Skip to the text
Ember
PT

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ

THE Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein, as in the House of the living God, all who believe might be united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore, before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father, not for the apostles only, but for those also who through their preaching should come to believe in Hun, that all might be one even as He the Son and the Father are one.1 As then He sent the Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world, as he Himself had been sent by the Father: so He willed that there should ever be pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the

World. And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this two-fold unity, and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should arise and the Church hi the firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to Heaven.2 And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that might be, to overthrow the Church: We, therefore, for the preservation, safe -keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the beh'ef and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and solidity of the entire Church, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

CHAPTEE L

OP THE INSTITUTION OF THE APOSTOLIC PRIMACY IN BLESSED PETER.

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: Thou shait be called Cephas,* that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, addressed these solemn words: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona> because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. f And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. J At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.

If any one, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same P«rij^(^esus Christ a primacy of honor only, and jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

xvi. 16-19. 1 St.' John xxi. 15- 17

CHAPTER H.

ON THE PEBPETUITY OF THE PEIMACY OF BLESSED PETER IN THE ROMAN PONTIFFS.

That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Bock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Eedeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him, and consecrated by his blood.3 Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church, f Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church — that is to say, the faithful throughout the world — should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received; that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the rights4 of communion spread to all, might grow together as members of one Head in the compact unity of the body.5

If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.

Chapter in.

ON THE POWER AND NATURE OF THE PRIMACY OF THE KOMAN PONTIFF.

Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred Writings, and adhering to the plain and express decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, We renew the definition of the (Ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which aU the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church, and Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the Sacred Canons.

Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Koman Pontiff, which is tmly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchial subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Eoman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic trijth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.

But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which Bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles,6 feed and govern, each his own flock, as true Pastors, that this their episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of St. Gregory the Great; my honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the firm strength of my brethren. I am truly honored, when the honor due to each and all is not withheld, f

Further, from this supreme power possessed by the Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be taught and ruled by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the communication between this7 supreme Head and the Pastors and their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who make this communication subject to the will of the secular power, so as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or by its authority, for the government of the Church, cannot have force or value unless it be confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful,8 and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, f and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment. J Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an (Ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme po\ver of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the9 Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.10

CHAPTER IV.

CONCERNING THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OP THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

Moreover, that the supreme power of teacJnrg is also included in the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church confirms, and (Ecumenical Councils also have declared, especially those in which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, folio whig in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by who said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,11 these things which have been said are approved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion, f And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoys supreme and full Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of blessed12

Peter, 1 'rince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Koman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment13 Finally, the Council of Florence defined: f That the Koman Pontiff is the true Yicar of Christ, and the Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.];

To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of Churches, § and the form of the ancient rule,|| sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might be most effectually repaired where the faith cannot fail.^f And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling (Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence sup-

If From a letter of St Bernard to Pope Innocent II. A.D. 1130. Epic t 191, vol. iv. p. 433, Paris edition of 1742. -.-».

DA14151617 plied, defined as to be held those things which itli the help of God they had recognized as conformable wrtii the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by II is revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.18

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of ail; that the whole flock of Christ kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole Church might be kept ono, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.

But since hi this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Eoman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable * of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

But if any one — which may God avert — presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in Public Session solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate.

In conformity tuith the original.

JOSEPH, Bishop of S. Pol ten,

Secretary to the Vatican Council.

AULES LAID DOWN BY THEOLOGIANS FOR DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS.

Question. — What are the characters and marks whereby we may know whether a proposition can be submitted to the authoritative judgment of the Catholic magisterium, or19 in other words, whether a proposition be definable as de fide?

Answer. — In the answer distinction was made between that which was sufficient in order to come to a definition, and that which was not necessary for that purpose.

With respect to that which was not necessary, the folio;?ing four points were established unanimously.

  1. It is not necessary, that antecedently there should not have been a variety of opinions in the Catholic Church, and that all should have agreed in that which is to be defined.

This is manifest from the ancient controversy long ago decided on re-baptism, although many bishops held the opposite opinion. This is also confirmed by the practice of the church, which many tunes has permitted the profession of opposite opinions, provided there has been a willingness to submit to any decision that might be made. This practice supposes that points may be defined, about which Catholics have been permitted to think and dispute freely.

  1. It is not necessary that no writers of authority should be cited for an opinion contrary to that which is to be defined. This is manifest from the history of the dog. mas successively defined; and in this place it will be sufficient to observe, that the Council of Trent (sess. vi. can. 23) did not hesitate to affirm as the faith of the church, that the most Holy Virgin Mother of God had never committed any even venial sin, although it is certain that grave doctors and Fathers wrote otherwise.

