8 (1874) 438 ff.; Aexq 244 £.; AP III 638 ff.; RskRP IV 487 ff.
often agree with those who decry and protest against the decrees of this Apostolic See and of Our Congregations, that they (decrees) hinder the free progress of science [ see n. 1712]; and they expose themselves to the danger of breaking those sacred ties of obedience by which, according to the will of God, they are bound to this same Apostolic See which has been appointed by God as the teacher and defender of truth. Nor, are We ignorant that in Germany also there prevailed a false opinion against the old school, and against the teaching of those supreme doctors [seen. 1713], whom the universal Church venerates because of their admirable wisdom and sanctity of life. By this false opinion the authority of the Church itself is called into danger, especially since the Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has permitted that theological science be cultivated according to the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanctioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but it ( the Church) also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises, and strongly recommended it as a very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against its enemies . . . . Indeed, since all the men of this assembly, as you write, have asserted that the progress of science and its happy result in avoiding and refuting the errors of our most wretched age depend entirely on a close adherence to revealed trut.hs which the Catholic Church teaches, they themselves have recognized and professed that truth, which true Catholics devoted to cultivating and setting forth knowledge, have always held and handed down. And so, relying on this truth, these wise and truly Catholic men could cultivate these sciences in safety, explain them, and make them useful and certain. And this could not be achieved if the light of human reason, circumscribed by limits in investigating those truths also which it can attain by its own powers and faculties, did not venerate above all, as is just, the infallible and uncreated light of the divine intellect which shines forth wonderfully everywhere in Christian revelation. For, al- though those natural disciplines rely on their own proper principles, apprehended by reason, nevertheless, Catholic students of these disciplines should have divine revelation before their eyes as a guiding star, by whose light they may guard against the quicksands of errors, when they discover that in their investigations and interpretations they can be led by them ( natural principles )-as often happens-to profess those things which are more or less opposed to the infallible truth of things which have been revealed by God. Hence, We do not doubt that the men of this assembly, knowing and professing the truth mentioned above, have wished at one and the same time clearly to reject and repudiate that recent and preposterous method
of philosophizing which, even if it admits divine revelation as an his- torical fact, nevertheless, submits the ineffable truths made known by divine revelation to the investigations of human reason; just as if those truths had been subject to reason, or, as if reason, by its own powers and principles, could attain understanding and knowledge of all the supernal truths and mysteries of our holy faith, which are so far above human reason that it can never be made fit to understand or demonstrate them by its own powers, and on its own natural principles [see n. 1709]. Indeed, We honor with due praise the men of this same convention be- cause, rejecting, as We think, the false distinction between philosopher and philosophy, about which We have spoken in our other letter to you [seen. 1674 ], they have realized and professed that all Catholics in their learned interpretations should in conscience obey the dogmatic decrees of the infallible Catholic Church. While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they pro· 1683 fessed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are ab- solutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [ see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recog- nized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all 1684 those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological
truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
The Unity of the Church 1 [From the letter of the Sacred Office to the bishops of England, Sept. 16, 1864]
It has been made known to the Apostolic See that some Catholic lay- men and ecclesiastics have enrolled in a society to "procure" as they say, the unity of Christianity, established at London in the year 1857, and that already many journalistic articles have been published, which are signed by the names of Catholics approving this society, or which are shown to be the work of churchmen commending this same society. But certainly, I need not say what the nature of this society is, and whither it is tending; this is easily understood from the articles of the newspaper entitled THE UNION REVIEW, and from that very page on which members are invited and listed. Indeed, formed and directed by Protestants, it is animated by that spirit which expressly avows for ex- ample, that the three Christian communions, Roman Catholic, Greek- schismatic, and Anglican, however separated and divided from one an- other, nevertheless with equal right claim for themselves the name Catholic. Admission, therefore, into that society is open to all, whereso- ever they may live, Catholics, Greek-schismatics, and Anglicans, under this condition, however, that no one is permitted to raise a question about the various forms of doctrine in which they disagree, and that it is right for each individual to follow with tranquil soul what is accept- able to his own religious creed. Indeed, the society itself indicates to all its members the prayers to be recited, and to the priests the sacrifices to be celebrated according to its own intention: namely, that the said three Christian communions, inasmuch as they, as it is alleged, together now constitute the Catholic Church, may at some time or other unite to form one body. . . . The foundation on which this society rests is of such a nature that it makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence. For, it is wholly in this: that it supposes the true Church of Jesus Christ to be composed partly of the Roman Church scattered and propagated through- out the whole world, partly, indeed, of the schism of Photius, and of the Anglican heresy, to which, as well as to the Roman Church, "there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" [cf. Eph. 4:5]. Surely nothing should be preferable to a Catholic man than that schisms and dissensions 1 ASS 2 (ed. 2; 1870) 657 ff.; Compilation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith I (1907) n. 1262.
among Christians be torn out by the roots and that all Christians be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" [Eph. 4:3] . . . . But, that the faithful of Christ and the clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics, and, what is worse, according to an intention, polluted and infected as much as possible with heresy, can in no way be tolerated. The true Church of Jesus Christ was established by divine authority, and is known by a fourfold mark, which we assert in the Creed must be believed; and each one of these marks so clings to the others that it cannot be separated from them; hence it happens that that Church which truly is, and is called Catholic should at the same time shine with the prerogatives of unity, sanctity, and apos- tolic succession. Therefore, the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all nations, particularly in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and "higher principality" 1 of blessed PETER, the prince of the Apostles, and of his successors in the Roman Chair. No other Church is Catholic except the one which, founded on the one PETER, grows into one "body compacted and fitly joined together" [ Eph. 4: 16] in the unity of faith and charity . . . . Therefore, the faithful should especially shun this London society, 1687 because those sympathizing with it favor indifferentism and engender scandal.
Naturalism, Communism, Socialism 2 [Fron, the Encyclical, "Quanta cura," Dec. 8, 1864]
Moreover, although We have not failed to proscribe and frequently 1688 condemn the most important errors of this sort, nevertheless, the cause of the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and the good of human society itself, demand that We again arouse your pastoral solicitude to overcome other base opinions which spring from these same errors as from fountains. These false and perverted errors are to be the more detested because they have this goal in mind: to impede and remove that salutary force which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her divine founder, must exercise freely "unto the consummation of the world" [Matt. 28:20], no less toward individual men, than toward nations, peoples, and their highest leaders; and to remove that mutual alliance of councils between the sacerdotal ministry and the government, and that "happy concord
1 St. Irenaeus, Against heresies 3, 3 [MG 7, 849 Al- 2 ASS 3 (1867) 161 ff.; AP III 689 ff. See the letter of His Eminence, Cardinal Antonelli, n. 1700 note.
43° which has always existed, and is so salutary to sacred and civil affairs." 1 1689 For, surely you know, Venerable Brothers, that at this time not a few are found who, applying the impious and absurd principles of naturalism, as they call it, to civil society, dare to teach that "the best plan for public society, and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as if it did not exist, or at least, without making distinction between the true and the false religions." And also, contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, and of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "the best condition of society is the one in which there is no ac- knowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining, by estab- lished penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands." And, from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called 2 by Our predecessor of recent memory, GREGORY XVI, insanity; namely, that "liberty of con- science and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right to all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they be, by voice, by print, or in any other way." While, in truth, they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching a "liberty of perdition," 3 and that "if human opinions always have freedom for discussion, there could never be wanting those who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the eloquence of human ( al. mundane) wisdom, when faith and Christian wisdom know from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ how much it should avoid such harmful vanity." 4 And since, when religion has been removed from civil society; and when the teaching and authority of divine revelation have been re- pudiated; or the true notion of justice and human right is obscured by darkness and lost; and when in place of true justice and legitimate right, material force is substituted, then it is clear why some, completely neg- lecting and putting aside the certain principles of sound reason, dare to exclaim: "The will of the people, manifested as they say by public opin- ion, or in some other way, constitutes the supreme law, freed from all divine and human right; and, that deeds consummated in the political
1 Cf. GREGORY XVI, Encyclical, "Mirari," Aug. 15, 1832 [n. 1613 ff.]. 2 Encyclical of GREGORY XVI, "Mirari," Aug. 15, 1832 (n. 1613). 3 St. Augustine, Letter 105 (166), c. 2, n. 9 (ML 33, 399). 4 Epistle of ST. LEO 164 (133), c. 2; ed. Ball (ML 54, 1149 B).
