Petri Privilegium/III/Chapter 3

by Henry Edward Manning

Layout 2

 

CHAPTER III.

THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY.

I will now add a few words respecting the terms which have been used, not only in the course of the last months, but in the traditional theology of the Schools, on the doctrine of Infallibility.

Certain well-known writers have rendered memorable the formula of 'personal, separate, independent and absolute infallibility.' It has not only been used in pastoral letters, and pamphlets, but introduced into high diplomatic correspondence.

The frequency and confidence with which this formula was repeated, as if taken from the writings of the promoters of the Definition, made it not unnatural to examine into the origin, history, and meaning of the formula itself. I therefore set myself to search it out; and I employed others to do the same. As it had been ascribed to myself, our first examination was turned to anything I might have written. After repeated search, not only was the formula as a whole nowhere to be discovered, but the words of which it is composed were, with the exception of the word 'independent,' equally nowhere to be found. I mention this, that I may clear away the supposition that in what I add I have any motive of defending myself or anything I may have written. I speak of it now simply for the truth's sake, and for charity, which is always promoted by a clear statement of truth, and never by the confused noise of controversy; and also to justify some of the most eminent defenders of Catholic doctrine, by showing that this terminology is to be found in the writings of many of our greatest theologians.

I may remind you, in passing, that in the Definition not a trace of this formula nor of its component words is to be found.

First, as to the word personal, Cardinal Toletus, speaking of the doctrine of infallibility, says, 'The first opinion is, that the privilege of the Pope, that of not erring in faith, is personal; and cannot be communicated to another.' After quoting our Lord's words, 'I have prayed for thee,' &c. he adds, 'I concede that this privilege is personal.'^[1]

Ballerini says, that the jurisdiction of St. Peter, by reason of the primacy, was 'singular and personal' to himself. The same right he affirms to belong also to the Roman Pontiffs, St. Peter's successors.'^[2]

This doctrine he explains diffusely.

'This primacy of chief jurisdiction, not of mere order, in St. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs his successors, is personal, that is, attached to their person: and therefore a supreme personal right, which is communicated to no other, is contained in the primacy.

'Hence, when there is question of the rights and the jurisdiction proper to the primacy, and when these are ascribed to the Roman See, or Cathedra, or Church of St. Peter; by the name of the Roman See or Cathedra, or Church, to which this primacy of jurisdiction is ascribed, the single person of the Roman Pontiff is to be understood, to whom alone the same primacy is attached.

'Hence again it follows, that whatsoever belongs to the Roman See or Cathedra or Church, by reason of the primacy, is so to be ascribed to the person of the Roman Pontiffs that they need help or association of none for the exercise of that right.'^[3]

From this passage three conclusions flow:

1. First, that the Primacy is a personal privilege in Peter and his successors.

2. Secondly, that this personal privilege attaches to Peter and to the Roman Pontiffs alone.

3. Thirdly, that in exercising this same primacy the Roman Pontiff needs the help and society of no other.

Ballerini then adds:

'That what was personal in Peter by reason of the primacy, is to be declared personal in his successors the Roman Pontiffs, on whom the same primacy of Peter with the same jurisdiction has devolved, no one can deny.

'Therefore to Peter alone, and to the person alone of his successors, the dignity and jurisdiction of the Primacy is so attached, that it can be ascribed to no other Bishop, even though of the Chief Sees; and much less can it be ascribed to any number whatsoever of Bishops congregated together; nor in that essential jurisdiction of the primacy ought the Roman Pontiff to depend on any one whomsoever; nor can he; especially as the jurisdiction received from Christ was instituted by Christ un-circumscribed by any condition, and personal in Peter alone and his successors: like as He instituted the primacy of jurisdiction to be personal, which without personal jurisdiction is unintelligible.'^[4]

From these statements it follows:

1. First, that what depends on no other is altogether independent.

2. Secondly, that what is circumscribed by no condition is absolute.

3. Thirdly, that what is by God committed to one alone, depends on God alone.

But perhaps it will be said that all this relates not to infallibility, but to the power of jurisdiction only.