  2. It is not necessary to cite texts, either implicit or explicit, from Holy Scripture, since it is manifest that the extent of revelation is greater than that of Holy Scripture. Thus, it has been defined, for example, that even infants may and ought to be baptized, that Christ our Lord is wholly contained and received under one species of the most Holy Eucharist, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, although theologians do not produce texts either implicit or explicit from Scripture in which such dogmas are taught.

  3. Lastly, it is not necessary to have a series of fathers and testimonies reaching to apostolic times, in order to prove that such a proposition belongs to apostolic tradition. With respect to this, it was observed, that the assertion of such a necessity rests upon false hypotheses, and is refuted by the most palpable facts.

The false hypotheses are, a. That all doctrine preached from the beginning has been committed to writing by the fathers.

b. That all the monuments of antiquity have come down to us.

c. That the entire object of faith has always been distinctly conceived and formally expressed;

d. That subsequent tradition may differ from the preceding;

e. That it cannot be legitimately concluded from the fact that a doctrine is held in any age, that the same doctrine was never denied by the majority, and that it was at least implicitly believed by the greater number.

The facts that refute such a necessity are manifold, but it suffices to mention the definition of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of the Lateran Synod under Martin I. or the dogmatical letters of St. Leo and St. Agatho, in which appeal is made to the faith of the fathers and to tradition, and where there appears to be no anxiety to produce testimonies of the first three centuries, on the contrary, authors are quoted, who in those times were of recent date.

Having thus laid down by common agreement that which was not necessary, they passed on to discuss what was sufficient in order that an opinion should be defined as an article of faith.

The five following characters were proposed and decided upon as being sufficient.

I. A certain number of grave testimonies containing the controverted proposition.

This after thorough discussion was un nimously acknowledged to be a sufficient character, and it was said that to deny it would be going against the councils, the dogmatic bulls of pontiffs, and the economy of the church itself. Thus with a certain number of such testimonies referred to in the acts of the councils, it is easily seen how the fathers proceeded to a definition at Ephesus against Nestorius, in the sixth council against the Monothelites, and in the seventh against the Iconoclasts.

HE. One or more revealed principles in which is contained the proposition in question.

Upon this also the consultors were unanimous, and they moreover said that the production of such principles would be equivalent to a virtual and immediate revelation. Thus, from the revealed principle that Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man, it follows as revealed that Jesus Christ has two wills: also, in the revealed principle that God is One and the Divine Persons three, and that all in God is one except where the relation of origin intervenes, it is also revealed that the Holy Ghost can only proceed from the Father and the Son as from one principle of spiration.

III. The intimate nexus of the dogmas, or, what is the same thing, that a proposition must be believed to be revealed, from the denial of which the falsity of one or more articles of faith would necessarily and immediately follow.

The consultors were unanimous on this point, agreeing that such a character was equivalent to a virtual and immediate revelation. Thus, when it is established that some sins are mortal, and that not every sin is incompatible with a state of grace, it necessarily follows that the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a revealed doctrine. So also from the fact that the Sacraments produce their effect ex opere operate and that Jesus Christ is the primary minister of them, it follows as virtually and immediately revealed, that the effect of the Sacraments does not depend upon the virtue or malice of the secondary minister.

IV. The concordant testimony of the existing episcopate, The consultors with regard to this were again unanimous, and it was said that to deny the sufficiency of this charao ter was to contradict the promises of our Lord, and the constant practice of the fathers in proving the articles of faith. Tnus Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, and Fulgentius, in order to put an end to controversies, considered it sufficient to ascertain the faith of the Sees and more especially the chief ones.

V. The practice of the Church.

That this point would afford sufficient evidence to proceed to a definition, was likewise unanimously affirmed by the consultors.

VI.

THE CASE OF HONORIUS.

I HAVE intentionally refrained from treating the historical evidence in the case of Honorius in the text of the fourth chapter, for the following reasons:

  1. Because it is sufficient to the argument of that chapter to affirm that the case of Honorius is doubtful. It is in vain for the antagonists of Papal Infallibility to quote this case as if it were certain. Centuries of controversy have established, beyond contradiction, that the accusation against Honorius cannot be raised by his most ardent antagonists to more than a probability. And this probability, at its maximum, is less than that of his defence. I therefore affirm the question to be doubtful; which is abundantly sufficient against the private judgment of his accusers. Tho cumulus of evidence for the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff outweighs all such doubts.