4J1 order, by the very fact that they have been consummated, have the force of right." But who does not see and plainly understand that a society of men who are released from the bonds of religion and of true justice can have no other aim, surely, than the goal of amassing and heaping up wealth, and that it (society) can follow no other law in its actions except an uncontrolled cupidity of soul, a slave to its own pleasures and ad- vantages? Therefore, men of this sort pursue with bitter hatred religious orders, 1692 no matter how supremely deserving because of their Christian, civil, and literary work; and they cry out that these same orders have no legitimate reason for existing, and in this way approve the falsehoods of heretics. For, as Our predecessor of recent memory, PIUS VI, very wisely taught, "abolition of the regulars wounds the status of the public profession of the evangelical counsels; it injures the way of life approved in the Church as suitable to the apostolic teaching; it harms the most distin- guished founders whom we venerate on our altars, who established these orders only when inspired by God." 1 And they also make the impious pronouncement that from the citizens 1693 and the Church must be taken away the power "by which they can ask for alms openly in the cause of Christian charity," and also that the law should be repealed "by which on some fixed days, because of the worship of God, servile works are prohibited," pretending most deceitfully that the said power and law obstruct the principles of the best public economy. And, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish even to banish religion itself from private families. For, teaching and professing that most deadly error of communism 1694 and socialism, they assert that "domestic society or the family borrows the whole reason for its existence from the civil law alone; and, hence, all rights of parents over their children, especially the right of caring for their instruction and education, emanate from and depend wholly on the civil law." In these impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men 1695 have this particular intention: that the saving doctrine and power of the Catholic Church be entirely eliminated from the instruction and training of youth, and that the tender and impressionable minds of youths may be unfortunately infected and ruined by every pernicious error and vice. For, all who have tried to disturb not only the ecclesiastical but also the public welfare, and to overturn the just order of society, and to destroy all rights, divine and human, have always formed all their evil plans, studies, and work to deceive and deprave especially unsuspecting youth, as we have intimated above, and have placed all their hopes in the cor-
1 Letter to Cardinal de la Rochefoucault, March 10, 1791.
ruption of youth. Therefore, they never cease to harass in every unspeak- .able way both clergy (secular and regular), from whom, as the genuine .documents of history splendidly testify, have flowed so many great ad- vantages for Christian, civil, and literary society; and they never cease to declare that the clergy "as an enemy to the true and useful progress of science and government, must be removed from all responsibility and duty of instructing and training youth." But, in truth, others, renewing the evil and so-many-times-condemned fabrications of the innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See, given to it by Christ the Lord, to the judgment of the civil authority, and to deny all rights of the same Church and See with regard to those things which pertain to the exterior order. For, they are not at all ashamed to affirm that "the laws of the Church do not bind in conscience, except when promulgated by the civil power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs relating to religion and the Church, need the sanction and approval, or at least the assent, of the civil power; that the Apostolic Constitutions/ in which secret societies are condemned, whether an oath of secrecy is demanded in them or not, and their followers and sympathizers are punished with anathema, have no force in those regions of the world where societies of this sort are allowed by the civil government; that the excommunication uttered by the Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who invade and usurp the rights and possessions of the Church rests upon a con- fusion between the spiritual order and the civil and political order for the attaining of a mundane good only; that the Church should decree nothing which could bind the consciences of the faithful in relation to the use of temporal goods; that to the Church does not belong the right to coerce by temporal punishments violators of its laws; that it is con- formable to the principles of sacred theology, and to the principles of public law for the civil government to claim and defend the ownership of the goods which are possessed by churches, by religious orders, and by other pious places." . Nor do they blush to profess openly and publicly the axiom and principle of heretics from which so many perverse opinions and errors arise. For they repeatedly say that "the ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from and independent of the civil power, and that the distinction and independence of the same could not be preserved without the essential rights of the civil power being invaded and usurped by the Church." And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those 1 CLEMENT XII, "In eminenti," April 28, 1738; BENEDICT XIV, "Providas Ro- manorum," May 18, 1751 [BB(M) 8, 416 ff.]; PIUS VII, "Ecclesiam," Sept. 13, 1821 [BRC 15,446 b]; LEO XII, "Quo graviora," March 13, 1825 [BRC 16,345 a ff.].
who "not enduring sound doctrine" [II Tim. 4:3], contend that "with- out sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dpgmas of faith or morals." There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful 1699 of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely en- trusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We re7ect, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.
"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors 1 [Excerpted from various Allocutions, Encyclicals, Epistles of PIUS IX, together with (the above quoted) Bull, "Quanta cura," edited Dec. 8, r864J
A. Index of the Acts of Pius IX, from which the Syllabus is excerpted r. The Encyclical Letter, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 (to this are 1700 referred the propositions of the Syllabus 4-7, r6, 40, 63). 1 Letter of His Emiuence Cardinal I. Antonelli . . • with wl,ich the Syllabus com•
piled by order of His Holiness is sent to the bishops. Your Most Illustrious and Reverend Lordship: Our most holy Lord, PIUS IX, Pontifex Maxirnus, being especially solicitous con- cerning the salvation of souls and sound doctrine, even from the very beginning of his Pontificate has never ceased by his Encyclical Letters and Allocutions held in Con- sistories, and by publishing other Apostolic Letters and Allocutions to proscribe and con- demn the most conspicuous errors and false doctrines of this especial! y unhappy age. But, since it could perhaps happen that all these Pontifical acts have not reached each ordinary, therefore, the Supreme Pontiff wished that a Syllabus of the same errors be made to be sent to all the bishops of the whole Catholic world, by which the same bishops could have before their eyes all the errors and dangerous doctrines which have been condemned and proscribed by Hirn. To me he gave the command to see to it that this printed Syllabus be forwarded to you, your most !llustrious and Reverend Lord- ship, on this occasion and at the time when the same Supreme Pontiff because of his supreme anxiety about the safety and welfare of the Catholic Church and of the whole flock of the Lord divinely entrusted to him, decided that another Encyclical letter should be written to all Catholic bishops. Therefore, fulfilling the order of the same Pontiff with
2. The Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847 (Prop. 63). 3. The Allocution, "Ubi primum," Dec. 17, 1847 (Prop. 16). 4. The Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," Apr. 20, 1849 (Prop. 40, 64, 76). 5. The Encyclical Letter, "Nostis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849 (Prop. 18, 63). 6. The Allocution, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850 (Prop. 76). 7. The Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. r, 1850 (Prop. 43, 45). 8. The Condemnation, "Multiplices inter," June ro, 1851 (Prop. 15, 21, 23, 30, 51, 54, 68). 9. The Condemnation, "Ad apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851 (Prop. 24, 25, 34-36, 38, 41, 42, 65-67, 69-75). ro. The Allocution, "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851 (Prop. 45). rr. Letter to the KING of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852 (Prop. 73). 12. The Allocution, "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852 (Prop. 31, 51, 53,
55, 67, 73, 74, 78). 13. The Allocution, "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854 (Prop. 8, 17, 19). 14. The Allocution, "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855 (Prop. 53). 15. The Allocution, "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855 (Prop. 53). 16. The Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855 (Prop. 77). 17. The Encyclical Letter, "Singulari quidem," Mar. 17, 1856 (Prop. 4, 16). 18. The Allocution, "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856 (Prop. 26, 28, 29, 31, 46, 5°, 52 , 79). 19. The Letter, "Eximiam tuam," to the Archbishop of Cologne, June 15, 1857 (Prop. 14 NB). 20. The Apostolic Letter, "Cum catholica Ecclesia," Mar. 26, 1860 (Prop. 63, 76 NB). 21. The Letter, "Dolore baud mediocri," to the Bishop of Wratislava (Breslau), Apr. 30, 1860 (Prop. 14 NB). 22. The Allocution, "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, r 860 (Prop. 19, 62, 76, NB). 23. The Allocution, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860 (Prop. 37, 43, 73). 24. The Allocution, "lamdudum cernimus," Mar. 18, 1861 (Prop. 37, 61, 76, NB, So). 25. The Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861 (Prop. 20). 26. The Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 (Prop. r-7, 15, 19, 27, 39, 44, 49, 56-60, 76, NB). all speed and, as is proper, with all obedience, I hasten to send to you, Your Most Illustrious and Reverend Lordship, the same Syllabus together with this letter••.• [Clausula] Dec. 8, 1864--ASS 3 (1867) 167 f.
