List of authors who taught the doctrine.
1) Fr. E. Sylvester
Berry, The Church of Christ (1927),
Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009, pp. 288-290.
3) Monsignor G. Van
Noort, Christ’s Church, Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 153 (emphasis added).
4) Louis Cardinal
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, (1909),
"Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi", I, Editio quinta, apud aedes Universitatis
Gregorianae, Romae, p. 623
5)
Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate (1955), (London and New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1955), pp. 481-482
6)
Monsignor G Van Noort, Sources of Revelation
(Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957),
p. 265
7)
Ludwig Van Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Fourth
Edition, May 1960 (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974).
8)
Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1959) vol I, (New York; Tournai; Paris; Rome: Desclee Company,
1959), p. 146.
9) F. Dominico a SS.ma Trinitate Carmelita Discalc, Bibliotheca theologica: Septem Libris Distincta Prouincia, ROMAE; Typographia Philippi Matiz Mancini, 1668, lib III, Sectio IV, caput X
10) Abbot Guéranger,
O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188 1875
11) Rev. James Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s
Vaticanism, Dublin, James Guffy, 1895, p. 54
12) Hervé,
Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, (1952)
Berche et Pagis, Editores, Parisiis, 1952) Vol. I.500 (b), I.514.
13) Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B (1955), On The Church of Christ, On Holy
Scripture, 3rd ed., translated by Kenneth Bakker S.J., (Keep the Faith, Inc. 2015), bk II, ch. III, a. II., N. 812.
14) Rev. Louis Farris, Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica. Iuridica Moralis Theologica, Romae:
S. C. De Propaganda Fide, (1764)
15) Billuart, Rene’, Summa S. Thomae Hodiernis Academiarum Moribus Accommodata (Everardum Kints, Leodii, Liege), Tract: De Regulus Fidei, 1754, p. 99
16) Hurter, S.J.
Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885)
17) Fr.
Sydney Smith, S.J., The Tablet (1895)
18) American Ecclesiastical Review, Fr. O’Connor’ Q&A
(December 1965)
19) Sixtus Cartechini S.J. On the Value of Theological
Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them (Rome, 1951)
20) John of St. Thomas CURSUS THEOLOGICUS, Tome 6. Questions 1-7 on Faith. Disputation 8. 1640 1 2 3 4 5
21) Dr. Boni, Professor
of Canon Law at the University of Bologna, and Advisor of the Pontifical
Council for Legislative Texts. “Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope
Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.
22) Franciscus Xav. Wernz, Petrus Vidal, "Ius
canonicum", II, "De personis", apud aedes Universitatis
Gregorianae, Romae, 1943, pp.
520-521
23) St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church, Verita
Della Fede', Part III, Ch. VIII, p. 720. 1767
25) Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, 1418
27) Schmier, Benedict; Grimm, Georg; Merck, Aemilianus; Schmier, Benedict, Ecclesia Christi In Terris Militans: Seu Catholica Religio, Cum Fide, Spe Et Charitate Theolocica, Gratia Habituali, Iustificatione, Et Merito. Tractatus de Ecclesia Militante Questio XX, SALISBURGI: Typis Joannis Josephi Mayr, (1732)
31) Arnaldo De Salveria, L’Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?, Paris, 1980, p. 72
32) Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope, The Angelus, January 1980
33) Rev. Donald Sanborn (Sedevacantist Bishop), Explanation of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers, (2002)
34) Fr.
Joseph Mariae de Turre , O.P., Institutionum ad verbi Dei scriptiintelligentiam Tractatus tertius, Typis Pauli Montii, (1711), Tract.
III, Quaest V, App., q. 4., p. 176.
35) Fr. Francisco, Palanco Tractatus De Fide Theologica. In 2. 2.
Div. Thom. Ad illustrissimum d. d., Tract De Fide, Disp. III, Quaest. XI, Ad
hac proposition Innocent XII, (1701) pp. 313-329.
36) Fr. Antonio De Alvalate, Cursus Theologicus...juxta
mentem Doct. Joanni Dunsii Scoti, Tract II de Vera Relig., Disp III, Quaest
III. (1757)
42. Fr. Vidal, Ius Decretalium, 1906, Papa Dubius, p. 356-7, n. 184.
43. R.P.F. Francisci Henno
Theologia dogm. moral et Scholast, : tomus II, (1795) (Refs Martin V)
47.
Cardinal de Lugo, Joannis de Lugo, Virtue of Divine Faith, Disp. I, Formal Object of Faith, Section XIII, V. (originally published in 1646). Opera Omnia Theologica, Quibus Nunc Primum
Accedunt Una Cum Auctoris Vita, Tom. I, (Pariis, Martin-Beaupre 1868). p. 173-5 (Refs Martin V) 48. Cano, Melchior, De Loci Theologicis, (1562) (Refs Martin V);
49. Kirsch,
Leopold, S.J., Tractatus Theologicus De Virtutibus Theologalibus Fide, Spe,
Charitate, (Vetero-Pragae, 1767), Pars I De Fide Divina, Quaes IV, Cap II, Prob IV, p 108 (Martin V)
53. Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, IV, ch. X (a schismatic antipope became the true Pope ipso facto due to UPA)
54. Fr. Jourdain Hurtaud, 0.
P., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Lettres De Savonarole Aux Princes
Chrétiens Pour La Réunion D'un Concile, Revue Thomiste, 7, no. 44, 1900.
56. Juan de Torquemada, Summa De Ecclesia, (Venetiis apud Michaelem Tramezimum, 1561), Part II, Book IV, p. 382-383. Originally published in 1453.
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry - The Church of Christ (1927)
"The extent of infallibility refers
to the truths that may be defined by the Church with infallible authority. Some
truths are directly subject to the infallible authority of the Church by their
very nature; others only indirectly because of their connection with the
former. The one set of truths constitutes the primary, the other secondary
extent of infallibility. (…)
"This secondary or indirect extent of
infallibility includes especially (a) theological conclusions, (b) truths of
the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts (…)
"DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is
one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine
of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain
knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly
ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid?
Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any
council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It
is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts,
and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it
follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in
accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected,
gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." Berry, The
Church of Christ, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009, previously
published by Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, 1955, pp. 288, 289, 290, originally
published in 1927)
Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate
1955
"[T]he peaceful acceptance of the
universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act
in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in
itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and
mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of
the election have been fulfilled.)
"Acceptance by the Church operates
either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively,
when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the
rest. The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to
certain knowledge as to who is elected." (Cardinal Journet, Church of the
Word Incarnate (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955, pp. 481-482.)
Sylvester Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology,
(1894)
“Dogmatic Facts: - But besides these
speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the
Church can judge with infallibly certainty. These are called by many writers
dogmatic facts [.]
“First, then, the Church is
infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the
person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in
communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved
hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the
function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty
could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and
Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified,
which is impossible.
“This
argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic
facts. Also, it affords an answer to
a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by
writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a
certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by
Cardinals who owed their appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it
is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempt
to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this
startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in
recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the
body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine
constitution of the Church would be ruined.” (Hunter, Outlines of DogmaticTheology, Volume I (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benzinger Brothers, 1894)
ch. VI, N. 211.
W. Wilmers, A
Handbook of the Christian Religion (1891):
“The difficulty is sometimes raised that
it is impossible at times to know whether a pope is lawfully elected or not,
and, consequently, whether he has the power to rule the Church or not. The
answer is simple. If the whole Church once acknowledges any one as its
lawful head, though the election may have been for some cause invalid, he
thereby receives the sanction of the Church, which is equivalent to a second
and valid election; whereupon he succeeds to all that power vested in the
head of the Church. Hence no secret flaw can practically invalidate a papal
election, and every defect in the election is removed by the ratification of
the Church, so that any pope, universally acknowledged by the Church, is
necessarily the true successor of St. Peter (W. Wilmers, ‘A Handbook of the
Christian Religion,’ 3rd ed., Benziger Bros., New York, New York.
1891, page 95.)
Van Noort – Christ’s Church 1957
"Assertion 2: The Church’s
infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically
certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of
revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty
of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with
dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical
council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the
original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of
Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether
the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate
is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme
ruler of the universal Church." (Van Noort, Christ’s Church, (Westminster,
Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 153.)
Van Noort – Sources of Revelation 1957
“Meantime, notice that the Church
possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn
fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority
through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an
absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following
theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in
solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout
the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held
(tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the
proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly …
one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the
primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For —
skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the
first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s
place —
when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically
and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal
Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an
utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.” (Van Noort,
Sources of Revelation (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 265.)
Cardinal Billot - De Ecclesia Christ (1909)
"Finally, whatever you still think
about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a
Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely
incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of
the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the
legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all
the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look
far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the
infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against
it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church
to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,[2]
seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow
and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we
shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be
prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the
legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole
Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
"Therefore, from the moment in
which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the
body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of
election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for
legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root
all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the
required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Quaestio XIV - De Romano Pontifice, Thesis XXIX, §3 1909.)
Hervé,
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (1952)
A. Tanquerey – Synopsis
theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis: Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis – (1896)
“All admit that the Church enjoys
infallibility with regard to the legitimacy of a Holy Pontiff, and therefore
that it cannot err when it unanimously recognizes that Pope as legitimate.
Otherwise, the Church’s body would be separated from its head. That would be contrary to its indefectibility
and unity.” (Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis: Ad mentem
S. Thomae Aquinatis, 1897, Caput II, No. 197, p. 482.; 1896, No. 195, p. 523)
Abbot Guéranger,
O.S.B., The Liturgical Year - 1875
“The inevitable play of human passions,
interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while
[i.e., “for a certain time”] render uncertain the transmission of spiritual
power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put
in possession of her liberty, acknowledges in the person a certain Pope, until
then doubtful, as the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is
a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the
Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger,
O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, 1875, pg. 188.)
St. Alphonsus
Ligouri - 'Verita Della Fede' 1767
'It is of no importance that in the past
centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the
Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole
Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But
if for a certain time, he was not [i.e., had never been] accepted universally and truly by the Church,
during that time the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at
the death of a Pope.” (Verita
Della Fede', Part III, Ch. VIII, p. 720.)
Tanquerey - Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1959)
“The Church is infallible in regard to
dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so
much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary
in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.
“Dogmatic facts can be threefold:
historical, doctrinal and hagiographical.
Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the
ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.
“That the Church is infallible in
regard to dogmatic facts in certain.
For if the Church could make
mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council,
then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were
infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.” Tanquerey, Dogmatic
Theology, vol I, (New York; Tournai; Paris; Rome: Desclee Company, 1959), p.