  2. Because the argument of the fourth chapter neces-.sarily excludes all disoussion of detailed facts. Had they been introduced into the text, our antagonists would have evaded the point, and confused the argument by a discussion of details. I will, nevertheless, here affirm, that the following points in the case of Honorius can be abundantly proved from documents:

(1) That Honorius denned no doctrine whatsoever.

(2) That he forbade the making of any new definition.

(3) That his fault was precisely in this omission of Apostolic authority, for which he was justly censured.

(4) That his two epistles are entirely orthodox; though, in the use of language, he wrote as was usual before the condemnation of Monothelitism, and not as it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been made.

To this I add the following excellent passage from the recent Pastoral of the Archbishop of Baltimore:

"The case of Honorius forms no exception; for 1st, Honorius expressly says in his letters to Sergius, that he meant to define nothing, and he was condemned precisely because he temporized and would not define; 2nd, because in his letters he clearly taught the sound Catholic doctrine, only enjoining silence as to the use of certain terms, then new in the Church; and 3rd, because his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church, and were rather private, than public and official; at least they were not published, even in the East, until several years later. The first letter was written to Sergius in 633, and eight years afterwards, in 641, the Emperor Heraclius, in exculpating himself to Pope John IE., Honorius' suceeEsor, for having published his edict — the Ecthesis — which enj Dined silence on the disputants, similar to that imposed by Honorius, lays the whole responsibility thereof on Sergius, who he declares, composed the edict. Evidently, Sergius had not communicated the letter to the Emperor, probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutcyhian heresy. Thus falls to the ground the only case upon which the opponents of Infallibility have continued to insist. This entire subject has been exhausted by many recent learned writers."

On the question of Virgilius, see Cardinal Orsi De irreformabili Rom. Pont, in definiendis fidei controversiis judicio, torn. i. p. i. capp. 19, 20; Jeremias a Benetti's Privileg. S. Petri vindic. p. ii. torn. v. art. 12, p. 397, ed. Roman. 1759; Ballerini De vi et ratione primatus, cap. 15; Lud. Thomassin, Disp. xix. in Condi.; Petr. De Marca Diss. de Vigilio; Vincenzi in S. Gregorii Nyss. et Origenis scripta cum App. de actis Synodi V. torn. iv. and v.

On the question of Honorius, amongst older writers: los. Biner S. J. in Apparatu eruditionis, p. iii. iv. and xi.; Orsi, op. cit. capp. 21-28; Bellarin. De Horn. Pontif. liv. iv.; Thomassin, op. cit. diss. xx.; Natalis Alex. Hist. Eccles. Saec. VII. diss. 2.; Zaccaria Antifebrom. p. ii. lib. iv. Amongst later authors, see Civilla cattolica, ann. 1864, ser. v. vol. xi. and xii.; Schneeman, Sludia in qu. de Honorio; los. Pennachi de Honorii I. Romani Pontificis causa w Con-cilia VI.

vn.

PASTORAL OF THE GERMAN BISHOPS ASSEMBLED AT FULDA.

" The undersigned Bishops to the reverend clergy and faithful, greeting, and peace in the Lord,

" Having returned to our respective Dioceses from the Holy (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, we, in union with other German Bishops who were prevented attending the Council, consider it our duty as your chief pastors to address to you, dearly beloved in the Lord, a few words of instruction and exhortation. The occasion and reason for our doing so, and that unitedly and solemnly, is found in the fact that many erroneous ideas have for several months been disseminated, and still, without any authority, are striving in many places to gain acceptance,

"In order, then, to maintain the divine truths which Christ our Lord hath taught mankind in their entire purity, and to secure them from all change and distortion, He has established in His Holy Church the office of infallible teaching, and has promised and also given to it His protection and the assistance of the Holy Ghost for all times. On this office of infallible teaching of the Church reposes entire the security and joy of our faith.

" As often as in the course of time misunderstandings of or oppositions to, individual points of teaching have sprung up, this office of infallible teaching has in various ways, at one time in greater Councils, at another without them, both exposed and foiled the errors, and declared and established the truth. This has been done in the most solemn manner by the General Councils, that is, by those great assemblies in which the Head and the members of the one teaching body of the Church combined for the deciding of the doubts and controversies in matters of faith which then prevailed.