27. The Letter, "Gravissimas inter," to the Archbishop of Munich- Freising, Dec. II, 18fo (Prop. 9-n). 28. The Encyclical Letter, "Quanto conficiamur moerore," Aug. IO, 1863 (Prop. 17, 58). 29. The Encyclical Letter, "Incredibili," Sept. 17, 1863 (Prop. 26). 30. The Letter, "Tuas libenter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising,
31. The Letter, "Cum non sine," to the Archbishop of Friburg, July 14, 1864 (Prop. 47, 48). 32. The Letter, "Singularis Nobisque," to the Bishop of Montreal (? ), Sept. 29, 1864 (Prop. 32).
B. Syllabus 1 Comprising the particular errors of our age, which are noted in consistorial Allocutions, in Encyclical and other Apostolic Letters of His Holiness, our Lord Pope Pius IX 2 Sec. I. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism I. No supreme, all wise, and all provident divine Godhead exists, 1701 distinct from this world of things, and God is the same as the nature of things and, therefore, liable to changes; and God comes into being in man and in the universe, and all things are God and they have the same sub- stance of God; and God is one and the same as the world, and therefore, also, spirit is one and the same with matter, necessity with liberty, the true with the false, the good with the evil, and the just with the un- just ( 26). 3 2. All action of God upon men and the world must be denied (26). 1702 3. Human reason, with absolutely no regard to God, is the only judge 1703 of the true and the false, the good and the evil; it is a law unto itself and is, by its own natural powers, sufficient to provide for the good of in- dividuals and of peoples (26). 4. All truths of religion flow from the natural power of human reason; 1704 hence, reason is the chief norm by which man can and should come to a knowledge of all truths of whatever kind ( 1, 17, 26),
1 ASS 3 (1867) 168 ff.; Aexq IX ff.; AP III 701 ff. 2 In order that the true meaning of this Syllabus may be understood, one must refer to the context of the documents from which the individual propositions have been excerpted [cf. the letter of Cardinal Antonelli quoted above (page 482, note); ASS 3, 167: L. Choupin, "Valeur des decisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siege, 3 ed. r 929, 1 87 ff.]. 3 These numbers refer to the INDEX "of the Acts of PIUS IX, from which the Syllabus has been excerpted" [ see above n. r 700].
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continuous and indefinite progress, which corresponds to the progress of human reason ( 1 [ cf. n. 1636] 26). 6. The faith of Christ is opposed to human reason; and divine revela- tion is not only of no benefit to, but even harms the perfection of man (1 [seen. 1635] 26). 7. The prophecies and miracles described and related in Sacred Scrip- ture are the inventions of poets; and the mysteries of the Christian faith are the culmination of philosophical investigations; and in the books of both Testaments are contained mythical inventions; and Jesus Christ Himself is a mythical fiction ( 1, 26).
Sec. Il. Modified Rationalism 8. Since human reason is equal to religion itself, therefore, theological studies must be conducted just as the philosophical (13 [seen. 1642]). 9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion without distinction are the object of natural science or philosophy; and human reason, cultivated so much throughout history, can by its natural powers and principles arrive at the true knowledge of all, even the more hidden dogmas, provided these dogmas have been proposed to reason itself as its object (27, 30 [seen. 1682]). 10. Since a philosopher is one thing and philosophy another, the former has the right and the duty to submit himself to the authority which he himself has proved to be true; but philosophy cannot and should not submit itself to any authority ( 27 [see n. 1673] 30 [see n. 1674 ]). 1 I. The Church should not only never pay attention to philosophy, but should also tolerate the errors of philosophy, and leave it to correct itself (27 [seen. 1675]). 12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Congregations hinder the free progress of science (30 [ see n. 1679 ]). 13. The method and principles according to which the ancient scho- lastic doctors treated theology are by no means suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences (30 [ see n. 1680] ). 14. Philosophy 1s to be treated without any regard to supernatural revelation (30). N.B. To the system of rationalism are closely connected in great part the errors of Anthony Guenther which are condemned in the Epistle to the Card. Archbishop of Cologne, "Eximiam tuam," Jun. 15, 1857 (19) [see n. 16551, and in the Epistle to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore baud mediocri," Apr. 30, 1860 (21).
Sec. III. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism 15. Everyman is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion (8, 26). 16. In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation ( 1, 3, 17 ). 17. We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ (13 [see n. 1646] 28 [seen. 1677]). 18. Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church (5).
Sec. IV. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-liberal Societies Evils of this sort have been reproved often and in very severe words 1718a in the Encyclical Letter, "Qui Pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 (1); in the Allo- cution, "Quibus quantisque," Apr. 20, 1849 (4); in the Encyclical Epistle, "Nostis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849 (5); in the Allocution, "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854 ( 13); in the Encyclical Epistle, "Quanto con- ficiamur moerore," Aug. ro, 1863 (28).
Sec. V. Errors Concerning the Church and Its Rights 19. The Church is not a true and perfect society absolutely free, nor 1719 does it operate by its own fixed and proper rights conferred on it by its divine founder; but it belongs to the civil power to define which are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which it may exercise these rights ( 13, 23, 26). 20. The ecclesiastical power should not exercise its authority without 1720 the permission and assent of the civil government (25). 21. The Church does not have the power of defining dogmatically that 1721 the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion (8). 22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are abso- 1722 lutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith (30 [seen. 1683]). 23. The Roman Pontiffs and the Ecumenical Councils have trespassed 1723 the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals (8). 24. The Church does not have the power of using force, nor does it 1724 have any temporal power, direct or indirect (9). 25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, there is another 1725 temporal power attributed, either expressly or tacitly granted by the civil
government, to be revoked, therefore, at will by the civil government (9). 26. The Church does not have a natural and legitimate right to acquire and to possess ( 18, 29). 27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff should be entirely excluded from all administration and dominion over temporal things ( 26). 28. Without the permission of the government, it is not lawful for bishops to issue even Apostolic Letters ( 18). 29. Favors granted by the Roman Pontiff should be considered void, unless they have been requested through the government (18). 30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons had its origin in civil law (8). 31. The ecclesiastical court for the temporal cases of clerics, whether civil or criminal, should be absolutely abolished, even if the Apostolic See was not consulted, and protests ( 12, 18). 32. Without any violation of natural right and equity, the personal immunity by which clerics are exempted from the obligation of under- going and practising military service, can be abolished; in truth, civil progress demands this abrogation, especially in a society organized on the form of a more liberal government ( 32). 33. It does not belong exclusively to the ecclesiastical power of juris- diction, by proper and natural right, to direct the teaching of theological matters (30). 34. The doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages (9). 35. There is nothing to forbid that by the vote of a General Council or by the action of all peoples the Supreme Pontificate be transferred from the Roman Bishop and THE CITY to another bishopric and another city (9). 36. The definition of a national council allows no further discussion, and the civil administration can force the matter to those boundaries (9). 37. National churches can be established which are exempt and com- pletely separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff (23, 24). 38. The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the Church into East and West ( 9).
