INFALLIBILITY
799
INFALLIBILITY
cally speaking, at the present day, and for many cen-
turies in the past, only the decisions of oecumenical
councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have
been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical
sense, and the function of the magislerium ordinarium
has been concerned with the effective promulgation
and maintenance of what has been formally defined by
the magislerium solemne or may be legitimately de-
duced from its definitions.
(2) Even the ordinarium magisterium is not inde- pendent of the pope. In other words, it is only bish- ops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head anti centre of Christ's mysti- cal body, the one true C'hurch, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promises. And as the pope's supremacy is also an essential factor in the constitution of an oecumenical council — and has in fact been the formal and determining factor in decid- ing the occumenicity of those very councils whose authority is recognized by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans — it naturally occurs to enquire how concil- iar infallibility is related to papal. Now this relation, in the Catholic view, may be explained briefly as fol- lows: (a) Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibil- ity do not logically stand or fall together, since in the Catholic view the co-operation and confirmation of the pope in his purely primatial capacity are necessary, according to the Divine constitution of the Church, for the eecumenicity and infallilsility of a council. This has, de facto, been the formal test of eecumenicity; and it would be necessary even in the hypothesis that the pope himself were fallible. An infallil)le organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly, although neither taken separately is infallible. Hence the pope teaching ex cathedra and an oecumenical council subject to the approbation of the pope as its head are distinct organs of infallibility, (b) Hence, also, the Gallican contention is excluded, that an cecumenica! council is superior, either in juris- diction or in doctrinal authority, to a certainly legiti- mate pope, and that one may appeal from the latter to the former. Nor is this conclusion contradicted by the fact that, for the purpose of putting an end to the Great Western Schism and securing a certainly legiti- mate pope, the Council of Constance deposed John XXni, whose election was considered douljtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be in- disputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was com- petent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule, as the Galil- eans wrongly imagined, (c) A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i. e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been de- fined as de fide catliiilicA. But in this case many theo- logians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a pulilic heretic, the pope woukl ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actu- ally occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.
IV. Scope and Object of Inf.-vllibility. — (1) In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in re- gard to tloctrines of faith or morals; but witliin the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians
call the direct and primary object of infallible author-
ity : it was for the maintenance and interpretation and
legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the
Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this
primary function is to be adequately and effectively
discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect
and secondary objects to which infallibility extends,
viz., doctrines and facts which, although they cannot
strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are neverthe-
less so intimately connected with revealed truths that,
were one free to deny the former, he would logically
deny the latter, and thus defeat the primary purpose
for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His
Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the
Vatican Council when it says that " the Church, which,
together with the Apostolic office of teaching receivefl
the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses
also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to con-
demn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be
cheated by philosophv and vain conceit (cf. Col., ii,
8)" (Denz., 1798, old iio. 1645).
(2) Catholic theologians are agreed in recognising the general principle that has just Ijeen stated, but it can- not be said that they are equally imanimous in regard to the concrete applications of this principle. Yet it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as "theological conclusions", i. e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed anil the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church's mfallible authority, (b) It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, woukl be: whether a certain pope is legitimate, or a certain council oecumenical, or whether objective heresy or error is taught in a certain book or other published document. This last point in particular figured prominently in the Jansen- ist controversy, the heretics contending that, while the famous five propositions attributed to Jansenius were rightly condemned, they did not truly express the doctrine contained in his book ".^^ugustinus". Clement XI, in condemning this subterfuge (see Denz., 13.50, old no. 1317) merely reasserted the principle which had been followed by the fathers of Nica-a in condemning the "Thalia" of Arius, by the fathers of Ephesus in condemning the writings of Nestorius, and by the Second Council of Constan- tinople in condemning the Three Chapters, (c) It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century. Mere beatification, however, as distinguished from can- onization, is not hekl to be infallible, and in canoni- zation itself the only fact that is infallibly determined is that the soul of the canonized saint departed in the state of grace and already enjoys the beatific vision, (d) As to moral precepts or laws, as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It woukl be out of place to speak of infallibility in connexion with the opportuneness or the administration of necessa- rily changing disciplinary laws, although, of course. Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.
V. What Teaching Is Infallible? — A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been al- ready explained in this and in other articles will suffice, (a) As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infalUble ecclesiastical teaching.
