On these principles it will be easy for us to see the justice of the condemnations contained in the next two paragraphs.
In condemning the nineteenth error the Pope defines that the Church is a perfect society. He likewise denounces the absurd theory that rights defined by Christ himself should be subject to the revision of the civil power.
The twentieth proposition is censured for making the divinely-instituted society part and parcel of the State.
The twenty-first error supposes that Christ left His Apostles and their successors powerless to tell His true religion from false ones.
The twenty-second denies the Church's power of defining dogmatic facts of which I have spoken elsewhere. To show how inconsistent a Catholic would have to be if his obligation of belief were restricted to dogmas of faith, I put the following case: I believe the Immaculate Conception, because defined by Pius IX.; but if that man, John Mastai Ferretti, be not really Pope, the definition is null. Therefore I must believe that John Mastai Ferretti is really Pope. Now I find nothing in Scripture or Tradition about John Mastai Ferretti, and his election to the Popedom. Here is a truth which must needs be accepted for the acceptance of a dogmatical definition, yet is not itself an article of faith.
The twenty-second proposition is condemned, especially for its last portion, which is, that Popes and Councils have erred in matters of faith. The assertion that Pontiffs have usurped the rights of princes is false