" These decisions, according to the unanimous and undoubted tradition of the Church, have always been held to be preserved from error by- a supernatural and divine as« sistauce. Hence the faithful in all times have submitted themselves to these decisions as to the infallible expressions of the Holy* Ghost Himself, and, with undoubting faith, have held them to be true. They have done so, not, as persons might suppose, because the Bishops were men of mature and extended experience, not because many of them were versed in all sciences, not because they had come together from all parts of the world, and therefore, in a certain sense, brought together the human knowledge of the whole earth; not, lastly, because through a long life they had studied and taught the Word of God, and hence were trustworthy witnesses of its meaning. All this indeed gives to their declarations a very high, indeed perhaps the highest possible, degree of mere human trustworthiness. Still this is not a sufficient ground on which to rest supernatural faith. For this act, in its last resort, rests not on the testimony of men, even when they are most worthy of confidence, and even if the whole human ra,ce by the voice of its best and most noble representatives should bear witness to it; but such an act always rests wholly and alone on the truth of God Himself. When therefore the children of the Church receive with faith the decrees of a General Council, they do it with a conviction that God the Eternal and alone of Himself Infallible Truth co-operates with it in a supernatural manner, and preserves it from error.

" Such a General Council is the present one which our Holy Father Pius TX., as you know, convoked in Home, and to which the successors of the Apostles, in larger numbers than ever before, have hastened from all parts of the world, that they might, with the successor of St. Peter and under his guidance, consult for the present urgent interests of the Church. After many and serious debates the Holy

Father, in virtue of his Apostolical authority as teacher, OD April 24 and July 1 8 of this year, with the consent of the holy Council, solemnly published several decrees relating to the true doctrine about faith, the Church, and its supreme head.

" Ry this means, then, the infallible teaching authority of the Church has decreed, and the Holy Ghost by the vicar of Christ and the Episcopate united with him has? spoken: and therefore all, whether Bishops, priests or lay-men, are bound to receive their degrees as divinely revealed truths, and with joyful hearts lay hold of them, and confess the same, if they wish to be and remain true members of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. When, then, beloved in the Lord, objections are raised, and you hear it maintained that the Vatican Council is no true General Council, and that its decisions are of no authority, do not allow yourselves to be led astray thereby, so as to falter in your devotion to the Church and in your belief and acceptance of its decrees; for such objections are wholly unfounded.

" Bound together in the unity of faith and love with the Pope, have the assembled Bishops, both those who in Christian lands administer well-established sees, and also those who are called to extend the Kingdom of God among the heathen in apostolic poverty, Bishops, whether they tend a larger or a smaller flock — these, as legitimate successors of the Apostles, have all with the same right taken part in the Council, and maturely considered everything.

11 As long as the discussions lasted, the Bishops, as their consciences demanded, and as became their office, expressed their views plainly and openly, and with all necessary freedom; and, as was only to be expected in an assembly of nearly 800 Fathers, many differences of opinion were manifested. These differences of opinion can in no way affect the authority of the decrees themselves; should even we not take into consideration the fact, that almost the entire body of the Bishops who, at the time of the Public Session, still maintained an opposite opinion, abstained in the said Session from expressing dissent.

<; However, to maintain that either the one or the other of the doctrines decided by the General Council are not contained in the Holy Scripture, and in tradition of the Church — those two sources of the Catholic faith — or that they are even in opposition to the same, is a first step, irreconcilable with the primary principles of the Catholic Church, which leads to separation from her communion. Wherefore, we hereby declare that the present Vatican Council is a legitimate General Council; and, moreover, that this Council, as little as any other General Council, has propounded or formed a new doctrine at variance with the ancient teaching; but that it has simply developed and thrown light upon the old and faithfully -preserved truth contained in the deposit of faith, and in opposition to the errors of the day has proposed it expressly to the belief of all the faithful; and, lastly, that these decrees have received a binding power on all the faithful by the fact of their final publication by the Supreme Head of the Church in solemn form at the Public Session.

" While, then, we ourselves with full and unhesitating faith adhere to the decrees of the Council, we exhort you as your divinely appointed pastors and teachers, and beseech you in love to your souls, to give no ear to any teaching contrary to this, whencesoever it may come. Cling all the more unwaveringly, in union so with your Bishops, to the teaching and faith of the Catholic Church; let nothing separate you from the Kock on which Jesus Christ has founded His Church, with the promise that the * gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' In view of the excitement which exists in consequence of un-ecclesiastical manifestations and movements against the decrees of the Council in several places, and which undoubtedly forms no small trial and danger to many souls, as well as considering the tremendous war which has been forced upon our German Fatherland, and which claims at the same time our intense interest and watchfulness, and which has already plunged innumerable families into sorrow and mourning, we cannot forbear from earnestly calling all the faithful to fervent prayer for the present great necessities of Church and State. Lift up, then, your hearts in faith and confidence to our Father in Heaven, Whose wise and lovir.g Providence guides and rules everything, and whose Divine Son has promised most surely to hear us when we ask in His name.