146.
Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B (1955)
“Dogmatic facts can be ether formally
revealed, like the divine institution of the Church, the resurrection of
Christ, etc., or necessarily connected
with revealed truths, that is, truths which if they are not held, revelation
itself cannot be protected or proposed.
We are speaking only about these or about facts connected with
revelation. But these are of two kinds:
a) some are simply such, like the legitimacy of the Council of Trent [or of a
Roman Pontiff], without which certitude about the dogmas defined by it would be
called into doubt; b) but others are doctrinal like the orthodox or heterodox
meaning of a human text.” (p. 261).
“In the decree of Vatican I, which had
been prepared, the doctrine of the thesis was directly and explicitly defined;
hence the thesis is proximate to a definition:
Vatican
I draft, Canon IX:
“If any one says that the infallibility of the Church I restricted only to
those things which are contained in divine revelation, and does not also extend
to other truths which are required
necessarily in order to safeguard the whole deposit of revelation [i.e.,
dogmatic facts], let him be anathema.” (Mansi 51,543,552).
Canon IX. Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiae
infallibilitatem ad ea tantum restringi, quae divina revelatione continentur,
nec ad alias etiam veritates extendi, quae necessario requiruntur, ut
revelationis depositum integrum custodiatur; anathema sit.
Vatican I, c. 9 approved, draft: “If
anyone say that the Church of Christ can fail in the true faith, or certainly
is not immune from error in no other matters except in those which per se are
contained in the word of God, let him be anathema.” (Mansi 53,313,316. (Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B, On
The Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, 3rd ed., translated by
Kenneth Bakker S.J., Keep the Faith, Inc. 2015.
Fr. Wernz (Doubtful Pope - see footnote)
“The ancient authors everywhere admitted
the axiom, ‘A doubtful pope is no pope’ and applied it to solve the
difficulties which arose from the Great Western Schism. Now this axiom could be understood in several
ways. For instance, a ‘doubtful pope’ can be understood not negatively, but positively
- i.e., when, after a diligent examination of the facts, competent men in the
Catholic Church would pronounce: 'The validity of the canonical election of
this Roman pontiff is uncertain’.
Moreover, the words 'No pope' are not necessarily understood of a
pope who has previously been received as certain and undoubted by the whole
Church, but concerning whose election so many difficulties are
subsequently brought to light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' so that he
would thereby forfeit the pontifical power already obtained. This understanding of the axiom concerning 'a
doubtful pope' should be reproved because the whole Church cannot entirely
fall away from a Roman pontiff who has been legitimately elected, on account of
the unity promised to His Church by Christ.
“But the other part of this axiom could
have the meaning that a Roman pontiff whose canonical election is uncertain and
remains subject to positive and solid doubts after studious examination,
absolutely never did acquire also the papal
jurisdiction from Christ the Lord. For this reason the bishops gathered
together in a general council, in the event that they subject to examination a
doubtful case of this kind, do not pronounce judgement on a true pope, since
the person in question lacks the papal jurisdiction. Now if the axiom be
understood in this last sense, the doctrine which it contains is entirely
sound.
“Indeed this is what is deduced in the
first place from the very nature of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction is
essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a
subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this
relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is
plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and
permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the
part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the
legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful;
and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated,
for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient
promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the
fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only
doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not
duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly
doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to
obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made
to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman
pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently in such a
person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal
jurisdiction.
"The same conclusion is confirmed on
the basis of the visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church
consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that,
when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned, especially
on the part of her legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are
considering, the pope cannot be found even after diligent examination. The
conclusion is therefore correct that such a doubtful pope is not the proper
head of the visible Church instituted by Christ. Nor is such a doubtful
pope any less compatible with the unity of the Church, which would be in the
highest degree prejudiced in the case of the body being perfectly separated
from its head. For a doubtful pope has no right of commanding and therefore
there is no obligation of obedience on the part of the faithful. Hence in such
a case the head would be perfectly separated from the rest of the body of the
Church. Cf. Suarez, De Fide, Disp.10, sect.6, n.4, 19." (Fr. Franz Xaver Wernz,
Ius Decretalium ad Usum Praelectionum In Scholis Textus Canonicisive Juris
Decretalium, , Tomus II, (Romae: De Propoganda Fide, 1898) Scholion 618). Ius Decretalium
Card. Franzelin 1.
c. p. 232. n. 4. i. f.; Camarda 1. c. p. 253. sq. 256. sq., ubi agit de
legitimis exceptionibus contra electum Rom. Pontificem recteque notat contra
Papam electum et a tota Ecclesia receptum non admitti exceptionem. Qui
consensus Eccl. non est electio nec vi sua non electum facit electum, quia
canonice electus a Cardinalibus antece denter ad acceptationem Ecclesiae est
legitimus Papa. Cfr. Franzelin l. c. p. 234. Ergo acceptatio illa Ecclesiae
non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae
electionis. Vicissim si tota Eccl Papam electum dere linquat v. g. Petrum
de Luna sive Bened. XIII., id certum est signum illum nunquam fuisse legitimum
Papam. Cfr. Card. Hergenroether-Kirsch l. c. t. II. p. 867. sq.; Bouiae l. c.
p. 684. sq.; Billot l. c. p. 144. sq. [Therefore, the universal acceptance by the
Church is not the cause, but a sign and infallible effect of a valid election. On
the other hand, if the entire Church abandons a Pope, as in the base of Peter De
Luna (Benedict XIII) it is a certain sign that he never was a legitimate Pope.]
Hurter,
S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885)
“[Dogmatic facts]
include things of this sort: that the Sacred
Scriptures we use are genuine; that the Councils of
Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, etc. were legitimate; that Pius
IX, Leo XIII, etc. were elected
legitimately and consequently were legitimate successors to
Peter as Bishops of Rome. Just see what would result if you would let
any of these things be called into doubt. Definitions issued
during Councils would not have certainty. There would be no
sure way of determining the center of
Catholic unity. In short, what would result is the
uprooting of faith itself and the destruction of Rev- elation.
[Facta
dogmatica] “ejus modi sunt, e.g., Scripturam s., qua utimur,
esse genuinam; concilia nicaenum, ephesinum, tridentinum
etc., fuisse legitima; Pius IX, Leonem XIII etc. Iegitime fuisse
electos ac proinde legitimos Petri in episcopatu romano
successores. Sane fac quidpiam horum in dubium vocetur, illico
consequetur, editas definitiones in conciliis incertas, incertum
esse centrum unitatis catholicae, scil. consequetur
ipsius fidei excidium revelationisque pernicies. Hurter, S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium
(1885) I.338 (Thesis LV).
John of St. Thomas
– Theological Courses, 1640
“The Church accepts the election and the
elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule
of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the
Church depends upon her union with him.
"TO THE OBJECTION that there must be
someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the
election and the one elected are proposed by the cardinals, not in their own
person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who
committed to them the power of electing the pope and of declaring him to have
been elected. Wherefore they, in this
respect and for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the
cardinals, or whoever else the Church (that is, the Pope) has legitimately
designated to do the electing, represent the Church in all that concerns the
election of her head, the successor of Peter.
“Just as the pope gathers the bishops
together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in
matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of cardinals elects the
pope, and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose
ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of
faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme
pontiff. Wherefore, if the cardinals
elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as
the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [i.e., that he is the
legitimate Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the
acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the pope himself defines
anything.” (…)
"All that remains to be determined,
then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient
to render the proposition [i.e., that this man is Pope] de fide. Is it as soon
as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate
locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread
through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
"I REPLY that (as we have said above)
the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a
definition given by the bishops at a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover,
the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this
declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by
the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever
it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of
the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout
the rest of the world. As soon as men
see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not
contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept
him."
Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn (2002)
“Q. Can a papal election be convalidated by the general acceptance of the Catholic people?
“A. Yes. This is generally conceded by Catholic theologians. The ultimate guarantee of a valid election is the universal acceptance of Catholics that a certain man has been elected. (Rev. Donald Sanborn, Explanation Of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers, Jan, 2002)
Arnaldo De Salveira - 1980
Silveira: In respect to a doubtful Pope, it is necessary to make it very clear here that the peaceful acceptance of a Pope by the whole Church is ‘a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election’. This is the common teaching of the authors.” (L’Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?, Paris, 1980, p. 72).
Fr. Francis
Connell – American Ecclesiastical Review - 1965
In the December 1965 issue of
The American Ecclesiastical Review, Fr. Francis Connell provides a beautiful
explanation of the doctrine and uses it to prove that Paul VI was validly
baptized (condition) and validly elected pope.
"Question: What certainty have
we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church —
that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that
he was validly elected Pope?
"Answer: Of course, we have
human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave
and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal
Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the
electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty
that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that
effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was
administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true
spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of
certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
"But in the case of the Pope we
have a higher grade of certainty — a certainty that excludes not merely the
prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In
other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff
[Paul VI] has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism [condition]
and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not
have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God
the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly
true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not
contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with
revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial
authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing,
declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is
infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based
on the authority of the infallible Church." (American Ecclesiastical Review,
vol. 153, Dec. 1965, p. 422.)
Rev. Kavanagh D.D.
., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, 1895
“Mr. Gladstone need not be alarmed about
the papal succession. Independently of
all previous proceedings, the acceptance of Martin V by the Universal Church as
lawful Pope proves that his election was canonical and legitimate; for the
recognition of the true Pope is a dogmatic fact in which the Universal Church
cannot err.” (Rev. James Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism,
Dublin, James Guffy, 1895, p. 54)
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice
“It
happened a little afterward, that Sylverius died and Vigilius, who to that
point sat in schism, now began to be the sole and legitimate Pontiff for
certain through the confirmation and reception by the clergy and the Roman
people.” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, IV, chapter 10)
Fr. Edmund
O’Reilly – The Relations of the Church to Society (1892)
The following is Fr. O’Reilly’s
reply to the same article by Mr. Gladstone:
“As to Pope Martin's right to his
position, his universal acceptance by the Catholic Church settled that; and the
universality of this acceptance was not appreciably affected by the obstinate
persistence of Peter de Luna with a handful of adherents.” (Fr. Edmund O’Reilly,
S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society (London, John Hodges, 1892) p. 308
Definition of Martin V – Council of Constance
The following question was defined by the
Council to be proposed to those suspected of heresy:
“Also, whether he
believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his
proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme
authority in the Church of God? (Inter Cunctus, Council of Constance)
Definition of Martin V Explained by John of St. Thomas 1640
The following is John of St. Thomas’ explanation of why this definition renders the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope de fide:
“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation of the errors of Wyclif, which is to be found after the fourth, fifth, and last sessions of the Council, in the interrogations that are to be made of those whose faith is suspect, to see whether they rightly believe, puts this question. Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God? These words do not speak of the truth of that proposition understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning whoever is pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X. It is of this man, whose proper name is given, that the pope is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter of faith.” (…)
“[W]hoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact pope. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about.”
“Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.”
Bull of Pope
Martin explained by Ferraris, in Prompta
Bibliotheca Canonica. – 1764
“It is
of faith that Benedict XIV [currently reigning Pope], for instance,
legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope. This is proved from the Council of Constance, sess.
ult. where Martin V. Const. Inter Cunctus, decrees that those who return
from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they
believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being
expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in
the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since
those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’ (…)
“Through
the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals
to us the legitimacy of his election (quoque est certa, quia eo ipso quod Ecclesia ipsum recepit ut légitime electum, revelat Deus ipsius electionem esse legitimam), since Christ has promised that His Church
shall never err in a matter of faith … whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the
conclusion did not hold; since the Church by recognizing the elect the
legitimate Pope, she acknowledges him as the infallible rule of faith (whereas
if he were not the true Pope), he would be fallible. The definitions of
Benedict XIV when he speaks ex cathedra are de fide; but the assent would not
be de fide, if it were not de fide that Benedict is the true Pope. It is not valid [to say]: it’s not de fide
that Benedict XIV is validly baptized and canonically elected, since it is not
revealed; therefore, it is not de fide is that it is the true Pope. It is not
valid, I say, because although it is not explicitly revealed, it is revealed
implicitly through the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church; since
by this fact God has revealed that he is the legitimate Pope, he thereby
implicitly revealed that all the necessary conditions for him to become Pope
were met.” Ferraris, Louis, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica
Iuridica Moralis Theologica. (Romae: S. C. De Propaganda Fide, 1764) article
Papa, Nos. 67 – 71, p. 53.
Bull of Pope
Martin explained by Antonio Arbiol, Selectae Disputationes Scholasticae, Et Dogmaticae
- 1702.
“The Bull of
Martin V, in the Council of Constance, determine that heretics returning to the
Church are to be asked if they believe the Pope, canonically elected, reigning for a
time, his name being given, is the true successor of Bl. Peter; and if not they
are to be punished as a heretic and follower of the Heresiarch John Huss; but
that would not be the case, if it were not de fide; therefore, etc.”
The following his reply to the objection that
the legitimacy of a pope cannot be de fide, since it is not de fide that he was
canonically elected, or baptized, etc.
“… after he was
peacefully and universally accepted, as we saw above, not only is the election anonical and de fide; but also that he was baptized, as well as many
other things that were not previously de fide; for since Divine Providence will
not permit the Church cannot err [by universally accepting a false pope], all
these are implicitly revealed in the promise of Christ: ‘Behold I am with you
all days, even to the end of the world.” (…)
Therefore, after the peaceful and universal acceptance, the proposition [that
he is the true Pope] is not merely probable; it is de fide. No Catholic authors relate differently.
Indeed, all teach that by the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church all
the related conditions also become de fide, which beforehand were not de fide.”
(Arbiol, Antonio O.F.M., Selectae disputationes scholasticae, et dogmaticae,
Caesar-Augustae: Emm. Roman Univ, 1702, Disp II, Art XII.
Explanation of the Definition of Martin V by Fr.
Smith, S.J. 1895
Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., quotes the
renowned Italian canonist, Lucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca – 1764), who
explains why this definition renders the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been
peacefully and universally accepted, de fide:
“[The doctrine
stating that a Pope who has been peacefully and universally accepted is
infallibly the true Pope] is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of
Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in
Ferraris’ Bibliotheca [1764], a work of the highest authority. In his
article on the Pope, Ferraris says, ‘It is of faith (de fide) that Benedict
XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is
the true Pope — (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council
of Constance (sess. Ult.) where Martin V’s Constitution, Inter Cunctos, decrees
that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other
points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time
being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter,
having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he [Fr. Ferraris]
supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are
‘interrogated only as to truths of faith’.”
Fr. Smith continues by quoting Farris’
explanation of what is required for one to be considered “canonically elected”:
“It will be said,
‘Yes, but he speaks only of a Pontiff canonically elected and as such accepted
by the Church, so his authority cannot therefore be quoted for the case of one
whose canonical election is called in question.’ This, however, is an objection
which Ferraris himself anticipates, and he meets it thus:
‘Through the mere
fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us
the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall
never err in a matter of faith. … Through the mere fact that the Church
receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his
election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter
of faith … whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the conclusion did
not hold[.]’” (Fr.
Sydney Smith, S.J., “ Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the
Papacy,” Catholic Truth Society, Vol. XXVI, London, 1895.
Professor Boni - Beyond
a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law - 2015
“Finally,
Antonio Socci argues: ‘Even if the validity of the procedures followed that
March 13, 2013 was expressed only a doubtful judgment, it can be assumed that
the conclave must be redone because the doctrine teaches that" dubius pope
habetur pro non papa "(a doubtful pope he considers himself as not a
Pope), as the great doctor of the Church and Jesuit cardinal San Roberto
Bellarmino writes in the treatise "De conciliis et ecclesia militante’ (pp.
7, 122).
“On the contrary, even if what has been
reported had happened, the procedure followed, as demonstrated, would have been
entirely "ad normam iuris" (as provided by law): the election of Pope
Francis, having reached the expected majority in the fifth ballot (the first, I
remember, occurred on May 12), it would be valid, there would be nothing to
heal, there would be no doubt, much less "positive" and
"insoluble" (as the law postulates), on its validity.
“Given the total legal groundlessness of
these suppositions, even to want to give credit to the information on which it
claims to take root, the bogeyman - rashly agitated - of the current assidarsi
on Peter’s chair of a doubtful Pope also vanishes. However, the canonist have
constantly and generally chorus that the peaceful "universalis ecclesiae
adhaesio" is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and a
legitimate papacy (): and the
adhesion to Pope Francis of the people of God cannot be put in any way in
doubt.” (Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bologna, and Advisor
of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. “Beyond a Resignation. The
Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.)
Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn (2004)
“III. Five Errors of Opinionism
“ERROR 1: Opinionism places the identity of the Roman Pontiff, i.e., whether Ratzinger is the Vicar of Christ or not, in the category of “theological opinion.” The very term opinion indicates that it is not certain whether he is or he is not the pope. It is impossible to hold, however, that there is a lack of certitude on this subject.
“Those who hold that he is the pope point to absolutely certain signs: (1) a legal election which was universally accepted; (2) Ratzinger’s own acceptance of the election; (3) Ratzinger’s functioning as pope; (4) the universal acceptance of Ratzinger as a legitimate pope. None of these things is uncertain. If one is using these arguments as evidence of his papacy, where is there any room for doubt? (Rev. Donald Sanborn, Opinionism, 2004)
Sedevacantist Apologist, John Lane
“The adherence of the whole Church to any given claimant is in itself a proof that all of the necessary requisites for validity are present. The reason for this is the indefectibility of the Church, which cannot adhere to a false visible head. … it is certainly a powerful argument for sedeplenism, which is perhaps why most sedevacantists never mention it." (John Lane, Sedevacantist Apologist).
Archbishop Lefebvre – The New Mass and the Pope (1980)
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others. (…)
"Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope, The Angelus, January 1980)
___________________________________
Fr.
Jourdain Hurtaud, 0. P., Professor of Dogmatic Theology
Revue Thomiste Lettres De Savonarole
Aux
Princes Chrétiens
Pour
La Réunion D'un Concile
1900
If
it remains doubtful in the external forum that the election is valid, does the Pope that issued forth from this election not himself become doubtful? And is it not
the case that a council can be convened to draw the Church out of this
uncertainty?
Canonically,
a Pope emerging from a doubtful election is doubtful when the doubt bears on
the very substance of the election, as regards its essential conditions,
such as they are defined by natural law or positive law. For example, if there
had been serious reasons to believe that the election had been violent, or that
the person elected did not receive two-thirds of the votes. On the observance
of these conditions certainly depends the validity and therefore the reality of
the election. If the opposing cardinals seriously dispute the freedom of electoral
operations, or the number of votes obtained, etc., then the principle Jactum
non supponitur sedprobatur applies, and the fact of free and regular election must
be established. And [in such a case] we find for recourse to a council a principle of prosecution indisputably certain in law.
But here [in the present case under consideration - i.e., Alexander VI] the doubt concerns the circumstance of simony, not as
to the fact, but as to whether simony itself can vitiate the election and taint it with
nullity. The doubt is a legal doubt [i.e., doubt of law, not doubt of fact], and in this case, apart from a positive decree
deciding the question, one must regulate one's conduct by this principle: lex dubia,
lex nulla (a doubtful law is no law). The one chosen is in possession of his election
by the fulfillment of the certain conditions necessarily required, and the infraction of a dubious law cannot deprive him of it. A doubtful law, which therefore has no effect, cannot serve as the basis for
requiring the declaration of nullity, and, consequently, for justifying an act
as serious as that of calling into question the reality of the pontifical power in the holder of the Primacy, at the risk of causing trouble in the Church.
Therefore we understand that, in practice, a Pope who emerges from a notoriously simoniacal election is, or should be held to be, the true Pope at least legally.
Was he really? Nothing less certain.
It is manifest, indeed, that if
such an election is null of itself, as one can believe theologically, the absence of a positive decree explaining the divine law and allowing its
invalidity to be pursued canonically would not suffice to validate it [an investigation]. But it remains true that if the one chosen did not emerge as Pope by the operations of the Conclave, he could nevertheless become [a legitimate] Pope. How? —By the
acceptance of the Church.
It should be noted, in fact, that
the initial right of election originally belonged to Christian society. The
Sovereign Pontiffs were able to limit the use of this right, by restricting its
exercise to the college of cardinals, but they [the Pontiffs] did not intend to extinguish the right altogether,
precisely for such a case in which it becomes the only resource to ward off
this distress of the society. The Church, in this case, does not supply
jurisdiction, as some theologians wrongly say; it supplies for the election by the
oath of obedience taken by the different parts of Christendom (1).
Alexander VI had received these oaths of obedience... We therefore do not think that
the mere fact of simony, even if it was as well established and shameful as that to which Rodrigue Borgia owed his elevation, could justify the
initiative of Savonarola to
convening a council. The legal doubt was insufficient at the time of the
election, and it lost its legal value as soon as the one chosen had been
recognized by the Church. (Fr. Jourdain Hurtaud, 0.
P., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Lettres De Savonarole Aux Princes
Chrétiens Pour La Réunion D'un Concile, Revue Thomiste, 7, no. 44, 1900).
__________________________
Joannis de Lugo
Opera Omnia Theologica, quibus nunc primum accedunt una cum auctoris vita et triplici indice, DE OBJECTO FORMALI FIDEI, Vol. I. (Martin-Beaupré Fratres, 1868), p. 173-4
326. Contrariam sententiam docent nostri Doctores recentiores communiter . Suarez disp. 5 , de Fide, sect . 8 , n. 12 , et latius dicta disp. 10, sect . 5 Talmeron , Valentia et Albertinus, ex nostra Societate , in suis Corollariis quos affert idem Suarez dicta sect. E , num. 12 , et latius Hurtado disp . 37 per totam : quam ego etiam sententiam veram existimo, et supponi videtur in decreto Martini Quinti , quod factum fuit in Concilio Constantiensi, ubi ab hæreticis, qui reconciliationem peterunt, exigitur, ut inter alia quorum fidem profiteri debent dicant se credere Papam canonice electum , nempe N. qui pro tempore fuerit, ejus nomine expresso, esse successorem Petri et habere supremam potestatem in Ecclesia.
327. Ratione etiam , aliis argumentis omissis, quæ afferri solent, probari breviter potest ex supradictis, quia hoc etiam objectum singulare contineri videtur in universalibus propositionibus a Deo revelatis : nam ex Dei reve latione constat, Ecclesiam non posse decipi in credendo universaliter aliquo errore , cum sit Columna et firmamentum veritatis, & ad Timoth . 2, in qua Ecclesia universalis infallibilitate non minus contineri videtur quod non possit Ecclesia errare in agnoscenda vera regula visibili suæ fidei, quam in rebus aliis credendis per fidem : plus enim Ecclesiæ noceret error circa ipsam regulam veritatis et fidei, quam circa alia objecta particularia, cum esset error in ipso fidei fundamento, cum ergo regula visibilis , quam Ecclesia in sua fide sequitur et sequi omnino debet, sit ejus visibile caput, nempe summus Pontifex , cujus doctrinam et definitiones amplecti debet, non potest Ecclesia decipi acceptando pro Pontifice et regula fidei eum qui vere non esset Pontifex nec fidei regula, sed Pseudopapa, et homo privatus.
328. Confirmatur primo, quia debemus fide credere omnia definita in Concilio Tridentino, v. g. et in aliis Conciliis generalibus legitimis : ergo debemus fide credere illud esse legitimum Concilium ; sicut quia debemus fide credere omnia contenta in Evangelio Marci , debemus etiam fide credere illud esse verum et canonicum Evangelium ; si enim posseinus prudenter dubitare vel formidare de legitimitate Concilii , possemus etiam dubitare vel formidare de ejus definitionibus. Cum ergo valor Concilii dependeat ex consensu et approbatione veri summi Pontificis, sine qua non habet auctoritatem infallibilem , consequens est ut eadem fide credi debeat verus Pontifex, a quo Concilium legitimam habet auctoritatem et valorem .
326. Modern doctors generally teach the opposite opinion [that it is de fide]. Suarez disp. 5, on Faith, sect. 8, no. 12, and more widely spoken disp. 10, sect. 5, Talmeron, Valentia, and Albertinus, from our Society, in their Corollaries which Suarez brings forth in the same sect. E, whether 12, and Hurtado disp. 37 on the whole: I also consider this to be the true opinion, and it seems to be implied in the decree of Martin V, at the Council of Constantia, where it is required of the heretics who asked for reconciliation, that, among other things that they must confess by faith, whether they believe that the Pope, canonically elected, whose name is given, and has reigned for a time, whether they believe he is the Successor of St. Peter and has supreme power in the Church.
327. By reason also, for omitting the other arguments which are usually given, it can be proved from the foregoing, because this object also seems to be contained singularly in the universal propositions revealed by God: for it is clear from God's revelation that the Church cannot be deceived in believing universally in any error, since she is the pillar and ground of truth, according to Timothy. 2, in which the universal infallibility of the Church seems to be contained no less in that the Church cannot err in recognizing the true visible rule of her faith, than in believing in other things by faith: for an error would harm the Church more in regard to the very rule of truth and faith than in regard to other particular objects, since there was an error in the very foundation of the faith; since therefore the visible rule, which the Church follows in its faith and which all must follow, is its visible head, that is, the Supreme Pontiff, whose doctrine and definitions it must embrace, it follows that the Church cannot be deceived by accepting as the Pontiff and rule of faith, him who was not really the Pontiff and true rule of the Faith, but a Pseudo-Pope, and a private man.
328. This is confirmed first, because we must believe by faith everything defined in the Council of Trent, v. g. and in other legitimate general councils: therefore we must believe by faith that it is a legitimate council; just as we must believe by faith everything contained in the Gospel of Mark, so too we must also believe by faith that it is the true and canonical Gospel; for if we could reasonably doubt or fear the legitimacy of the Council, we could also doubt or fear its definitions. Since then the value of the Council depends on the consent and approval of the truth of the Supreme Pontiff, without which it has no infallible authority, it follows that the legitimacy of the Pontiff must be accepted with the same faith, since it is from him that the Council receives its legitimate authority and value.
________________________________
Fr. Antonio De Alvalate
Cursus Theologicus...juxta mentem Doct. Joanni Dunsii Scoti, Tract II de Vera Relig., (Garcia a Lanza, 1757) Disp III, Quaest III.
Objectio decumitur ex doctrina satis nunc communi inter Theologos, quòd feilic et dit de fide hunc numero hominē v.g. INNOCENTIVM XI quimodò gubernat Ecclesiain , esse verum Christi Vicarium, & Successorem Petri . Quam doctrinam ego latè defendi in felectis Disputationibus de Fide , quas dictavi Salmanticæ anno 1684 camque disputationem ad finem huius tractatus adijciam , tanquam coronidem huius operis de infallibilitate Romani Pontificis in definiendo. Aliqui namque Doctores, vt defendant hanc conclusionem , requi runt tanquam conditionem, quòd homo ille prius sit communi consensu totius Ecclesiæ receptus vt verus Pontifex . Ex primis, si non primùs ex Scholafticis Theologicis , qui hoc docuerunt , fuit R.P: Franciſcus Suarez, quidiſpur. 5. de fide sect.8. num.12. testatur fuisse suo tempore quæstionem valde controuersam: 'An sit de fide, hunc Pontificem esse verum Pontificem;' & addit: 'Multi sentiunt non esse de fide: sed vix poterunt sustinere certitudinem fidei in rebus definitis à Pontifice , nisi consequenter dicant, non solum Pontificem verum, sed nec etiam reputatum ab Ecclesia posse errare definiendo, quod censet Bellarminus .
Ego tamen ferè ante triginta annos hoc est, anno 1584 docui Rome esse de fide, hunc Pontificem ese verum Pontificem, post quam sufficienti consensu totius Ecclesiæ receptus est, & ita approbatus ut omnes illi obedire teneantur, etiam in definitionibus fidei: quia hæc obligatio necessario supponit illam certam fidem, & illa veritas particularis et sufficienter consenta in universali dogmate, quòd Successor Petri est verus Pontifex, & tunc sufficienter applicatur , & fidelibus proponitur . Quam sententiam postea nostri vel publicis disputationibus, vel typis etiam nonnulli mandarunt.' Hæc ibi P. Suarez , qui postea disput. 10 sect.5. num. 2. post quam aliorum Theologorum sententias reculit, subiungit: 'de fide esse hunc hominem , qui communi Ecclesiæ consensone acceptus est ut caput Ecclesia, cui ipsa tenetur obedire, esse verum Ecclesiæ Pontificem, & Petri Successorem.
2. Hinc videtur validum confici argumentum ad probandum , sine absurdo dici posse, quòd requiratur Eccclesiæ confenfus , ad hoc vt definitio Pontificis sit absolutè infallibilis , & rem faciat de fide certam, sicut requiritur pacifica acceptatio huius nunc hominis electi in Papam, vt sit defide certum, illum esse verum Christi Vicarium , & legitimum Petri Succefforem, & non sufficit illum suisse revera legitimè electum.
3. Respondeo tamen disparem esse rationem. Nam acceptatio pacifica huius hominis in Papam, non est necessaria vt hic num homo sit verus Papa, sed est applicatio necessaria, vt omnibus certò constet, eius electionem suisse legitimam. Si enim independenter ab acceptatione pacifica omnibus sufficienter constaret certò, eius electionem fuisse ritè & canonicè factam , independenter ab acceptatione pacifica tenerentur omnes credere, hunc num hominem esse verum Papam.
Vt eniin explicat P. Suarez disp. illa 10. ſect. 5. num. 6. cùm Chriſtusreuelauit Petrum eſſe caput Ecclesiæ , pariter reuelauit generaliter sle omnibus, eius Successoribus, solumque de est , inquit Suarez, sufficiens propositio huius vel illius contenti sub illa revelatione; talis verò propositio habetur per universalem testificationem , & approbationem Ecclesiæ . Quod planè explicatur & confirmatur à simili casu: nun quam enim videtur Deus revelasse Episcopum Romanum esse potius Pontificem Summum, quàm Alexandrinum , quia nunquam hoc expressit Deus, sed in confuso tantùm dixit, quandoreuelauit Petro dignitatem & successonem , quia talis revelatio sese ostendit, & cædit in eos Episcopos, vel in eorum Episcopatum , in quo Petro succeditur, post quam illa successio sufficienter est Ecclesiæ proposita per traditionem, vel univeraalem consensionem. Quando verò intelligendum sit dari sufficientem propositionem , ita vt omnes obliget, quibusdam videtur tunc dari, cùm ritè , & verè electus, atque adeò verus, Pontifex proponitur : & hoc quide sufficienseft, vt ex præcepto obedientiæ , & charitatis tencamur tali Pontifici obedire , atque vt non posit quispiam iure ab illo disiungi sine schismate; attamen loquendo sufficiens propositio, donec moraliter constet, illum esse acceptatum à tota Eccleſia, & pacificè possidere suum primatum , atque adeò posse obligare omnes fideles ad credendum quidquid definierit tunc enim certissimè credendum est, non posse accidere errorem in universali Ecclesia in re adeò gravi, qualis esset deceptio in ipsa visa regula fidei credenda, nam is error æquipararetur errori in fide. Si enim regula posset esse falsa , etiam regulatum ; atque si intolerabilis error esset in Ecclesia, quando tota crederet librum aliquem esse canonicum qui verè non esset, cùm tamen ille sit quædam regula fidei in animata, multò intolerabilius esset errare in visa regula; quin potius; si circa hanc posset semel dari error in universali Ecclesia , nunquam esset verum, illam habere certam, & infallibilem regulam vivam fidei sibi loquentem Christi nomine.