Sec. VJ. Errors Concerning Civil Society, Viewed Both in Themselves and in Their Relations to the Church 39. The state of the commonwealth, inasmuch as it is the origin and source of all rights, exercises a certain right bound by no limits (26). 40. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is opposed to the good and to the advantages of human society (1 [seen. 1634], 4).
4r. To the civil power, even if exercised by an infidel ruler, belongs the indirect negative power over sacred things; and hence to the same belongs not only the right which is called exsequatur but also the right, as they call it, of appeal as from an abuse (9). 42. In a conflict between the laws of both powers, the civil law pre- vails (9). 43. The lay power has the authority of rescinding, of declaring and making void the solemn agreements ( commonly, concordats) made with the Apostolic See concerning the use of rights pertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without its consent and even against its protests (7, 23). 44. The civil authority can interfere in matters which pertain to reli- gion, morals, and spiritual government. Hence, it can judge about the instructions which the pastors of the Church, in accordance with their duty, issue as a guide to consciences; nay even, it can make decrees con- cerning the administration of the divine sacraments and the dispositions necessary to receive them (7, 26). 45. The entire government of the public schools in which the youth of any Christian state is instructed, episcopal seminaries being excepted for some reason, can and should be assigned to the civil authority; and assigned in such a way, indeed, that for no other authority is the right recognized to interfere in the discipline of the schools, in the system of studies, in the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of teachers (7, IO). 46. Nay, even in the seminaries themselves for the clergy, the plan 1746 of studies to be followed is subject to the civil authority ( 18). 47. The best state of civil society demands that the peoples' schools 1747 which are open to all children of any class of people, and the public institutions in general which are destined for the teaching of literature and the more exact studies, and for caring for the education of youth, should be exempted from all authority, control, and power of the Church; and be subjected to the full authority of the civil and political power, exactly according to the pleasure of the rulers and the standard of current public opinion (31 ). 48. Catholic men can approve that method of instructing youth which 1748 has been divorced from Catholic Faith and the power of the Church, and which regards only, or at least primarily, the natural sciences and the purposes of social life on earth alone ( 31). 49. Civil authority can hinder bishops and the faithful people from 1749 freely and reciprocally communicating with the Roman Pontiff (26). 50. The lay authority has of itself the right of presenting bishops, and 1750 can compel them to enter upon the administration of their dioceses before they receive from the Holy See their canonical appointment and Apos- tolic Letters ( 18).
51. Moreover, secular government has the right of deposing bishops from the exercise of their pastoral ministry, and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those matters which regard the institution of epis- copates and bishops (8, 12). 52. The government can by its own right change the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women as well as of men, and can prescribe for all religious orders that they should not admit anyone to the pronouncement of solemn vows without its permission ( 18). 53. The laws which pertain to the protection of the status of religious orders and to their rights and duties should be abrogated; indeed, the civil government can furnish aid to all those who wish to abandon the institute of the religious life which they once accepted, and to break their solemn vows; and likewise, it can suppress these same religious orders, as well as collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of the right of patronage, and can lay claim to, and subject their property and revenues to the administration and will of the civil power ( 12, 14, 15). 54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but they also are superior to the Church in deciding ques- tions of jurisdiction (8). 55. The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church ( 12).
Sec. VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics 56. The laws of morals by no means need divine sanction, and there is not the least need that human laws conform to the natural law, or receive the power of binding from God ( 26). 57. The science of philosophy and of morals, likewise the civil laws, can and should ignore divine and ecclesiastical authority (26). 58. Other powers should not be recognized except those which have their basis in the material (physical side of man), and all moral discipline and honesty should be employed to accumulate and increase wealth in any way whatsoever, and to satisfy man's pleasures (26, 28). 59. Right consists in a physical fact; all the duties of men are an empty name, and all human deeds have the force of right (26). 60. Authority is nothing more than numbers and the sum of material strengths ( 26). 61. The chance injustice of an act brings no detriment to the sanctity of the right (24). 62. The principle of "nonintervention" must be proclaimed and observed (22). 63. It is lawful to withhold obedience to legitimate rulers, indeed even to rebel ( 1, 2, 5, 20 ).
64. The violation of any most sacred oath, and even any criminal and 1764 disgraceful action repugnant to eternal law, not only must by no means be reproved, but is even altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise, when it is done for love of country ( 4 ).
Sec. VIII. Errors Concerning Christian Marriage 65. In no way can it be asserted that Christ raised matrimony to the 1765 dignity of a sacrament (9). 66. The sacrament of matrimony is nothing but an appendage to 1766 the contract and separable from it, and the sacrament itself consists merely in the nuptial blessing (9). 67. By natural law the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble, and in 1767 various cases divorce, properly so-called, can be sanctioned by civil authority (9, 12 [ see n. 1640 ]). 68. The Church does not have the power to establish impediments 1768 nullifying marriage; but that power belongs to civil authority by which the existing impediments should be removed (8). 69. The Church in later centuries began to introduce diriment im- 1769 pediments, not by its own right, but by making use of a right which it had borrowed from the civil power ( 9). 70. The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of 1770 anathema on those who' have the boldness to deny to the Church the power of introducing diriment impediments [ see n. 973 f.], are either not dogmatic, or are to be understood in accordance with this borrowed power (9). 71. The formula of the Council of Trent [ see n. 990] does not oblige 1771 under penalty of nullity where the civil law prescribes another formula, and wishes to validate a marriage by the intervention of this new formula (9 ). 72. Boniface VIII was the first to declare that the vow of chastity 1772 taken in ordination renders marriages invalid (9). 73. A true marriage can exist between Christians by virtue of a purely 1773 civil contract; and it is false to assert that the contract of marriage be- tween Christians is always a sacrament; or, that there is no contract if the sacrament is excluded (9, II, 12 [seen. 1640] 23). 74. Matrimonial cases and betrothals by their very nature belong to 1774 the civil court (9, 12 [ see n. 1640 ]). N.B. Two other errors can contribute to this subject: about abolishing the 1774a celibacy of the clergy, and concerning the state of matrimony to be preferred to the state of virginity. The first is thoroughly discussed in the Encyclical Epistle, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 ( 1); the second in the Apostolic Letter "Multiplices inter," June IO, r85r (8).
Sec. IX. Errors Concerning the Civil Power of the Roman Pontiff 75. The sons of the Christian and Catholic Church dispute about the compatibility of the temporal power with the spiritual (9). 76. The abolition of the civil power which the Apostolic See possesses, would be extremely conducive to the liberty and prosperity of the Church (4, 6). 1776a N.B. Besides these errors explicitly noted, many others are implicitly con- demned, by setting forth and declaring the doctrine which all Catholics should hold firmly regarding the civil power of the Roman Pontiff. Doctrine of this sort is lucidly set forth in the Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849 (4); in the Allocution, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850 (6); in the Apostolic Letter, "Cum catholica ecclesia," March 26, 1860 (20); in the Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 28, 1860 (22); in the Allocution, "Iamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861 (24); in the Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 (26).