" Pray, also, with faith and trust that this sanguinary war, by a complete triumph of the right cause, and a true and lasting peace, may quickly end. Pray for the wants of Holy. Church, especially for all who err or hesitate in then: faith, that they may have the grace of a firm, decided, and living faith. Pray for the Supreme Head of the Church, the holy Father, who most likely at this very moment is more than ever before in distress and embarrassment. Pray with confidence hi the merits and infinite love of the Divine heart of Jesus Christ, invoking the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God.

" And may the blessing of God Almighty descend upon you and remain with you all, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. — Amen.

" At the end of August, 1870.

J< GREGORY, Archbishop of Munich.

J< PAUL, Archbishop of Cologne.

{< PETER JOSEPH, Bishop of Limburg.

%* CHRISTOPHER FLORENTIUS, Bishop of Fulda.

»i< WILLIAM EMMANUEL, Bishop of Mayence.

•J* EDWARD JAMES, Bishop of Hildesheim.

Hfc* CONRAD, Bishop of Paderhorn.

»i* JOHN, Bishop of Kulm.

X IGNATIUS, Bishop of Ratisbon.

»J« PANCRATIUS, Bishop of Augsburg.

»j« FRANCIS LEOPOLD, Bishop of Eichstadt.

}< MATTHIAS, Bishop of Treves.

»J< PHILIP, Bishop of Ermland.

»J< LOTHAIR, Bishop of Leuka in partibus, Administrator of the Archbishopric of Friburg.

»J< ADOLPHUS, Bishop of Agathonopolis in partibus, Chaplain-in Chief of the Forces.

»J« BERNARD BRINKMANN, Vicar-Capitular and Bishop

Footnotes

  1. St. John. xvii. 21. ↩

  2. From Sermon iv. chap. ii. of St. Leo the Great, A. D. 440, vol. i, p. 17 of edition of Ballerini, Venice, 1753; read in the eighth lectior on the Feast of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch, February 22. ↩

  3. From the Acts (session third) of the Third General Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, LabDe's Councils, vol. iii. p. 1154, Venice edition of 1728. Sea also letter of St. Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches, in life prefixed to Ids works, p. 13, Venice, 1750, ↩

  4. From Sermon iii. chap. iii. of St. Leo the Great, vol. i. p. 12. ↩

  5. From St. Irenaeus against Heresies, book iii. cap. iiL p. 175, Benedictine edition, Venice 1734; and Acts of Synod of Aquileia, A. D. 381, Labbe's Councils, vol. ii. p. 1185, Venice, 1738. ↩

  6. From chap. iv. of xxiii. session of Council of Trent, " Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy." ↩

  7. From the letters of St. Gregory the Great, boo* viil 30, vol. ii. p. 919, Benedictine edition, Paris, 17u5. ↩

  8. From a Brief of Pius VI. Super soliditate, of November 28, 1756. ↩

  9. From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council of Lyons, A. D. 1271 Labbe's Councils, vol. xiv. p. 512. ↩

  10. From Letter viii. of Pope Nicholas I., A.D. 858, to the Emperoi Michail, in Labbe's Councils, vol. ix. pp. 1339 and 1570. ↩

  11. St. Matthew xvi. 18. ↩

  12. From the Formula of St. Hormisdas, subscribed by the Fathers of the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople), A.D. 86ft Lubbc's Councils, vol. r. pp. 588, (522. ↩

  13. From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council (Second of Lyons), A.D. 1274. Labbe, vol xiv. p. 512. ↩

  14. From the Acts of the Seventeenth General Council of Florence, A.D. 1438. Labbe, vol. xviii. p. 526. ↩

  15. John xxi. 15-17. ↩

  16. From a letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Pope St. Celestine I., A.D 422, vol vi part ii. p. 36, Paris edition of 1638. ↩

  17. From a Rescript of St. Innocent I. to the Council of Milevis, A.P. 402. Labbe, vol. iii. p. 47. ↩

  18. St. Luke xxii. 32. See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council, A.i>. 680. Labb6 vol. vii. p. 659. ↩

  19. i.e. in the words used by Pope Nicholas I. note 13, and in the Synod of Quedlinburg, A.D. 1085, "it is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon what it has judged." Labbe, vol. xii. p 679. ↩

Chapter 8 of 8