4. Itaque eximius Doctornon quidem firmiter, sed dubitanter, & cum formidine ( vt indicat particula fortasse ) censet , necessariam esse pacificam acccptationé Pontificis,adhoc vt sit de fide hunc num. hominem esse legitimum Petri Successorem , & verum Christi Vicarium, &vt omnes teneantur fide diuinâ credere, quæab illo in materia fidei & morum determinantur, & definiuntur; quia illa acceptatio videtur necessaria, vt constet authenticè de legitimitate electionis; quia quousque non fuerit pacificè acceptatus, non videtur sufficienter constare de legitimitate electionis: si quidem quamdiu pars aliqua orbis , seu aliqui Reges Catholici renuunt illum agnoscere pro legitimo Pontifice, datur aliqua ratio dubitandi , an electio eius fuerit legitima & Cañonica ; quia non poteft præsumi tam ingens piaculum de Principibus. Catholicis , quod ſcilicetnolintrecipere pro legitimo Pontifice illum hominem , quem constat esse ritè & legitimè electum . Quare si independenter ab acceptatione esset moraliter omninò certum, electionem suisse ritè & legitimè factam, independenter ab acceptatione esser obligatio credendi illum esse verum Pontificem . Nam in Concilio Conſsantienſi in Bullas Martini V. disponitur, vt ab hæreticis , qui Ecclesiæ Catholica volunt vilo conciliari, primùm omnium exigatur, an credant, Papam canonicè electum , quipro tempore fuerit ( eius nomine expreſſo ) esse Succefforem Petri, daboa bere supremam authoritatem in Ecclefia Dei. Eft ergo hoc, vt Concilium cum Pontifice, vel Pontifex eum Concilio supponit , de fide creden dum, vt rectè notae P: Suarez ea disp.ro.ſect.g.num . 2. neque enim infra certitudinem fidei proponitur res immediatè credenda à Pontificibus, inquit ille. Ergo omnis ille ,cui certò conftiterit , hunc hominem v.g. INNOCENTIVM XI suisse canonicè electum ,tenetur credere eum esse Successorem Petri , & habere supremam authoritatem in Ecclesia Dei .
The objection is based on the doctrine now quite common among the Theologians, that it is de fide that this man,, e.g. INNOCENT XI, who now governs the Church, is the true Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter. Which doctrine I defended at length in the celebrated Disputations on Faith, which I dictated at Salmantica in 1684, and I will add the discussion at the end of this treatise, as the crown of this work in defining the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For some of the Doctors, in order to defend this conclusion, require as a condition that that man should first be received by the common consent of the whole Church as the true Pontiff. Among the first, if not the first, among the Theological Scholars who taught this was R.P. Franciscus Suarez, quidiſpur. 5. on faith, sect. 8 number 12 testifies that in his time there was a very controversial question: 'Whether it is a matter of faith that this Pontiff is the true Pontiff;' And he adds: 'Many feel that it is not of faith: but they will scarcely be able to support the certainty of faith in matters defined by the Pontiff, unless they consequently say, not is that true for the Pope, but that not even the Church can err in what she holds definitively, as Bellarmine says. However, almost thirty years ago, that is, in 1584, I taught Rome that it is de fide that the Pontiff is the true Pontiff, after he was received with the sufficient consent of the whole Church, and approved in such a way that all are bound to obey him, even in the definitions of the faith: because this obligation is necessarily he supposes that certain faith, and that truth particular and sufficiently agreed upon in the universal dogma, that the Successor of Peter is the true Pontiff, and is then sufficiently applied, and proposed to the faithful. And some of us, afterwards, either in public debates, or in print, dictated what our opinion was.'
Here P. Suarez, who later discusses 10 sect.5. whether 2. After which he retlates the opinions of other theologians, he adds: 'It is de fide that this man, who is accepted by the common consent of the Church as the head of the Church, to whom she is bound to obey, is the true Pontiff of the Church, and the Successor of Peter.
2. From this it seems that a strong argument can be made to prove it, it can be said without absurdity, that the ecclesiastical consensus is required, for this purpose the definition of the Pope is absolutely infallible, and makes the matter certain of faith, just as the peaceful acceptance of this man who is now elected as Pope is required, so that he is unfaithful it is certain that he is the true Vicar of Christ, and the legitimate successor of Peter;
3. I answer, however, that the reason is different. For the peaceful acceptance of this man as Pope is not necessary to ascertain whether this man is the true Pope, but the application is necessary, in order that it may be certain to all that his election is legitimate. For if, independently of peaceful acceptance, it were sufficiently certain for all, that his election had been duly and canonically made, all would be bound to believe, independently of peaceful acceptance, whether this man was the true Pope.
Vt eniin explains P. Suarez disp. that 10. sect. 5. whether 6. When Christ revealed Peter as the head of the Church, he also revealed it generally to all, his Successors, and it is only about him, says Suarez, that the proposition of this or that content under that revelation is sufficient. such a true proposition is held by the universal testimony and approval of the Church. This is clearly explained and confirmed by a similar case: for it seems that God revealed that the Roman Bishop was rather the Supreme Pontiff than the Alexandrian, because God never expressed this, but only said in confusion, when he revealed to Peter the dignity and succession, because such a revelation showed itself, and he cuts into those bishops, or into their episcopate, in which he succeeds Peter, after which that succession has been sufficiently proposed to the Church by tradition, or by universal consent. When it is truly to be understood that a sufficient proposal must be given, so that it obliges all, it seems to some that it is then given, when a properly and truly elected, and now true, Pontiff is proposed: and why is this sufficient, that we are bound by the precept of obedience and charity to obey such a Pontiff, and for he cannot put anyone by right to be separated from him without schism; however, speaking a sufficient proposition, until it is morally established, that he is accepted by the whole Church, and that he peacefully possesses his primacy, and that he can now oblige all the faithful to believe whatever he has determined, for then it must be most certainly believed that an error cannot occur in the universal Church in a matter that is so serious. What kind of deception would it be to believe in the very visible rule of faith, for that error would be equated with error in faith. For if a rule could be false, even the regulated; and if there was an intolerable error in the Church, when the whole believed that some book was canonical which was not really so, when it was nevertheless some rule of faith in the living, it would be much more intolerable to err in the visible rule. but rather; if there could once be an error about this in the universal Church, it would never be true that it should have a certain & infallible living rule of faith that speaks in the name of Christ.
4. And so the excellent Doctor, indeed, not firmly, but doubtfully, & with fear (perhaps the particle indicates) he thinks that the pacific acceptance of the Pope is necessary, and then it is de fide that the man is the legitimate Successor of Peter, and the true Vicar of Christ, and that all are bound to believe in with divine faith, that which they determine and define in matters of faith and morals; because that acceptance seems necessary, that is, it is established authentically about the legitimacy of the election; for as long as he has not been peacefully accepted, it does not seem to be sufficiently clear about the legitimacy of his election: if, indeed, as long as some part of the world, or some Catholic Kings, refuse to recognize him as a legitimate Pontiff, there is some reason to doubt whether his election was legitimate and canonical; because it cannot be assumed that such a huge stake is in the Princes. Catholics, that they refuse to accept as the legitimate Pontiff that man whom it is established that he was duly and legitimately elected. Therefore, if independently of the acceptance it were morally absolutely certain, the election of the Swiss duly and legitimately made, independently of the acceptance there would be an obligation to believe that he was the true Pontiff. For in the Council of Constance, in the bulls of Martin V., it is arranged, that from the heretics, who wish to conciliate the Catholic Church, it is demanded, first of all, whether they believe that the canonically elected Pope, for the time being (expressed by his name) to be the Succeedor of Peter, shall be given supreme authority in Church of God If, therefore, this is the case with the Council with the Pontiff, or the Pontiff supplants him with the Council, let them believe on faith, as it is rightly noted P: Suarez ea disp.ro.ſect.g.num. 2. For, says he, "no thing is proposed to be immediately believed by the Popes below the certainty of faith." Therefore, every one to whom it is certain that this man, e.g. Innocent XI, who was canonically elected, is bound to believe that he is the Successor of Peter, and that he has supreme authority in the Church of God.
________________________
Domenico Palmieri
Tractatus de
Romano Pontifice cum prolegomeno de Ecclesia, 3rd Edition (Prati:
Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1902). pp. 222-223
This is confirmed by the
practice and doctrine of the Church, which, in addition to heresies, also
proscribed errors contrary to the truths which faith presupposes, or which are
deduced from faith and reason: cf. the articles of Nicholas of Ultri condemned
by St. Sede or 1348. (Denzinger p. 183.), the articles of Wycliff and Hus
condemned in the Council of Constantia and so many propositions condemned by
the following Popes. Specifically with regard to dogmatic texts, the Fifth
Council was forced to proscribe three chapters: as to dogmatic facts, Martin V
in the Bull Inter cuncta orders that suspects be questioned "whether they
believe that the Pope, canonically elected Pope, who has reigned for a time, in
his proper name, is the successor Blesse Peter, and has supreme authority in
the Church of God." It is not defined, therefore,
that he believes the truth in general, namely, that one canonically elected to
the Roman See is the successor of Peter: but that this person (for that is what
these words mean) expressed by his proper name, who now is Leo XIII, is the
successor of Peter, having authority in the Church: this is a dogmatic fact.
The Church therefore considers that it has the authority to propose such a truth
to be held as a matter of faith by its subjects.
Idem confirmatur praxi et
doctrina Ecclesiae quae, praeter haereses , proscripsit quoque errores adversos
veritatibus, quas fides supponit, vel quae ex fide et ratione deducuntur : cf.
articulos Nicolai de Ultri curia damnatos a S. Sede an . 1348. ( Denzinger p .
183. ) , articulos Wiclephi et Hus damnatos in Concilio Constantiensi et tot
propositiones a sequentibus Pontificibus damnatas . Speciatim quoad textus
dogmaticos , Concilium V. coactum est pro proscribendis tribus capitulis :
quoad facta dogmatica , Martinus V. in Bulla Inter cunctas praecipit
interrogari suspectos « utrum credant quod Papa canonice electus, qui pro
tempore fuerit, eius nomine proprio expresso , sit successor b. Petri , habens
supremam auctoritatem in Ecclesia Dei » . Non solum ergo definitur, credendum
generatim hoc verum, nempe quod canonice electus in Romanam Sedem sit
successor Petri: sed quod haec persona (id enim sibi volunt ea verba: eius
nomine proprio expresso), puta hic homo , qui dicitur Leo XIII, est successor
Petri, habens auctoritatem in Ecclesia: hoc porro est factum dogmaticum .