Sec. X. Errors Which Are Related to Modern Liberalism 77. In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever ( 16). 78. Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned qy law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own (12). 79. For it is false that the civil liberty of every cult, and likewise, the full power granted to all of manifesting openly and publicly any kind of opinions and ideas, more easily leads to the corruption of the morals and minds of the people, and to the spread of the evil of indifferentism ( 18). 80. The Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile and adapt himself to progress, liberalism, and the modern civilization ( 24 ).
Ecumenical XX ( on Faith and the Church) SEssmN m ( April 24, I 870)
Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith 1 But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with Us, gathered together in this Ecumenical Council by Our authority in the Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the Word of God, written and trans- 1 CL VII 248 b ff.; ASS 5 (1869) 462 ff. Cf. EB n. 61 ff.
mitted as We have received it, sacredly guarded and accurately explained by the Catholic Church, from this chair of PETER, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ, after contrary errors have be:::n proscribed and condemned by the power trans- mitted to Us by G0d.
Chap. I. God, Creator of All Things [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] 1 1782 The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, al- together simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [ can. 1-4]. [The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and 1783 the efject of creation]. This sole true God by His goodness and "omni- potent power," not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on crea- tures, with most free volition, "immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body" [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]. [The result of creation]. But God protects and governs by His pro vi- 1784 dence all things which He created, "reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly" [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For "all things are naked and open to His eyes" [Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.
Chap. 2. Revelation [The fact of positive supernatural revelation]. The same Holy Mother 1785 Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; "for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" [ Rom. I :20]; nevertheless, it has pleased His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will to the human race in another and supernatural way, as the Apostle says: "God, who at sundry
1 The order of things is indicated here according to the exposition proposed to the Fathers by the speakers of the deputations in the Council itself; CL VII 101 ff.
times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son" [Heb. 1:1 f; can. 1]. [The necessity of revelation]. Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are impenetra- ble to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error. 1 Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite good- ness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him" [I Cor. 2:9; can. 2 and 3]. [The source of revelation]. Furthermore, this supernatural revelation, according to the faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy synod of Trent, is contained "in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves, and have thus come to us" [Council of Trent, see n. 783]. And, indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council, are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canoni- cal. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not be- cause, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself (can. 4). [The interpretation of Sacred Scripture]. But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. 1 Cf. St. Thomas, Summa theol., I, q. 1, a. 1.
Chap. 3. Faith [The definition of faith]. Since man is wholly dependent on God as 1789 his Creator and Lord, and since created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are bound by faith to give full obedience of intellect and will to God who reveals [ can. 1]. But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which "is the beginning of human salvation" [cf. n. 801], is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived [ can. 2]. For, "faith is," as the Apostle testifies, "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" [Heb. II: 1 ]. [That faith is consonant with reason]. However, in order that the 1790 "obedience" of our faith should be "consonant with reason" [ cf. Rom. 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all [ can. 3 and 4]. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: "But they going forth preached every- where: the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs that followed" [Mark 16:20]. And again it is written: "And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place" [II Pet. 1:19]. [That faith in itself is a gift of God]. Moreover, although the assent of 1791 faith is by no means a blind movement of the intellect, nevertheless, no one can "assent to the preaching of the Gospel," as he must to attain salva- tion, "without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing in truth" (Council of Orange, see n. 178 ff.). Wherefore, "faith" itself in itself, even if it "worketh not by charity" [ cf. Gal. 5 :6], is a gift of God, and its act is a work pertaining to salvation, by which man offers a free obedience to God Himself by agreeing to, and cooperating with His grace, which he could resist [ cf. n. 797 f: can. S]. [The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those 1792 things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.
[The necessity of embracing faith and retaining it]. But, since "with- out faith it is impossible to please God" [Heb. u:6] and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, hence, no one is justified without it; nor will anyone attain eternal life except "he shall persevere unto the end on it" [Matt. ro:22; 24:13]. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. [The divine external aid for the fulfillment of the duty of Faith]. For, to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and marvelous things which have been divinely arranged for the evident credibility of the Christian faith. But, even the Church itself by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruit- fulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission. [The divine internal aid to the same]. By this it happens that the Church as "a standard set up unto the nations" [Isa. u:12], both invites to itself those who have not yet believed, and makes its sons more certain that the faith, which they profess, rests on a very firm foundation. Indeed, an efficacious aid to this testimony has come from supernatural virtue. For, the most benign God both excites the erring by His grace and aids them so that they can "come to a knowledge of the truth" [ I Tim. 2 :4], and also confirms in His grace those whom "He has called out of darkness into his marvelous light" [ I Pet. 2 :9], so that they may persevere in this same light, not deserting if He be not deserted [ see n. 804]. Wherefore, not at all equal is the condition of those, who, through the heavenly gift of faith, have adhered to the Catholic truth, and of those, who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for, those who have accepted the faith under the teaching power of the Church can never have a just cause of changing or doubting that faith [can. 6]. Since this is so, "giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light" [ Col. r: 12], let us not neglect such salvation, but "looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith" [Heb. 12:2], "let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering" [Heb. ro:23].
Chap. 4. Faith and reason [The twofold order of knowledge]. By enduring agreement the Catho- lic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: ( r) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine
faith; ( 2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known [can. 1]. Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God was known to the Gentiles "by the things that are made" [ Rom. r:20], nevertheless, when discoursing about grace and truth which "was made through Jesus Christ" [ cf. John I :17] proclaims: "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world know . . . . But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God" [I Cor. 2:7, 8, IO]. And the Only-begotten Himself "confesses to the Father, because He hath hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hath revealed them to little ones" [ cf. Matt. II :25]. [The role of reason in teaching supernatural truth]. And, indeed, 1796 reason illustrated by faith, when it zealously, piously, and soberly seeks, attains with the help of God some understanding of the mysteries, and that a most profitable one, not only from the analogy of those things which it knows naturally, but also from the connectioil' of the mysteries among themselves and with the last end of man; nevertheless, it is never capable of perceiving those mysteries in the way it does the truths which constitute its own proper object. For, divine mysteries by their nature exceed the created intellect so much that, even when handed down by revelation and accepted by faith, they nevertheless remain covered by the veil of faith itself, and wrapped in a certain mist, as it were, as long as in this mortal life, "we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith and not by sight" [II Cor. 5:6 f.]. [The impossibility of opposition between faith and reason]. But, al- 1797 though faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover, God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason. Therefore, "every as- sertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith, we define to be al- together false" [Lateran Council V, see n. 738]. Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teach- 1798 ing, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing "knowledge falsely so called" [I Tim. 6:20], "lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit" [ cf. Col. 2:8; can. 2]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians not only are forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known
to be contrary to the teaching of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth. [The mutual assistance of faith and reason, and the just freedom of science]. And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge. Wherefore, the Church is so far from objecting to the culture of the human arts and sciences, that it aids and promotes this cultivation in many ways. For, it is not ignorant of, no.- does it despise the advantages flowing therefrom into human life; nay, it confesses that, just as they have come forth from "God, the Lord of knowledge" [I Kings 2:3], so, if rightly handled, they lead to God by the aid of His grace. And it ( the Church) does not forbid disciplines of this kind, each in its own sphere, to use its own principles and its own method; but, although recognizing this freedom, it continually warns them not to fall into errors by opposition to divine doctrine, nor, having transgressed their own proper limits, to be busy with and to disturb those matters which belong to faith. [The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed]. For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [ can. 3]. "Therefore .•. let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding." 1
Canons (of the Catholic Faith) 2 I. God the Creator of all things If any- 1. [ Against all errors about the existence of God the Creator]. one shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things: let him be anathema [ cf. n. 1782]. 1 Instruction of Vincent of Lerin, n. 28 [ML 50, 668 (c. 23) ]. 2 CL VII 255 a f.; ASS 5 ( 1869) 469 ff.