To this I answer:

1. That if the primacy be personal, all its prerogatives are personal.

2. That the doctrinal authority of the Pontiff is a part of his jurisdiction, and is therefore personal.

3. That infallibility is, as the Definition expressly declares, a supernatural grace, or charisma, attached to the primacy in order to its proper exercise. Infallibility is a quality of the doctrinal jurisdiction of the Pontiff in faith and morals.

And such also is the doctrine of Ballerini, who lays down the following propositions:

'Unity with the Roman faith is absolutely necessary, and therefore the prerogative of absolute infallibility is to be ascribed to it, and a coercive power to constrain to unity of faith, in like manner, absolute; as also the infallibility and coercive power of the Catholic Church itself, which is bound to adhere to the faith of Rome, is absolute.'^[5]

But Ballerini has declared that whatsoever is ascribed to the Roman See, Cathedra, or Church is to be ascribed to the person of the Roman Pontiff only. Therefore this infallibility and coercive power are to be ascribed to him, and are personal.

Here we have the infallibility personal, independent, and absolute, fully and explicitly taught by two chief theologians of great repute.

But hitherto we have not met the word separate, though in truth the word sole, or alone, is equivalent.

I will therefore add certain quotations from the great Dominican School.

Bzovius, the continuator of the Annals of Baronius, says, 'To Peter alone, and after him to all the Roman Pontiffs legitimately succeeding, the privilege of infallibility, as it is called, was conceded by the Prince of Pastors, Christ who is God.'^[6]

Dominicus Marchese writes: 'This privilege was conceded to the successors of Peter alone without the assistance of the College of Cardinals;' and again, 'To the Roman Pontiff alone, in the person of Peter, was committed the care of the Universal Church, and firmness, and certainty in defining matters of faith.'^[7]

Gravina teaches as follows: 'To the Pontiff, as one (person) and alone, it was given to be the head;' and again, 'The Roman Pontiff for the time being is one, therefore he alone has infallibility.'^[8]

Vincentius Ferré says, 'The exposition of certain Paris (doctors) is of no avail, who affirm that Christ only promised that the faith should not fail of the Church founded upon Peter; and not that it should not fail in the successors of Peter taken apart from (seorsum) the Church.' He adds that our Lord said, 'I have prayed for thee, Peter; sufficiently showing that the infallibility was not promised to the Church as apart from (seorsum) the head, but promised to the head, that from him it should be derived to the Church.'^[9]

Marchese, before quoted, repeats the same words, 'The infallibility in faith which (our Lord) promised, not to the Church apart from (seorsum) the head, but to the head, that from him it should be derived to the Church.'^[10] Billuart also says '(Christ) makes a clear distinction of Peter from the rest of the Apostles, and from the whole Church, when He says, And thou, &c.'^[11]

Peter Soto writes: 'When this (Pasce oves meas, &c.) was said to Peter in the presence of the rest of the Apostles, it was said to Peter as one, and as apart from (seorsum) the rest.'^[12]

And Marchese again, 'Therefore to Peter alone set apart from the Apostles (secluso ab Apostolis), and therefore to his successor alone, the Supreme Pontiff, set apart from the College of Cardinals, He (our Lord) conceded this privilege.'^[13]

Lastly, F. Gatti, the learned professor of theology of the Dominican Order at this day, writing of the words, 'I have prayed for thee,' &c., says, 'indefectibility is promised to Peter apart from (seorsum) the Church, or from the Apostles; but it is not promised to the Apostles, or to the Church, apart from (seorsum) the head, or with the head,' and afterwards he adds, 'Therefore Peter, even apart from (seorsum) the Church, is infallible.'^[14]

Muzzarelli, in his treatise on the primacy and infallibility of the Pontiff, uses the same terms again and again; of which the following is an example. Speaking as in the person of the Pontiff, he says, 'If I separately from a Council propose any truth to be believed by the Universal Church, it is most certain that I cannot err.'^[15]