Ecclesia ergo censet aucto ritatem sibi competere proponendi huiusmodi vera et
exigendi in ea fidem a subditis.
Dicimus 2 ° magisterium Ecclesiae quoad has quoque veritates esse infallibile . Etenim id requiritur illa eadem ratione, qua requiritur in his auctoritas Ecclesiae, quae facere non posset satis suo fini, si fal libilis esset . Hoc enim posito nec ipsa obligare valeret fideles ad cre dendum quod proponit , nec certo constaret verum esse quod ipsa docet : ideoque finis huius magisterii non obtineretur. Et sane Ecclesia infallibilis esse debet in custodiendo deposito fidei; est enim columna et firmamentum veritatis: oportet ergo ut infallibilis sit in iis actibus, quibus depositum fidei custoditur; atqui huiusmodi actus non sunt solum definitiones dogmatis revelati haeresumque condemnationes, sed et ii sunt quibus errores proscribuntur, ex quibus damnum fidei oriri potest oppo sitaeque veritates statuuntur, quibus textuum dogmaticorum sensus determinatur: ergo in his quoque definiendis infallibilis est Ecclesia . Item infallibilitas est dos necessaria magisterii Ecclesiae; eo ergo se porriget quo ex officio sibi imposito se porrigit auctoritas docendi : atqui haec se extendit quoque ad alias veritates ; ergo . Et re quidem vera id semper creditum est in Ecclesia , in qua semper absolute affirmatum et retentum est Ecclesiae magisterium esse infal libile ; in qua , licet ea definita sint , quae non erant revelata ut e . g . tria capitula esse haeretica , nihilominus semper postulata est fides ea quae debetur magisterio infallibili . Ecclesia praeterea huiusmodi suis definitionibus assensum mentis interiorem praecepit eumque necessa rium esse decrevit et declaravit Clemens XI.
______
Apostolic Constitutions and theGregorian Ceremonial on matters pertaining to the election of the Pope
By
Fr. Antonino Seraphino Camarda, 1737
DISSERTATION
XXXIX
How can one bring an
exception against the election of the Pope?
First Inquiry
It is asked, first, whether,
where the nullity of a papal election is entirely notorious and everywhere
manifest, arising from whatever cause, it is permissible to raise an exception
against the elected, both in law and in fact. I respond affirmatively,
following Passerinus (Question 32, no. 14), who also asserts that this view is
common among Doctors and Canonists. The reasoning is most evident, especially
if we speak of nullities that may arise from the form itself, namely because
the person elected is an intruder; that is, not elected by a concordant and
legitimate election of two-thirds of the Cardinals. From the chapter In
nomine Domini (Dist. 23) and the chapter Si pecunia (Dist. 79), it
is established that such an intruder must be rejected and another legitimately
elected. In the Constitutions Aeterni Patris and Quod si electio,
it is prescribed that someone elected without observing the form established
therein should be considered apostate, and under pain of excommunication all
are forbidden to render him obedience.
Furthermore, speaking of the
crime of heresy or schism, if it is altogether notorious, there stands the
constitution of Pope Paul IV Cum ex Apostolatus, which grants the
faculty of withdrawing obedience from one who at some time has been shown to be
a heretic or schismatic. Finally, concerning the crime of notorious simony,
Julius II established that the Cardinals have the faculty to depose the
intruder and elect another. Therefore, against someone elected nullly, with a
nullity that is entirely notorious, it is truly possible to raise an exception
both of law and fact, denying him obedience and electing another who is a
legitimate Pope, without awaiting any further judgment.
There are many examples of
this. For instance, Constantine, brother of Duke Toto of Nepi, an intruder from
the laity and ordained without the election of the Cardinals but rather by
force, was expelled after a year by Christopher the Primicerius and his son
Sergius the Sacellarius, and Stephen IV was canonically elected. Further,
Christopher, Cardinal of the title of St. Lawrence in Damaso, having
deposed the legitimate Pope Leo V, invaded the Apostolic See, but after seven
months, though he was expelled by another invader, Sergius III (whom the Church
tolerated until his death three years later), he was removed.
Second Inquiry
It is asked secondly,
whether any exception can be raised against someone who has not only been
received by the Cardinals but by the whole Church peacefully and without
opposition.
I respond in the negative
with Passerinus (no. 17), citing several Doctors of Canon Law, Innocent the
Archbishop of Compostela, Jacobatius, and others in his favor. The reason is
very clear: A Pope elected by the Cardinals and peacefully accepted by the whole
Church cannot fail to be the true Pope. This can be proven as follows:
The Church, after applying moral diligence to the papal election, receives the
Pope by a special instinct of the Holy Spirit as the infallible rule of her
faith, in whom she cannot err since she is the pillar of truth, against which
the gates of hell will not prevail. Therefore, a Pope so received cannot fail
to be a true Pope, and consequently no exception can be brought against one who
has been so elected and received.
Furthermore, the Church must
be certain that she cannot be deceived by the Pope in matters of faith and must
also be certain that the Pope is legitimate and has the infallible assistance
of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there must be on earth a judge who can
infallibly determine that the one elected as Pope is truly and legitimately the
Pope. But this judge can only be the Church, to whom Christ entrusted the
election of the Pontiff, and consequently He also entrusted to her a certain
and infallible judgment regarding the legitimacy of the papal election, whether
this is done judicially through a Council or extra-judicially by the common and
peaceful acceptance of the Pope. Thus, the Church cannot err in
peacefully receiving a Pope elected by the Cardinals, and no exception can be
raised against a legitimately elected and accepted Pope.
It must be noted, to remove all
ambiguity, that no exception can be brought against the election of a Pope
peacefully received by the Church not because the consensus or acceptance of
the Church is itself an election or by its force can elect one who was not
elected, for the faculty of election belongs only to the Cardinals; nor because
the consent or acceptance of the faithful acts as a confirmation of the
election, for a papal election does not require confirmation; nor because the
value of the election depends on the consent and acceptance of the people,
since a pope canonically elected by the Cardinals is already a true and
legitimate Pope by virtue of that election alone, prior to the acceptance by
the Church. Rather, the faithful
consensus and the total acceptance by the Church is an infallible manifestation
that the election was valid; it infallibly proves its value a posteriori.
Hence, given the infallibility of this acceptance, no exception can be raised
against it. ...
But what should be said if,
after the election made by the Cardinals and the peaceful acceptance by the
Church, some hidden nullity of the election is subsequently revealed? Could one
then raise an exception of nullity?
I respond negatively with
Passerinus (no. 22). The reason is that laws nullifying and annulling a papal
election are aimed at ensuring the freedom and security of the papal election,
and especially at avoiding schisms. But if the Pope, elected in the face of the
Church with the canonical form observed, is received by the universal Church,
and only after this reception some awareness of a defect arises allowing
someone to raise an exception and challenge the election, thereby expelling the
elected, a great danger of schism would threaten the Church. Therefore, to
avoid schisms, it is not permitted to raise an exception of nullity under the
above hypothesis.
Moreover, the universal and
peaceful acceptance by the Church is like an infallible declaration of the
election’s validity. Therefore, if a peaceful acceptance of the Pope by the
Church exists, and afterwards some hidden defect comes to light, it is a sign
that such a defect does not matter for the validity of the election. Otherwise,
the Church could have erred in receiving the Pontiff, and no certainty of a
legitimate Papacy could ever be had in the Church. We could doubt any Pope
whatsoever, whether he was not baptized or had some other hidden defect making
him not a legitimate Pope.
The adversaries object that
there is indeed certainty that the Pope elected and received by the Church is
guided by a special assistance of the Holy Spirit in ruling the Church, and
that the Holy Spirit supplies whatever is needed for the Pope’s action to be
valid. But they say it is not entirely certain that the Church in receiving
this Pope, where there was some hidden defect, has not erred, and thus there
could still be room for an exception.
I say this objection does not hold, as John of
St. Thomas convincingly refutes it in the cited place. There are two
propositions here: first, that the Pope peacefully received by the whole Church
is a true Pope, or that the Church cannot err in receiving a legitimately
elected Pontiff; and second, that a Pope received by the Church has the
assistance of the Holy Spirit so he cannot act invalidly. Why should one
proposition be more certain than the other? And if it is conceded that the
Church can err in receiving the Pope and take a false Pope for a true one, with
what certainty can it be affirmed that the Holy Spirit assists this falsely
received Pope so that he will not err or act invalidly? Therefore, it is more
fitting and must be asserted that the Holy Spirit so governs the Church that
she does not receive a false Pope, and that He does not permit anyone false to
sit peacefully on Peter’s Chair. Hence no exception of nullity, even a hidden
one, can be raised after a legitimate papal election and the Church’s peaceful
acceptance.
______
Apostolic Constitutions and theGregorian Ceremonial on matters pertaining to the election of the Pope
By Fr. Antonino Seraphino
Camarda, 1737
Dissertation XL
How the exception for the crime of
heresy is to be understood in Constitution
19 of Paul IV.
I
am taking up a special question concerning the exception in the crime of
heresy, which presents a great difficulty because of Constitution 19 of Paul
IV, confirmed by Pius V, which seems to state that even after the universal
acceptance of the Church, an exception can be made against the election of a
Pope, both de jure and de facto. For Paul IV in his Constitution 19, which
begins with Cum ex Apostolatus, and renewed by St. Pius V in his Constitution
22, Inter Multiplices.
§ 6. In addition, that if ever at any time it shall
appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or
Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been
mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his
elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or
fallen into some heresy: the promotion
or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous
assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and non existant; nor can
it be said to have become valid or to have become valid by the assumption of
office, consecration, or subsequent possession of government and
administration, or by the enthronement of the Roman Pontiff himself, or by veneration,
or by the obedience rendered to him by all, nor through the lapse of any period
of time in the foregoing situation. It
shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; to any so promoted to be
Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals,
or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be
considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal
domain; each and all of their words,
deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which
these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability
whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall
be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all
dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power. But the sake of
the difficulties.
You
inquire first whether the election of a heretic and schismatic is invalid by
Divine law, such that no exception can made to its nullity.
I
answer that the election of a heretic and schismatic is illicit by Divine law,
but it is not de facto invalid by divine law. The first part is certain,
because he who does noy profess the true faith of Christ is unworthy of the
Pontificate; moreover, by divine law the Cardinals must elect the best; therefore,
the election of a heretic or schismatic is by divine law illicit.