2. [ Against materialism]. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that nothing exists except matter: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1783]. 3. [ Against pantheism]. If anyone shall say that one and the same thing is the substance or essence of God and of all things: let him b::: anathema [ cf. n. 1782]. 4. [Against special forms of pantheism]. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least the spiritual, have eman- ated from the divine substance, or, that the divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things, or, finally, that God is universal or indefinite being, because by de- termining Himself, He created all things distinct in genera, in species, and in individuals: let him be anathema. 5. [ Against pantheists and materialists]. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing [cf. n. 1783], [ Against the Guentherians], or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself [cf. n. 1783], [Against the Guentherians and the Hermesians], or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.
2. Revelation
r. [ Against those denying natural theology]. If anyone shall have said 1806 that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema [ cf. 1785]. 2. [ Against the deists]. If anyone shall have said that it is not possible 1807 nor expedient that through divine relation man be taught about God and the worship to be given to Him: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1786]. 3. [ Against the Progressionists]. If anyone shall have said that man 1808 cannot be drawn by divine power to a knowledge and perfection which is above the natural, but that he of himself can and ought to reach the possession of all truth and good by a continual progress: let him be anathema. 4. If anyone shall not accept the entire books of Sacred Scripture with 1809 all their divisions, just as the sacred Synod of Trent has enumerated them [see n. 783 f.], as canonical and sacred, or denies that they have been inspired by God: let him be anathema.
45° 3. Faith r. [ Against the autonomy of reason]. If anyone shall have said that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it by God: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1789]. 2. [Some things must be held as true, which reason itself does not draw from itself]. If anyone shall have said, that divine faith is not dis- tinguished from a natural knowledge of God and moral things, and that therefore it is not necessary to divine faith that revealed truth be believed because of the authority of God Who reveals it: let him be anathema [ cf. n. 1789]. 3. [in faith itself the rights of reason must be preserved]. I£ anyone shall have said that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and for this reason men ought to be moved to faith by the internal experience alone of each one, or by private inspiration: let him be anath- ema [cf.n. 1790]. 4. [The demonstrability of revelation]. If anyone shall have said that miracles are not possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or, that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema [ cf. n. 1790]. 5. [The liberty of faith and the necessity of grace: against Hermes (seen. 1618 ff.)]. If anyone shall have said that the assent of the Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by proofs from human reasoning; or, that the grace of God is necessary only for that living faith "which worketh by charity" [ Gal. 5 :6]: let him be anathema [ cf. n.1791]. 6. [Against the positive doubt of Hermes (seen. 1619)]. If anyone shall have said that the condition of the faithful and of those who have not yet come to the true faith is equal, so that Catholics can have a just cause of doubting the faith which they have accepted under the teaching power of the Church, by withholding assent until they have completed the scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1794].
4. Faith and reason [ Against the pseudo-philosophers and the pseudo-theologians, concerning whom see n. 1679 ff.] 1. If anyone shall have said that no true mysteries properly so-called are contained in divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of faith can be understood and proved from natural principles, through reason properly cultivated: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1795 f.].
2. If anyone shall have said that the human sciences should be treated 1817 with such liberty that their assertions, although opposed to revealed ·doctrine, can be retained as true, and cannot be proscribed by the Church: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1797-1799]. 3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas 1818 declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed accord- ing to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema [cf. n. r 800]. And so, fulfilling the obligation of Our supreme pastoral office, by 1819 the incarnation of Jesus Christ We beseech all the faithful of Christ, but especially those who have charge of, or who perform the duty of teach- ing; and in fact, by the authority of Our same God and Savior, We command that they bring their zeal and labor to arrest and banish these errors from Holy Church, and to extend the light of a most pure faith. But, since it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these 1820 errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See.
SEssION rv (July r 8, r 870) 1 Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ [The institution and foundation of the Church]. "The eternal Pastor 1821 and Bishop of our souls" [I Pet. 2:25 ], in order to render the saving work of redemption perennial, willed to build a holy Church, in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be contained by the bond of one faith and charity. Therefore, before His glory was made manifest, "He asked the Father, not only for the Apostles but also for those who would believe through their word in Him, that all might be one, just as the Son Himself and the Father are one" [John 17:20 £.]. Thus, then, as He sent the apostles, whom He had selected from the world for Himself, as He himself had been sent by the Father [John 20:21], so in His Church He wished the pastors and the doctors to be "even to the consummation of the world" !Matt. 28:20 ]. But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multi- tude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing the blessed Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church to 1 CL VII 482 a f.; ASS 6 (1870) 40 ff.
be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith. 1 And, since the gates of hell, to overthrow the Church, if this were possible, arise from all sides with ever greater hatred against its divinely established foundation, We judge it to be necessary for the protection, safety, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approbation of the Council, to set forth the doctrine on the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the Sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which the strength and solidarity of the whole Church consist, to be believed and held by all the faithful, according to the ancient and continual faith of the universal Church, and to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, so pernicious to the Lord's flock.
Chap. I. The Institution of Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter [ Against heretics and schismatics]. So we teach and declare that accord- ing to the testimonies of the Gospel the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord. For the one Simon, to whom He had before said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas" [John 1:42], after he had given forth his confession with those words: "Thou art Christ, Son of the living God" [Matt. 16:16], the Lord spoke with these solemn words: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 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: and I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and what- soever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" [Matt. 16:17 ff.]. [Against Richerius etc. (seen. 1503)]. And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: "Feed my lambs," "Feed my sheep" [John 21:15 fl.]. To this teaching of Sacred Scriptures, so manifest as it has been always understood by the Catholic Church, are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord; that to Peter alone, before the other apostles, whether individually or all together, was confided the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by Christ; or, of those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through this Church upon him as the minister of the Church herself. [Canon]. If anyone then says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not established by the Lord Christ as the chief of all the apostles, and the visible head of the whole militant Church, or, that the same received 1 Cf. St. Leo the Great, serm. 4 de natali ipsius c. 2 [ML 54, 150 CJ.
great honor but did not receive from the same our Lord Jesus Christ directly and immediately the primacy in true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.
Chap. 2. The Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter among the Roman Pontiffs Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, 1824 the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages. Surely "no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his suc- cessors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood, [ cf. Council of Ephesus, see n. 112]. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter persevering in the accepted fortitude of the rock does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received." 1 For this reason "it has always been necessary because of mightier pre-eminence for every church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful every- where," 2 so that in this See, from which the laws of "venerable com- munion" 3 emanate over all, they as members associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure. [Canon]. If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of 1825 Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.