In like manner Mauro Cappellari, afterwards Gregory XVI., affirms that the supreme judge of controversies is the Pontiff, 'distinct and separate from all other Bishops: and that his decree in things of faith ought by them to be held without doubt.'^[16]

Lastly, Clement VI., in the fourteenth century, proposed to the Armenians certain interrogations, of which the fourth is as follows:

'Hast thou believed, and dost thou still believe, that the Roman Pontiff alone, can by an authentic determination to which we must inviolably adhere, put an end to doubts which arise concerning the Catholic faith; and that whatsoever he, by the authority of the keys delivered to him by Christ, determines to. be true, is true and Catholic; and what he determines to be false and heretical is to be so esteemed?'^[17]

In the above passages we have infallibility personal, absolute, independent, without the Apostles, without the College of Cardinals, alone, apart from the Church, separate from Councils and from Bishops.

I am not aware of any modern writer who has used language so explicit and fearless.

We will now ascertain the scholastic meaning of these terms; and we shall see that they are in precise accordance with the definition of the Council.

You need not be reminded, Reverend and dear Brethren, of the terminology of Canonists in treating the subject of privileges.

A privilege is a right, or faculty bestowed upon persons, places, or things.

Privileges therefore are of three kinds, personal, real, and mixed.^[18]

A personal privilege is that which attaches to the person as such.

A real privilege attaches either to a place, or to a thing, or to an office.

A mixed privilege may be both personal and real; it may also attach to a community or body of persons, as to an University, or a College, or a Chapter.

The primacy, including jurisdiction and infallibility, is a privilege attaching to the person of Peter and of his successors. It is therefore a personal privilege in the Pontiffs.

It is personal, as Toletus says, because it cannot be communicated to others. It is not a real privilege attached to the See, or Cathedra, or Church of Rome, and therefore to the person; but to the person of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore, to the See.

It is not a mixed privilege, attaching to the Pontiff, only in union with a community or body, such as the Episcopate, congregated or dispersed; but attaching to his person, because inherent in the primacy, which he alone personally bears.

The use of the word personal is therefore precise and correct, according to the scholastic terminology; not, indeed, according to the sense of newspaper theologians. Theology, like chancery law, has its technical language; and the common sense of Englishmen would keep them from using it in any other meaning.

In this sense it is that the Dominican theologian De Fiume says, 'There are two things … in Peter: one personal, and another public; as Pastor and Head of the Church. Some things therefore belong to the person of Peter alone, and do not pass to his successors; as the saying, Get thee behind me Satan … and the like. Some, again, are spoken of him as a public person, and by reason of his office as supreme Head and Pastor of the Universal Church, as, Feed My sheep, &c.'^[19]

Therefore, infallibility is the privilege of Peter not as a private person, but as a public person holding the primacy over the Universal Church.

In the Pastoral addressed to you so long ago as the year 1867, this was pointed out in the unmistakable words of Cardinal Sfondratus. 'The Pontiff,' he says, 'does some things as a man, some things as a prince, some as doctor, some as Pope, that is, as head and foundation of the Church; and it is only to these (last-named) actions that we attribute the gift of infallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. As then not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of the Pope enjoys the papal privilege.'^[20]

The value therefore of this traditional language of the schools is evident.

When the infallibility of the Pontiff is said to be personal, it is to exclude all doubt as to the source from which infallibility is derived; and to declare that it is not a privilegium mixtum inherent in the Episcopate, or communicated by it to the head of the Church; but a special assistance of the Spirit of Truth attaching to the primacy, and therefore to the person who bears the primacy, Peter and his successors; conferred on them by Christ Himself for the confirmation of the Church in faith.

2. Next, as to the term separate. The sense in which theologians have, used this term is obvious. They universally and precisely apply it to express the same idea as the word personal; namely, that in the possession and exercise of this privilege of infallibility the successor of Peter depends on no one but God. The meaning of decapitation, decollation, and cutting off, of a headless body, and a bodiless head, I have hardly been able to persuade myself, has ever, by serious men, at least in serious moods, been imputed to such words as separatim, seorsum, or seclusis Episcopis.