The
second part is proved, because a Heretic and a Schismatic are not by Divine law
incapable of the power of order and jurisdiction, but rather, if they are
elected Pope, they can embrace the faith and govern the Church most holy,
therefore the election of a heretic and a Schismatic as Pope is not null and
void by Divine right; if his incorrigibility and obstinacy has not been
established. Thus hold Cajetan, Soto, Cano, Suarez, John of Saint Thomas,
Barbosa, whom he follows, and quotes Passerinus q.30. num.9.
From
this it is gathered that the election of a Heretic or Schismatic is weak and
feeble, and therefore irritable, if the crime of the elect were notorious, he
could be deposed after the second warning, which would demonstrate his incorrigibility,
by the intervening sentence of the Church declaring him an incorrigible heretic;
but in such a case it is not the Church, but Christ, who would deprive him of the
Papal power.
It
does stand to say that the pope who was deposed was invalidly elected by Divine
law, and therefore being void by Divine law, the election is not regarded as
valid. And hence that by Divine law an exception of nullity could be given {in
the case of heresy}.
I
say it does not stand in the way, because a Heretic or Schismatic Pope is
deposed because of his incorrigibility and obstinacy, therefore before it is
established that he is incorrigible and obstinate, his election in the meantime
holds and is valid by Divine law until he is deprived of his power because of
his obstinacy.
You
inquire secondly whether the election of a Heretic or Schismatic Pope is valid
by Canonical and positive law, such that no exception can be given against it either
by law or by fact?
I
reply to this, that from the following, from the Constitution of Paul IV, as
mentioned above: §6. Adding that the election of a Heretic or Schismatic as
Pope, who is established to have deviated from the Catholic faith at any time,
is null and void, against it an exception of law and fact can be given. And
this is clearly evident from the literal text of the Constitution, which
although not found published, was nevertheless renewed and confirmed by St.
Pius V in his 22nd Constitution 22 Inter Multiplicis; and
although according to the Constitution of Gregory XV, the Aterni Patris, no
objections can be raised against the election of the Pope on the basis of censures
or excommunications, yet in the Constitution of Paul IV no censure is imposed, but
only disqualifications from the Papacy.
You
ask thirdly whether Constitution 19. of Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus, should be
understood to mean that after the Pope has been received by the universal
Church, if he is later found to have been a Heretic and Schismatic, his
election is null and void?
I respond in the negative, because the Church cannot err in receiving the
Pope, who is the infallible rule of faith, otherwise she would not be the
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, against which the Gates of Hell will not
prevail; Also because, if the Pope had meant for the Constitution to speak of a Pope who had already been accepted by
the whole Church, it would necessarily follow, that a Pope elected and so receive
could be one who, it would seem, did not have the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, and hence was fallible in doing what he did; and that the Church erred
[in following him], and had to prove that the Pope was false; from which it
would follow that the existence of the Papacy in the Church is fallible and
uncertain. But this is very absurd and injurious to the infallibility of the
Church; therefore this interpretation must be avoided. It could be said, if such were the meaning of
the Constitution, that God would so direct the Electors and the Church, that
one who was a Heretic or Schismatic would never be elected, or else the defect of the
one elected would be manifested, so that he would not be received by the whole
Church without opposition and contradiction; and in this way --- in the case of
a Pope elected and received by the whole Church, no exception can be made be
made against the validity of his election due to pre-election heresy or schism;
indeed, such an exception would be considered as a slander, and repugnant to
the infallibility which the Church has and should have for the validity of an
election it has approved.
Neither does stand,
when the Constitution says, "nor
by the assumption of office, consecration, or subsequent possession of government
and administration, or the quasi enthronement of the Roman Pontiff, or by the veneration
or obedience rendered to him by all, nor over the course of any
time in the aforementioned, can it be said to have become valid, or to be valid,"
that if, after being elected Pope, it is established that he was a Schismatic
or a Heretic, even after the reception of all, that is, of the Church, and
after the course of time, that an exception can be made de jure and de facto
against such an election of Pope.
I say it does not stand because the participle
"All" (omnibus) does not refer to the whole Church, but to the whole
College of Cardinals, or to those present in Rome. For if the Supreme Pontiff
Paul IV had meant to denote the whole Church by the use of this participle, he
would have express it more clearly, as it truly should have been expressed. Moreover, it is not probable that
the Pontiff would have wished to render this article doubtful, namely, {the
article concerning} the infallibility of the Church in receiving the Pope, or indeed,
the assistance of the Holy Spirit to him who, without being contradicted by the
Church, acts as Pope by determining matters of faith and religion ex
cathedra, on which the Church’s certitude of faith depends; and who has, as
her infallible rule of faith, the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, “all” (Omnibus) is not to be
understood as denoting the universal Church. Moreover, although the name Omnes
(all) can have a strict or broad signification, yet if it is understood in the
broad sense in this penal law, which was made to fight against heresy, it would
not be favorable for the Church; it could lead to the destruction of the faith
and the Faithful, and is an evident danger of Schism and heresies itself, unless
it is understood in the narrow sense, as referring to the College of Cardinals;
and therefore [understood as meaning] that by the consent of all the Cardinals
the aforementioned election does not become valid over any course of time.
Furthermore
it does not stand that when the aforementioned Constitution says, ‘if at
any time etc. it appears that any Pontiff has been a Heretic and
Schismatic, such election is void,’ that because such a clause is universal,
it could appear that even after the universal acceptance by the Church, it is
possible for an exception to be made by law or by fact against an elected
Pontiff, who has been proven to be a Heretic or Schismatic.
I
say it does not stand, because if that clause ever appeared at any time, it
must be understood of the time when the existence of the Papacy in the elect
can be disputed, which is the time preceding the common consent and reception
of the Church, and
thus it is necessary that heresy or schism at least appear before the reception
of the elect as Pope, and during the appropriate time he has been opposed due
to heresy or schism. In this hypothesis an
election that is null in fact does not become valid, nor is the election to be
judged null in the space of time, beginning with the consent of all the
Cardinals to the appearance heresy: But after the reception and common
acceptance of the Church, no opposition or exception is to be admitted, because
then there is no longer any time available to annul or cast doubt on the
election of the Pope.
Indeed,
I add that it is not for the faithful, but for the Cardinals to elect the Pope,
and therefore the consent of the faithful is not that from which the election
can be validated, but the consent of the Cardinals, and therefore when it
is said in the Pauline Constitution that the election of one who has ever
appeared to have been a heretic is not validated by the consent of all, it must
be understood of the consent of all the Cardinals, not indeed of all
the faithful, which is not a validating factor of the election, but a
declaration of its infallible value, since the cause of the Papacy is not to be
called into doubt; Thus thinks Passerinus in question 32. on the election of
the Pope, from whose most elegant doctrine I have extracted, which I was saying
in this dissertation
__________
Francisco Longo A Coriolano, Minorum S. Francis Capuccinorum - 1623
Summa Conciliorum Omnium, Praeludium 10, Assertion II
Assertion II
It is de fide to say that the Pope thus numbered, for example, Gregory XV. is the true successor of Peter, and the Vicar of Christ.
This Proposition is proved, First, Because it is an Article of the Catholic Faith that the Church is one, Catholic (universal) and visible: therefore it is an article of the same faith that there must be one universal and visible head, which is only this or that Pontiff: since the Pontiff, who in thought He is separated from this or that, not outside in the natural world, nor is he seen by the eyes, nor does he do or plan anything in the Church instituted by Christ. Therefore, by the Catholic faith, we are forced to believe that this or that one who presides over the multitude of Christians is the true and legitimate Pontiff. Cornelius in his Epistle to Cyprian concerning the confessors who were restored to unity, says this: "We know that Cornelius is bishop of the most holy Catholic Church, chosen by Almighty God and Christ our Lord." And after a little: "for we are not ignorant that there is one God and that there is one Christ of God... one holy spirit; and that in the Catholic Church there must be one bishop."
SECONDLY, by Catholic faith, not to say human faith, we believe in the true and legitimate succession of Pontiffs in the Roman Church and See: but that succession consists of these or those who have before been the Pontiffs, and who have ruled the Church: therefore we must believe with a faith that repels all suspicion, that these individuals were the true and legitimate Pontiffs.
THIRDLY, The Ecumenical Councils, and the authority and Canons of faith that have been handed down by them, we with without fear embrace with divine faith: therefore with what faith must acknowledge an safeguard (colere) the authority of the Roman Pontiff, without which no Council can be legitimate: nor is the Church bound by its laws it sanctions, before it is confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. And he who summons a Council, and confirms it, as Silvester, Agapetus, Leo, Pius, Gregory, Sixtus, Clement, Paulus: therefore, with the certainty of the Catholic faith, it must be believed that these are legitimate Pontiffs.
FOURTH, If the Roman Pontiff, teaching from the Chair, decrees something pertaining to the Catholic faith, by that decree the Christian people bound by Catholic faith to assent to it and agree: therefore it is necessary to believe by the same faith that the Pontiff, who is the author of the Decree, has the legitimate authority to decide. He who discerns the truth is Peter, Stephen, Pius, Paul: therefore it must be believed with Catholic faith that were true and legitimate Pontiffs, with the authority to decide.
FIFTH, It is not to be suspected that the whole Church could be led astray by the inculcation of the saints: therefore, when the Roman Pontiff proposes to the whole assembly of the faithful the honor of any saint and commands in that matter, he cannot be fooled or deceived. But when he mentions someone in the number of Saints, and orders them to be honored by the Christian multitude, he does so as a true and legitimate Vicar of Christ, as in fact the most holy Paul V did in the canonization of St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan, at whose Canonization I also participated among so many thousands: therefore, since thus is such, as Catholics we must affirm it.
SIXTH, Those who sought death in Britain in order to defend the authority of Pope Gregory XIII, have attained the glory of martyrs just as if they had shed their blood for the Catholic faith: nor were those holy and mighty men fearing at the time when they were fighting under the authority of Pope Gregory XIII, if they were contending for the cause of the faith.
SEVENTH. With Catholic Faith we look to the Roman Chair as the interpreter of Religion, the teacher of incorrupt morals: but there is no Roman Chair, except that held by this visible Pontiff, whom the Church has chosen for himself: not one in the future who will be on the earth: therefore, with a faith that cannot err, we must believe that this one (who we see) is the true and legitimate high priest of the same Chair. The words in the profession of faith issued by Pius IV give great authority to this seventh reason: I acknowledge the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, the mother and teacher of all Churches. But the governor and teacher of the Roman Church is Linus, Clemens, Paul: therefore we must recognize these teachers of the true faith and doctrine with the Catholic faith
EIGHTHLY, Christ instituted an Ecclesiastical Monarchy, which would last the whole age of the succeeding world. Therefore, since there cannot be a Monarchy without a Monarch, it is divine faith to believe that it will never lack a true Monarch: but no one else can succeed to these, except the successor of Peter, who is chosen by the legitimate consent of the Church, or by the people to whom the choice belongs. therefore one he has been elected, we are compelled to believe he is the true and legitimate Head and Ruler of this sacred Monarchy.