Chap. 3. The Power and Manner of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff [ Assertion of primacy]. Therefore, relying on the clear testimonies of 1826 Sacred Scripture, and adhering to the eloquent and manifest decisions not only of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, but also of the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Flor- 1 St. Leo, the Great, sermo 3 de natali ipsius c. 3 [ML 54, 146 BJ. 2 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeresesr. 3, c. 3 [MG 7, 849 A]. 8 St. Ambrose, Ep. u, n. 4 [ML 16, 946 A].
ence, by which all the faithful of Christ most believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons" [ see n. 694]. [ Consequences denied by innovators]. Furthermore We teach and de- clare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [ which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation. [The 7urzsdiction of the Roman Pontiff and of the bishops]. This power of the Supreme Pontiff is so far from interfering with that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops, who, "placed by the Holy Spirit" [cf. Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the places of the apostles, as true shepherds individually feed and rule the individual flocks assigned to them, that the same (power) is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by the supreme and universal shepherd, according to the statement of Gregory the Great: "My honor is the universal honor of the Church. My honor is the solid vigor of my brothers. Then am I truly honored, when the honor due to each and everyone is not denied." 1 [ Free communication with all the faithful]. Furthermore, it follows that from that supreme power of the Roman Pontiff of ruling the uni- versal Church, the same has the right in the exercise of this duty of his office of communicating freely with the pastors and flocks of the whole Church, so that the same can be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. Therefore, We condemn and disapprove the opinions of those who say that this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks can lawfully be checked, or who make this so sub- 1 St. Gregory's letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, r. 8, c. 30 (ML 77, 933 CJ.
m1ss1ve to secular power that they contend that whatever is established by the Apostolic See or its authority for the government of the Church has no force or value unless confirmed by an order of the secular power [Placitum regium, seen. 1847]. [ Recourse to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge]. And since the 1830 Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [cf. n. 1500], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment [ cf. n. 466]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [ cf. n. 330 ff.]. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff. [Canon]. If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the 1831 office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and im- mediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.
Chap. 4. The Infallible "Magisterium" of the Roman Pontiff [ Arguments from public documents]. Moreover, that by the very 1832 apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the magisterium is also comprehended, this Holy See has always held, the whole experience of the Church approves, and the ecumenical Councils themselves, especially those in which the East convened with the West in a union of faith and charity, have declared. For the fathers 1833 of the fourth council of Constantinople, adhering to the ways of the former ones, published this solemn profession: "Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith [ . . . ] . And since the sentiment of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church' [Matt. 16:18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apos- tolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated. Desiring, then, least of all to be separated from the faith and teaching of this [ Apostolic See], We hope that We may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims,
in which the solidarity of the Christian religion is whole and true" 1 1834 [ cf. n. r7r f.]. Moreover, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks have professed, "that the Holy Roman Church holds the highest and the full primacy and pre-eminence over the universal Catholic Church, which it truthfully and humbly professes it has received with plenitude of power from the Lord Himself in blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor; and, just as it is bound above others to -defend the truth of 1835 faith, so, too, if any questions arise about faith, they should be defined by its judgment" [ cf. n. 466]. Finally, the Council of Florence has defined: "That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to it in the blessed Peter has been handed down by the Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the universal Church" [ see n. 694]. [ Argument from the assent of the Church]. To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individ- ually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. 2 The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumeni- cal Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread through- out the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God's help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" [Luke 22:32].
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred 1837 upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell. [ Definition of infallibility]. But since in this very age, in which the 1838 salutary efficacy of the apostolic duty is especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority, We deem it most necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the Only-begotten Son of God deigned to enjoin with the highest pastoral office. And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the begin- 1839 ning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he ex- plains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. [Canon]. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, 1840 which may God forbid: let him be anathema.
Twofold Power on Earth 1 [From the Encyclical, "Etsi multa luctuosa," Nov. 2, 1873]
Faith (however) teaches and human reason demonstrates that a two- 1841 fold order of things exists, and that at the same time two powers are to be distinguished on earth, one naturally which looks out for the tran- quillity of human society and secular affairs, but the other, whose origin is above nature, which presides over the city of God, namely, the Church of Christ, divinely established for the peace and the eternal salvation of souls. Moreover, these duties of the twofold power have been very wisely ordained, that "the things that are God's may be rendered to God," and, on account of God, "to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" [Matt. 22:21 ], who "is great on this account, because he is less than heaven; for he himself
1 ASS 7 (1872) 471 f.
belongs to Him to whom belong heaven and every creature." 1 And from him, surely by divine mandate, the Church has never turned aside, which always and everywhere strives to nurture obedience in the souls of her faithful; and they should inviolably keep, ( this obedience) to the supreme princes and their laws insofar as they are secular; and, with the Apostle it has taught that princes "are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil," ordering the faithful "to be subject not only for wrath," because the prince "beareth not the sword as an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, but also for conscience' sake," because in his office "he is God's minister" [ Rom. I 3: 3 ff.]. Moreover, it itself has restricted this fear of princes to evil works, plainly excluding the same from the observance of the divine law, mindful of that which blessed Peter taught the faithful: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things. But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name" [I Pet. 4: 1 5 f.].
The Liberty of the Church 2 [From the Encyclical, "Quod nunquam," to the bishops of Prussia, February 5, 1875]
We intend to fulfill parts of Our duty through this letter, announcing to all to whom this matter pertains, and to the whole Catholic world, that those laws are invalid, namely, which are utterly opposed to the con- stitution of the divine Church. For, the Lord of holy things did not place the powerful of this world over the bishops in these matters which per- tain to the holy ministry, but blessed Peter to whom he commended not only His lambs but also His sheep to be fed [ cf. John 21 :16, 17]; and so by no worldly power, however elevated, can they be deprived of their episcopal office "whom the Holy Ghost hath placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" [ cf. Acts 20:28]. Moreover, let those who are hostile to you know that in refusing to pay to Caesar what belongs to God, you are not going to bring any injury to royal authority, nor to detract anything from it; for it is written: "We ought to obey God, rather than men" [ Acts 5 :29]; and at the same time let them know that everyone of you is prepared to give tribute and obedience to Caesar, not for wrath, but for conscience [cf. Rom. 13:5 f.] in those matters which are under civil authority and power. 1 Tertullian, Apology. c. 30 [ML 1, 442 A]. 2 ASS 8 (1874) 253 ff.
Explanation of Transubstantiation 1 (From the Decree of the Holy Office, July 7, 1875]
Reply to the question: "Whether the explanation of transubstantiation in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist can be tolerated, which is comprehended by the following propositions: 1. Just as the formal reason for hypostasis is "to be through itself," or, "to subsist through itself," so the formal reason for substance is "to be in itself" and "actually not to be sustained in another as the first subject"; for, rightly are those two to be distinguished: "to be through itself" ( which is the formal reason for hypostasis ), and "to be in itself" ( which is the formal reason for substance). 2. Therefore, just as human nature in Christ is not hypostasis, because it does not subsist through itself but is assumed from a superior divine hypostasis, so finite substance, for example, the substance of bread, ceases to be substance by this alone and without any change of itself, because it is sustained supernaturally in another, so that it is not already in itself, but in another as in a first subject. 3. Thus, transubstantiation, or the conversion of the entire substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, can be explained in this way, that the body of Christ, while it becomes substantially present in the Eucharist, sustains the nature of bread, which by this very fact and without any change in itself ceases to be substance, because it is not now in itself, but in another sustaining; and, indeed, the nature of bread remains, but in it the formal reason for substance ceases; and so there are not two substances, but one only, that, of course, of the body of Christ. 4. Therefore, in the Eucharist the matter and form of the elements of bread remain; but now, existing supernaturally in another, they do not have the nature of substance, but they have the nature of supernatural accident, not as if in the manner of natural accidents they affected the body of Christ, but on this account, insofar as they are sustained by the body of Christ in the manner in which it has been said." The reply is that "the doctrine of transubstantiation, as it is set forth here, cannot be tolerated."