My reason for this doubt is, that such a monstrous sense includes at least six heresies; and I could hardly think that any Catholic would fail to know this, or, knowing it, would impute it to Catholics, still less to Bishops of the Church.

The words seorsum, &c., may have two meanings, one obviously false, the other as obviously true. The former sense would be disunion of the head from the body of the Episcopate and the faithful, or separation from Catholic communion; the latter, an independent action in the exercise of his supreme office.

And first of the former:

1. It is de fide, or matter of faith, that the head of the Church, as such, can never be separated, either from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecclesia discens; that is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful.

To suppose this, would be to deny the perpetual indwelling office of the Holy Ghost in the Church, by which the mystical body is knit together; the head to the Body, the Body to the head, the members to each other; and to 'dissolve Jesus,'^[21] that is, to destroy the perfect symmetry and organisation which the Apostle describes as the body of Christ; and St. Augustine speaks of as 'one man, head and body, Christ and the Church a perfect man.'^[22] On this unity all the properties and endowments of the Church depend; indefectibility, unity, infallibility. As the Church can never be separated from its invisible Head, so never from its visible head.

2. Secondly, it is matter of faith that the Ecclesia docens or the Episcopate, to which together with Peter, and as it were, in one person with him, the assistance of the Holy Ghost was promised, can never be dissolved; but it would be dissolved if it were separated from its head. Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed.

3. Thirdly, it is also matter of faith that not only no separation of communion, but even no disunion of doctrine and faith between the Head and the Body, that is, between the Ecclesia docens and discens, can ever exist. Both are infallible; the one actively, in teaching, the other passively, in believing; and both are therefore inseparably, because necessarily, united in one faith. Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away. It would always remain united, by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, to its head; and the reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infallibility of its head. Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err. How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain, and therefore never be disunited from its head in teaching or believing. Even a minority of the Bishops united to the head, would be the Episcopate of the Universal Church. They, therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such a separation, who assert that the Pontiff may fall into error. But they who deny his infallibility do expressly assert the possibility of such a separation. And yet it is they who have imputed to the defenders of the Pontifical infallibility, that separation which on 'Ultramontane' principles is impossible; but, on the principles of those who lay the charge, such a separation is not only possible, but even of probable occurrence.

So far, we have spoken of the idea of separation from communion, or disunion in faith and doctrine. But farther, the separate or independent exercise of the supreme Pontifical authority in no way imports separation or disunion of any kind.

1. It is de fide that the plenitude of jurisdiction was given to Peter and his successors; and that its exercise over the whole body, pastors and people, imports no separation or disunion from the Body. How then should the exercise of infallibility, which is attached to that jurisdiction, import separation?

2. Again, it is de fide that this supreme jurisdiction and infallibility was given to maintain and perpetuate the unity of the Church. How then can its exercise produce separation, which it is divinely ordained to prevent?

It is therefore de fide that its exercise excludes separation, and binds the whole Church, both Body and Head, in closer bonds of communion, doctrine and faith.

3. Lastly, it is de fide that in the assistance promised to Peter and his successors, all the means necessary for its due exercise are contained. An infallible office fallibly exercised is a contradiction in terms. The infallibility of the head consists in this, that he is guided both as to the means and as to the end. It is therefore contrary to faith to say, that the independent exercise of this office, divinely assisted, can import separation or disunion of any kind. It is a part of the promise, that in the selection of the means of its exercise, the successor of Peter will not err. If he erred as to the means, either he would err as to the end, or he would be preserved only by a series of miracles. In escaping from the supernatural, the objectors fall into the miraculous. The Catholic doctrine of infallibility invokes no such interventions. It affirms that a Divine assistance, proportionate to the burden of the primacy, is attached to it as a condition of its ordinary exercise, in bonum Ecclesiæ. The freedom as well as the prudence of the Pontiffs, in selecting the means of exercising their office of universal Doctor, is carefully expressed in the fourth chapter of this Constitution. 'The Roman Pontiffs, as the state of times and events induced them, sometimes by convoking Œcumenical Councils, or by ascertaining the mind of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes by local Synods, sometimes by employing other helps which Divine providence supplied, have defined, as truths to be held, such things as they by God's assistance knew to be in harmony with the Scriptures and Apostolical traditions.'^[23]

It may be well here to add two passages which complete this subject.