Ninth, Catholic faith teaches that the Christian Church is the true and legitimate Church: therefore the same teaches that this or that Roman Pontiff is the true and legitimate Vicar of Christ; because it is the source and promulgator of the Christian unity: whenever Bishops are created by him, by him priests are appointed over the Christians, so that he who doubts if the pontificates of Peter, Clement, and Paul, are true, must also doubt the bishops he appointed.
TENTH, It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the ecclesiastical hierarchy was established by God: for it was established in the Council of Trent. 23. 6. "If any one says, that in the Catholic Church there is not in effect a hierarchy established by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, priests, and ministers, let him be anathema." But the principal part of this hierarchy is the Roman Pontiff, its Head and living Ruler: therefore, if we are commanded by divine faith to believe that the hierarchy is true: let its head be true. Now this is head is the Pontiff, whom we can mark with our eyes and finger. Therefore
Eleventh, It is a dogma of the Christian faith, that bishops accepted by the Roman Pontiff are true and legitimate bishops: therefore the Pontiff, whose authority is assumed, must be acknowledged with Catholic faith to be a true and legitimate Pontiff. The antecedent of this Enthymeme is the Council of Trent, sess. 23.can. 8. in these words: "If anyone says that the bishops who are assumed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff are not real bishops, but human figments, let him be anathema." Therefore, by Catholic Faith it must be said that Clement, Pius, Gregory, Paul, by whose authority bishops are elected, are legitimate and true Pontiffs.
TWELFTH, Whoever violates the authority of the sacred sanctions of Innocent III or Alexander III or Gregory IX or Boniface VIII or other Pontiffs, by which sanctions are exercised in the Church, or becomes infected, shall be punished with the penalty of heretics: therefore, according to the Catholic faith, it is necessary to believe that that the proceeded from true and legitimate papal authority.
THIRTEENTH, Whoever denies that Gregory XV whom the Catholic Church recognizes, is the head of the Church, or the true successor of Peter, or the Vicar of Christ, not with human, but in the orthodox faith, which is not subject to falsity, would sin and be burned with flames as a true heretic: therefore it pertains to divine faith that every Christian must be profess that Gregory is the true and legitimate Vicar of Christ
ASSERTIO SECUNDA.
De fide est, dicere, hunc numero Papam, v.g. GREGORIUM XV esse verum successorem Perti, Christi Vicarium.
PROBATUR hæc Affertio, primo, Quia fidei Catholicæ Articulus eft, Ecclesiam esse unam Catholicam, visibilem: ergo eiufdem fidei articulus effe debet, Caput esse unum, universale, & visibile: at hoc non est nisi hic vel ille Pontifex: quandoquidem Pontifex, qui cogitatione ab hoc vel illo abiungitur, non extra in rerum natura, nec oculis cernitur, nec quidquam agit vel molitur in Ecclesia à Christo instituta. Ergo fide Catholica cogimur credere, hunc vel illum, qui Chriftianæ multitudini præficitur, verum & legitimum esse Pontificem. Cornelius in epist. ad Cyprian. de confessoribus ad unitatem regreffis, ait: Nos inquiunt, Cornelium Episcopum sanctisimum Catholicæ Ecclesiæ electum à Deo omnipotenti, & Christo Domino nostro scimus. Et poft pauca: Nec enim ignoramus, num Deum esse, & unum Christum esse Dominum quem confesi sumus: unum Spiritum sanctum: unum Episcopum in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere.
SECuNDO, Fide Catholica, nedum humana, credimus veram & legitimam fuccessionem Pontificum in Romana Ecclesia & Cathedra: at ea fuccessio constat ex his vel illis, qui deleti funt, Pontificibus, & qui Ecclesiam rexerunt: ergo hos singulos credere debemus fide, que omnem repellit falsi suspicionem, veros ac legitimos fuiffe Pontifices.
TERTIO, Oecumenicum Concilium, auctoritatem & Canones fidei ab iis traditos, diuina insusaque fide ample & timur: ergo cadem fide auctoritatem huius illusue Romani Pontificis colere debemus, sine quo nec ullum Concilium potest esse legitimum: neque eius legibus ac fanctionibus alligatur Ecclesia, antequam à Romano Pontifice confirmetur. Convocat autem Concilium, & illud confirmat Silvester, Agapetus, Leo, Pius, Gregorius, Sixtus, Clemens, Paulus: ergo hos & legitimos esse Pontifices, certa & Catholica fide credi debet.
QUARTO, Sie Cathedra respondens Romanus Pontifex decernat aliquid ad fidem Catholicam pertinens, illi Decreto cunétus Christianus populus fide Catholica assentiri cogitur: ergo illa ipsa fide necessarium est credere, in Pontifice, qui auctor suit Decreti, legitimam fuiffe potestatem decernendi. Qui verò discernit, est Petrus, Stephanus, pius, paulus: ergo hos vera & legitima & pontificia auctoritate pollere, fide Catholica debet esse perceptum.
QVINTO, Incultu fanctorum uniuerfam Ecclesiam errare, ne farium est suspicari: ergo cùm Romanus Pontifex toti fidelium cœtui Sanctum quempiam colendum proponit & pręcipit in ea re salli aut fallere ipse non potest. Sed cum quempiam in Sanctorum numerum refert, & à multitudine Christiana adorari imperat, id facit tamquam verus & legitimus Christi Vicacarius, sicut de facto fecit sanctissimus Paulus Quintus in canonizatione sancti Caroli Borromæi Archiepiscopi Mediolanensis, cuius Canonizationi ego etiam inter tot millia interfui: ergo cum talem esse, Catholicè affirmare debemus.
SEXTO, Qui in Britania pro tuenda Gregorij XIII Pontificia auctoritate mortem oppetiuerunt, Martyrum gloriam perinde sunt assecuti, ac si pro fide Catholica sanguinem profudissent: neque sacri illi & fortissimi viri verebantur quo tempore Gregorij XIII Pontificis auctoritate dimicabant, quin pro fidei causa decertarent.
SEPTIMO, Romanam Cathedram interpretem Religionis, magistram sactorum ac morum esse incorruptam, fide Catholica reddimus: at nulla est Romana Cathedra, nisi quem hic velille Pontifex tenet, quem sibi delegit Ecclesia: non is qui numquam suit vel futurus est in terris: ergo hunc vel illum verum & legitimum eiusdem Cathedræ Antistitem esse, fide quæ errare non poteft, credere debemus. Huic septimæ rationi magnam auctoritatem tribuunt verba in fidei professione edita à Pio Quarto, Sanctam catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Ecclesiarum matrem & magistram agnosco. At Romanæ Ecclesiæ moderator & Magister est Linus, Clemens, Paulus: hos ergo veræ fidei & doctrinæ Magistros Catholica fide debemus agnoscere
OCTAVO, Christus Ecclesiasticam instituit Monarchiam, quæ totam consequendi mundi ætatem esset æquatura. Ergo cum sine Monarcha Monarchia esse non possit, diuinæ fidei est credere numquam verum illi defuturum Monarcham: his autem alius singi non poteft, nisi Petri successor, qui legitimo assentu, aut Ecclesiæ, aut corum ad quos spectat, eligitur: ergo hunc feuillum electum Pontificem Romanum; verum & legitimum huius sacræ Monarchiæ Caput & Rectorem esse credere cogimur.
Ninth, Docet fides Catholica, Chriftianam Ecclefiam effe veram & legitimam Ecclefiam: ergo eadem docet,Romanum Pontificem hunc vel illum,effe verum & legitimum Christi Vicarium; proptereà quòd is vniuerfitatis Christianorum fons est & profeminator: quandoquide ab eo creantur Episcopi, ab his Sacerdotes Sacerdotibus reliqui Christiani; ut qui dubitat de veritate Pontificatus Petri, Clementis,Pauli, eumdem de veritate Ecclefiæ dubitari necesse sit.
DECIMO, Fidei Catholicæ dogma eft, Ecclefiafticam hierarchiam effe diuinitus constitutam: fic enim in Concilio Tridentino feff. 23. can. 6. Si quis dixerit, in Ecclefia Catholica non effe hierarchiam diuina ordinatione institutam, que conftat ex Epifcopis, Presbyteris, ac miniftris,anathema fit. Sed præcipua pars huius hierarchiæ eft Romanus Pontifex, Caput illius & Rector vifibilis: ergo ficut hierarchiam diuina fide iubemur credere effe veram : fic eius caput effe verum. Caput autem hoc eft hic velle Pontifex, quem oculis & digito notare poffumus. Ergo
DVODECIMO, Qui factarum fanctionum aut Innocentii III. aut Alexandri III. aut Gregorii IX. aut Bonifacii VIII. aut cæterorum Pontificum, quibus fanctionibus in Ecclesia iudicia exercentur, auctoritatem aut infringeret, aut inficiaretur, pœnis hæreticorum mul&taretur: ergo fide Catholica, corum à quibus profectæ sunt, veram, & legitimam, & Pontificiam fuiffe auctoritatem, credere necesse est.
UNDECIMO, Est idem fidei Christianæ dogma, Episcopos assumptos à Romano Pontifice esse legitimos & veros Episcopos: ergo Pontificem, cuius auctoritate assumuntur, fide Catholica fatendum est, esse legitimum & verum Pontificem. Antecedens huius Enthimematis, est Concilii Tridentini, sess. 23.can. 8. his verbis: "Si quis dixerit, Episcopos,qui auctoritate Romani Pontificis affumuntur, non essel egitimos veros Episcopos, sed figmentum humanum, anathema sit. Ergo Clementem, Pium, Gregorium, Paulum, quorum auctoritate eliguntur Episcopi, veritate fidei Catholicæ cogente, dicendum est, esse legitimos & veros Pontifices.
DECIMOTERTIO, Qui Gregorium XV cui Catholica paret Ecclecia, aut caput Ecclesiæ, aut verum Petri successorem, aut Christi Vicarium pernegaret, non in humanam, sed in fidem orthodoxam, & cui non potest subeffe falsum, peccaret, & tanquam verus hæreticus flammis cremaretur : ergo ad fidem insulam diuinitus pertinet, Gregorium XV ab unoquoque Christiano verum, legitimumque Christi Vicarium prædicari