Royal Assent 2 (From the Allocution, "Luctuosis exagitati," March 12, 1877]
Very recently We have been forced to declare that the following 1847 can be tolerated: that the acts of the canonical institution of certain 1 ASS II ( 1878) 606 £. 2 ASS (1877/78) 54.
bishops be shown to a secular power, so that, as far as We could, We might avert certain baneful consequences, in which there was no longer question of the possession of temporal goods, but of the consciences of the faithful, their peace, the care and salvation of souls, which is the supreme law for us, and which were called into open risk. But in this which We have done in order to avoid most serious dangers, We wish it to be known publicly and again that We entirely disapprove and abominate that unjust law which is called "royal assent," declaring openly that by it the divine authority of the Church is harmed and its liberty violated. . . . [ see n. r 829].
LEO XIII I 878- I 903 The Reception of Converted Heretics 1 [From the Decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 20, r878]
To the question: "Whether baptism should be conferred conditionally on heretics who are converted to the Catholic religion, from whatever locality they come, and to whatever sect they pertain?" The reply is: "In the negative. But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from whatever sect they come, inquiry should be made regarding the validity of the baptism in the heresy which was adopted. Then after the examination has been established in individual cases, if it is found either that none was conferred, or it was conferred without effect, they shall have to be baptized absolutely. But if according to cir- cumstances and by reason of the localities, after the investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered in favor either of validity or in- validity, or, probable doubt still exists regarding the validity of the baptism, then let them be baptized conditionally, in secret. Finally, if it shall be established that it was valid, they will have to be received only for the profession of faith."
Socialism 2 [From the Encyclical, "Quod Apostolici muneris," Dec. 28, 1878]
From the records of the Gospels the equality of men consists in this, that all have received the same nature, and are called to the same highest dignity of the sons of God; and at the same time that, since the same end is established for all, each is to be judged individually according to the same law, to obtain punishments or rewards according to merit, 1 ASS II (1878) 605 £. 2 ASS II ( 1878) 372 ff.; AL I 49 ff.
An inequality of right and power, however, emanates from the very author of nature, "from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named" [Eph. 3: r5]. But the souls of princes and subjects, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, are so bound by mutual duties and rights that both the passion for ruling is tempered and the way of obedience is made easy, steadfast, and most noble. . . . If, however, it should ever happen that public power is exercised by 1850 princes rashly and beyond measure, the doctrine of the Catholic Church does not permit rising up against them on one's own terms, lest quiet and order be more and more disturbed, or lest society receive greater harm therefrom. Whenever matters have come to such a pass that no other hope of a solution is evident, it teaches that a remedy is to be hastened through the merits of Christian patience, and by urgent prayers to God. But if the decisions of legislators and princes should sanction or order something that is contrary to divine and natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name and the opinion of the apostles urge that "we ought to obey God, rather than men" [ Acts 5 :29]. But also, Catholic wisdom most skillfully provides for public and 1851 domestic tranquillity, supported by the precepts of divine law, through what it holds and teaches concerning the right of ownership and the distribution of goods which have been obtained for the necessities and uses of life. For when Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man, and, seeking to establish community of goods, think that poverty is by no means to be endured with equanimity; and that the possessions and rights of the rich can be violated with impunity, the Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and of mind; also in the possession of goods, and it orders that right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself, be for everyone intact and inviolate; for it knows that theft and raping have been forbidden by God, the author and vindicator of every right, in such a way that one may not even look attentively upon (al.: covet) the property of another, and "that thieves and robbers, no less than adulterers and idolators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven" [cf. I Cor. 6:9 f.J. And yet she does not on this account neglect the care of the poor, 1852 or, as a devoted mother, fail to take thought for their necessities; but rather, embracing them with maternal affection, and realizing well that they represent the person of Christ Himself, who considers as done to Himself whatever benefit is conferred by anyone on the least of the poor, holds them in great honor; she relieves them by every resource pos- sible; she has erected everywhere in the world homes and hospices to receive them, and to nourish and to care for them, and she takes these
institutions under her loving care. By most urgent precept she com- mands the rich to distribute their superfluous possessions among the poor, and terrifies them by the divine judgment, whereby, unless they go to the aid of the needy poor, they are to be tormented by everlasting punishments. Finally, she especially refreshes and consoles the souls of the poor either by presenting the example of Christ who, "although he was rich, became poor for our sakes" [cf. II Cor. 8:9], or by recalling the words, by which He addressed the poor as "blessed" [cf. Matt. 5:3], and bade them hope for the rewards of eternal blessedness.
Christian Marriage 1 [From the Encyclical, "Arcanum divinae sapientiae," February ro, 1880]
To the apostles as masters are to be referred the accepted matters which our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the Universal Church have always taught [see n. 970], namely, that Christ our Lord raised matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament, and at the same time brought it about that the spouses strengthened and fortified by heavenly grace which His merits procured, obtain sanctity in the marriage; and that in it, mar- velously conformed to the model of the mystical marriage of Himself with the Church, He perfected a love which is befitting to nature [Cone. Trid. sess. 24, c. r de reform. matr.; cf. n. 969 ], and He cemented the union of man and woman, indivisible by its own nature, more strongly by the bond of divine love . . . • And the distinction put forward especially by royal legists must not disturb anyone, in which they separate the nuptial contract from the sacrament, with, of course, this purpose, that, while reserving the con- ditions of the sacrament to the Church, they may hand over the contract to the power and will of the chiefs of the State. For such a distinction or, more truly, a severance, cannot be approved, since it has been proved that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacra- ment; and so it cannot be a true and legitimate contract without being a sacrament, for this very reason. For, Christ our Lord honored mar- riage with the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, provided it is lawfully made. In addition, marriage is a sacrament for this reason, because it is a holy sign, both giving grace and conveying an image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the Church. Moreover, the form and figure of these nuptials are expressed by the very bond of the supreme union in which man and woman are bound together, and which is nothing other than marriage itself. And thus it is evident that every just union between Christians is in itself and by itself a sacrament; 1 ASS 12 (1879/80) 388 ff.; AL I 120 ff.
and that nothing is more inconsistent with truth than the belief that the sacrament is a kind of added ornament, or an external property which can be disengaged and separated from the contract according to man's pleasure.
The Political Principality 1 [From the Encyclical, "Diuturnum illud," June 29, 1881]
Although man incited by a kind of arrogance and contumacy often 1855 strives to cast off the reins of government, yet he has never been able to succeed in obeying anyone. In every association and community of men, necessity demands that some be in charge . . . . But it is of interest to note at this point that those who are to be in charge of the state can in certain cases be elected by the will and judgment of the multitude, and Catholic doctrine makes no opposition nor resistance. By this election by which the prince is designated, the rights of principality are not con- ferred, nor is the power committed, but it is determined by whom it is to be carried on. There is no question here of the kinds of states; for there is no reason why the principality of one person or of several should be approved by the Church, provided it be just and intent upon the common good. Therefore, as long as justice is preserved, peoples are not prohibited from establishing that kind of state for themselves which more aptly befits either their genius or the institutions and customs of their ancestors. But the Church teaches that what pertains to political power comes 1856 from God . . . . It is a great error not to see what is manifest, that, although men are not solitaries, it is not by congenital free will that they are impelled to a natural community life; and moreover the pact which they proclaim is patently feigned and fictitious, and cannot be- stow as much force, dignity, and strength to the political power as the protection of the state and the common welfare of the citizens require. But the principality is to possess these universal glories and aids, only if it is understood that they come from God, the august and most holy source. That is the one reason for men not obeying, if something is demanded 1857 of them which is openly at odds with natural and divine law; for it is equally wrong to order and to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, then, it ever happens to anyone to be forced to choose one or the other, namely, to ignore the orders either of God or of princes, obedience must be rendered to Jesus Christ who orders, "the things that are Caesar's, to Caesar; the things that are 1 ASS 14 (1881/82) 4 ff.; AL 2II ff.