Melchior Canus says: 'Inasmuch as God promised firmness of faith to the Church, He cannot be wanting to it, so as not to bestow upon the Church prayers and other helps whereby that firmness is preserved. Nor can it be doubted that what happens in natural things, the same occurs in supernatural; namely, that he who gives the end gives the means to the end.'

'If God should promise an abundant harvest next year, what could be more foolish than to doubt whether men would sow seeds in the earth? So will I never admit that either Pontiff or Council have omitted any necessary diligence in deciding questions of faith. It might happen to any private man, that he should not use diligent attention in seeking truth, and yet to do so should entirely give himself to the work, and, though his error be inculpable, nevertheless fall into error. But even inculpable error is far from the Church of God, as we have proved in a former book. Which fact is an abundant argument that neither Pontiff nor Council has omitted, in deliberation, any necessary thing.' 'Let us therefore grant that to the Judges constituted by God in the Church, none of those things can be wanting which are necessary for a right and true judgment.'^[24]

Cerboni, a theologian of the Dominican order, says:

'When once anything of faith has been defined by the Supreme Pontiff, it is not permitted to doubt whether he has used all diligence before such definition.'

'It absolutely cannot be said, that the means necessary for the Supreme Pontiff in the investigation of truth have been neglected by him, even though he should be supposed to have defined anything ex cathedra, without first seeking the judgment of others.'

'The privilege of infallibility, when the Supreme Pontiff defines anything ex cathedra, is to be ascribed not to those whom he has previously consulted, but to the Roman Pontiff himself.

'Inasmuch as the truth and certainty of those things which are defined "ex cathedra" depend on the authority and infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, it is not necessarily requisite, that he should first consult these (counsellors) rather than others, this rather than that body, concerning the matter which he is about to define ex cathedra.'^[25]

From all that has been said, three things are beyond question; first, that the privilege of infallibility in the head of the Church, neither by its possession nor by its exercise, can in any way import separation or disunion between the head and the body. Such a supposition involves, as we have seen, heretical notions at every turn. The very reverse is true: that the supreme privilege of infallibility in the head is the divinely ordained means to sustain for ever the unity of the Universal Church in communion, faith, and doctrine.

And further, that the independent exercise of this privilege by the head of the Episcopate, and as distinct from the Bishops, is the divinely ordained means of the perpetual unity of the Episcopate in communion and faith with its head and with its own members.

And lastly, that though the consent of the Episcopate or the Church be not required, as a condition, to the intrinsic value of the infallible definitions of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless, it cannot without heresy be said or conceived that the consent of the Episcopate and of the Church can ever be absent. For if the Pontiff be divinely assisted, both the active and the passive infallibility of the Church exclude such a supposition as heretical. To deny such infallible assistance now after the definition, is heresy. And even before the definition, to deny it was proximate to heresy, because it was a revealed truth, and a Divine fact, on which the unity of the Church has depended from the beginning.

From what has been said, the precise meaning of the terms before us may be easily fixed.

1. The privilege of infallibility is personal, inasmuch as it attaches to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, as a public person, distinct from, but inseparably united to, the Church; but it is not personal, in that it is attached, not to the private person, but to the primacy, which he alone possesses.

2. It is also independent, inasmuch as it does not depend upon either the Ecclesia docens or the Ecclesia discens; but it is not independent, in that it depends in all things upon the Divine Head of the Church, upon the institution of the primacy by Him, and upon the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

3. It is absolute, inasmuch as it can be circumscribed by no human or ecclesiastical law; it is not absolute, in that it is circumscribed by the office of guarding, expounding, and defending the deposit of revelation.

4. It is separate in no sense, nor can be, nor can so be called, without manifold heresy, unless the word be taken to mean distinct. In this sense, the Roman Pontiff is distinct from the Episcopate, and is a distinct subject of infallibility; and in the exercise of his supreme doctrinal authority, or magisterium, he does not depend for the infallibility of his definitions upon the consent or consultation of the Episcopate, but only on the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost.

 

1. 'Prima est quod privilegium Papæ ut in fide errare non possit est personale, nec ipse potest alteri communicare, Luc. xxii.: "Ego rogavi pro te, Petre, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos." Ad primum concedo esse illud privilegium personale: ob id communicari non potest.'—Toletus, In Summ. Enarr. tom. ii. pp. 62, 64. Rome 1869.
2. 'Jurisdictio et prærogativæ quæ eidem sedi ab antiquis asseruntur ratione primatus ejusdem Petri ac successorum singulares et personales judicandæ sunt.'—Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione Primatus, cap. iii. sect. 5, p. 14. Rome, 1849.
3. 'Hic præcipuæ jurisdictionis et non meri ordinis primatus S. Petri et Romanorum Pontificum ejus successorum personalis est, seu ipsorum personæ alligatus; ac proinde jus quoddam præcipuum ipsorum personale, id est, nulli alii commune, in eo primatu contineri debet. Hinc cum de jure, seu jurisdictione propria primatus agitur, hæcque Romanæ S. Petri sedi, cathedræ, vel Ecclesiæ tribuitur; sedis cathedræ vel Ecclesiæ Romanæ nomine, cui ea jurisdictio primatus propria asseratur, una Romani Pontificis persona intelligenda est, cui uni idem primatus est alligatus. Hinc quoque sequitur, quidquid juris ratione primatus Romanæ sedi cathedræ, vel Ecclesiæ competit, Romanorum Pontificum personæ ita esse tribuendum ut nullius adjutorio vel societate ad idem jus exercendum indigeant.'—Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione Primatus, cap. iii. propositio 3, p. 10.
4. 'Quod autem personale in Petro fuit ratione primatus, idem in successoribus ejus Eomanis Pontificibus, in quos idem primatus Petri cum eadem jurisdictione transivit, personale esse dicendum, inficiari potest nemo. Soli igitur Petro et soli successorum ejus personæ ita alligata est propria primatus dignitas et jurisdictio ut nulli alii Episcopo præstantiorum licet sedium, et minus multo pluribus aliis Episcopis quantumvis in unum collectis, possit adscribi: neque in ea jurisdictione primatus essentiali Romanus Pontifex dependere ab alio quopiam debet aut potest, cum præsertim ipsam a Christo acceptam idem Christus nulla conditione circumscriptam, personalem solius Petri ac successorum esse instituerit, uti primatum jurisdictionis instituit personalem, qui sine personali jurisdictione intelligi nequit.—Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione Primatus, cap. iii. sect. 4, p. 13.
5. Ballerini, de Vi et Rat. Primatus: Unitas cum Romana fide absolute necessaria est, ac proinde infallibilatis prærogativa absoluta illi est tribuenda, et vis coactiva ad fidei unitatem pariter absoluta: sicuti absoluta est item infallibilitas et vis coactiva ipsius Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, quæ Romanæ fidei adhærere oportet. Appendix De infall. Pont. Prop. vii.
6. 'Soli Petro et post eum omnibus Romanis Pontificibus legitime sedentibus, infallibilitatis quod vocant privilegium, a Principe pastorum Christo Deo concessum, ut in rebus fidei, morum doctrina, et universalis Ecclesiæ administratione certissima nullaque fallaciæ nota inumbrata decreta veritatis ipsius radio scribant edicant et sanciant.'—Bzovius de Pontifice Romano, cap. xiv. p. 106; apud Rocaberti, Biblioth. Pontif. tom. i. Rome, 1698.
7. 'Soli Petro secluso ab Apostolis ac proinde soli euis successori Summo Pontifici secluso Cardinalium Collegio hoc privilegium concessit.'—Marchese, de Capite visibili Ecclesiæ, disput. iii. dub. 2, p. 719; apud Rocaberti, tom. ix.

   'Soli Romano Pontifici in persona Petri commissa est cura totius Ecclesiæ et firmitas et certitudo in definiendo res fidei.'—Marchese, disput. v. dub. 1, sect. 2, p. 785; apud Rocaberti, tom. ix.

8. 'Uni et soli Pontifici datura est esse caput.'—Gravina, de supremo Judice controv. Fidei, quæst. i. apud Rocaberti, tom. viii. p. 392.

   'Nullus in terra reperitur alter, qui cæteris sit in fide firmior et constantior sciatur esse quam unus Pontifex Romanus pro tempore; ergo et ipse solus habet infallibilitatem.'—Gravina, quæst. ii. apud Rocaberti, tom. viii. p. 422.

9. 'Nec valet expositio aliquorum Parisiensium affirmantium hic Christum tantum promisisse fidem non defecturam Ecclesiæ fundatæ super Petrum, non vero promisisse non defecturam in successoribus Petri seorsum ab Ecclesia sumptis. Christus dicens, ego autem rogavi pro te Petre, satis designat hanc infallibilitatem non promissam Ecclesiæ ut seorsum a capite, sed promissam capiti, ut ex illo derivetur ad Ecclesiam.'—Ferre, De Fide, quæst. xii. apud Rocaberti, tom. xx. p. 388.
10. 'Satis designat infallibilitatem in fide quam promisit, non Ecclesiæ seorsum a Capite sed Capiti ut ex illo derivetur ad Ecclesiam.' Marchese,—de capite Visib. Eccles. disput. iii. dub. 2; apud Rocaberti, tom. ix. p. 719.
11. 'Facit enim apertam distinctionem Petri ab aliis apostolis et a tota Ecclesia cum dicit, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos.'—Billuart, de Regulis Fidei, dissert, iv. art. 5, sect. 2, tom. iv. p. 78. Venice, 1787.
12. 'Dum vero hoc Petro coram cæteris apostolis dicitur, uni, inquam, Petro et a cæteris seorsum.'—Petrus Soto, Defensio Catholicæ Confessionis, cap. 82, apud Rocaberti, torn, xviii. p. 73.
13. 'Ergo soli Petro secluso ab Apostolis ac proinde soli ejus successor! summo Pontifici, secluso Cardinalium collegio, hoc privilegium concessit.'—Marchese, de Capite visib. Eccles. disp. iii. dub. 2; apud Rocaberti, tom. ix. p. 715.
14. 'Indefectibilitas promittitur Petro seorsum ab Ecclesia seu ab Apostolis; non vero promittitur Apostolis seu Ecclesiæ sive seorsum a capite, sive una cum capite.—Ergo Petrus etiam seorsum ab Ecclesia spectatus est infallibilis.'—Gatti, Institutions Apologetico-Polemicæ. apud Bianchi de Constitutione Monarchica Ecclesiæ, p. 124. Rome, 1870.
15. 'Ne viene che se anch' io separatamente dal concilio vorrò propone alla chiesa universale la verità da credersi su questo articolo, non potrò certamente errare.'—Muzzarelli, Primato ed Infallibilita del Papa, in Il Buon Uso della Logica, tom. i. p. 183. Florence, 1821.
16. Trionfo della Santa Sede, Cap. v. Sect. 10, p. 124. Venezia, 1832.
17. 'Si credidisti et adhuc credis solum Romanum Pontificem, dubiis emergentibus circa fidem catholicam posse per determinationem authenticam cui sit inviolabiliter adhærendum, finem imponere et esse verum et Catholicum quidquid ipse auctoritate clavium sibi traditarum a Christo determinat esse verum; et quod determinat esse falsum et hæreticum sit censendum.'—Baronius, tom. xxv. ad ann. 1351, p. 529. Lucca, 1750.
18. Reiffenstuel. Tit. de Privileg. lib. v. 34, 12.
19. 'Duo namque sunt in Petro. Unum personale et aliud publicum, ut Pastor et caput Ecclesiæ. Quædam ergo tantummodo personæ Petri conveniunt, ad successores non transeunt; ut quod dicatur: Vade post me, Satana, et similia. Quædam vero dicuntur de eo quatenus est persona publica, et ratione officii Supremi Capitis et Pastoris Ecclesiæ universalis; ut Pasce oves meas, &c.'—Ignatius de Fiume, Schola veritatis orthodoxæ, apud Bianchi, de Constitutione Monarchica Ecclesiæ, p. 88. Rome, 1870.
20. Pontifex aliqua facit ut homo, aliqua ut Princeps, aliqua ut Doctor, aliqua ut Papa, hoc est ut caput et fundamentum Ecclesiæ: et his solis actionibus privilegium infallibilitatis adscribimus: alias humanæ condition! relinquimus: sicut ergo non omnis actio Papæ est papalis, ita non omnis actio Papæ papali privilegio gaudet.'— Sfondrati, Regale Sacerdotium, lib. iii. sec. 1.
21. St. John iv. 3, 'Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum,' &c.
22. 'Unus homo caput et corpus, unus homo Christus et Ecclesia vir perfectus.' S. Augustin. In Psalm xviii. tom. iv. p. 85, 86, ed. Ben. Paris, 1681.
23. Constit. Dogmat. Prima, de Eccl. Christi, cap. iv.
24. 'Cum Ecclesiæ fidei firmitatem fuerit pollicitus, deesse non potest quominus tribuat Ecclesiæ preces, cæteraque præsidia, quibus hæc firmitas conservator. Nec vero dubitari potest, quod in rebus naturalibus contingit, idem in supernaturalibus usu venire; ut qui dat finem, det consequentia ad finem.—Quod si Deus in sequentem annum frugum abundantiam polliceretur, ecquid stultius esse posset quam dubitare, anne homines semina terras mandaturi sint?—Ita nunquam ego admittam aut Pontificem aut concilium diligentiam aliquam necessariam quæstionibus fidei decernendis omisisse. Id quod privato cuicunque alteri homini accidere potest, ut nec diligentem navet operam ad disquirendam veritatem, et ut navaverit integrumque sese in ea re præstiterit, errat adhuc tamen, quamvis error sine culpa sit. Error autem vel inculpatus ab Ecclesia Dei longissime abest, quemadmodum libro superiore constituimus. Quæ res abunde magno argumento est ut nec Pontifex nec concilia necessarium quicquam in deliberando prætermiserint.—Concedamus ergo judicibus a Deo in Ecclesia constitutes nihil eorum deesse posse, quæ ad rectum verumque judicium sunt necessaria.'—Melchior Canus, De Locis Theologicis, lib. v. cap. 5, pp. 120, 121. Venice, 1776.
25. 'Semel ac a Summo Pontifice quidpiam ad fidem spectans definitum habeatur, dubitare non licet, utrum omnem diligentiam ante hujusmodi definitionem ille præmiserit.

    Quæ ad investigandam veritatem media in summo Pontifice requiruntur, ab eo neglecta fuisse, absolute dici non potest, etiamsi aliorum non exquisita sententia quidpiam ex cathedra definiisse præsupponatur.

    Privilegium infallibilitatis, dum a Summo Pontifice aliquid ex cathedra definitur, non iis qui antea consulti fuerint, sed ipsi Eomano Pontifici tribui debet.

    Ex eo quod veritas et certitudo eorum quæ ex cathedra definiuntur, a Summi Pontificis auctoritate et infallibilitate pendeant, non necessario requiritur, ut Summus Pontifex de eo quod est ex cathedra definiturus, hos vel illos potius quam alios hunc vel ilium cœtum præ alio antea consulat.'—Cerboni, De Jure et Legum Disciplina, lib. 23, cap. 6, apud Biunchi de constitutione mon. Eccles. p. 158. Rome, 1870.