http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
Texts of Roman Documents Condemning Jansenism Onsite texts are taken from Denzinger’s The
Sources of Catholic Dogma 1957 From the
Constitution “Cum occasione,” May 31, 1653 – Errors said to have been
extracted from the Augustinus of Cornelius Jansen From
the Constitution “Ad sacram beati Petri Sedem,” Oct. 16, 1656 – The Sense
of Jansenius From
the Constitution, “Regiminis apostolicis,” Feb. 15, 1665 - Formulary of
Submission Proposed for the Jansenists From
the Constitution “Inter multiplices,” Aug. 4, 1690 – Erroneous Articles
of the Gallican Clergy about the Power of the Roman Pontiff Decree
of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690 - Errors of the Jansenists From
the Constitution, “Vineam Domini Sabaoth,” July 16, 1705 - An Obsequious
Silence in Regard to Dogmatic Facts From
the dogmatic Constitution “Unigenitus,” Sept. 8, 1713 - Condemnation of
the Errors of Paschasius Quesnel (offsite) Encyclical
“Ex omnibus Christiani orbis,” Oct. 16, 1756 - On the Apostolic
Constitution Unigenitus (offsite) From
the Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794 – Errors of the Synod of Pistoia Innocent X – From the Constitution “Cum
occasione,” May 31, 1653 – Errors said to have been
extracted from the Augustinus of Cornelius Jansen 1. Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the
just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which
they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting.
Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by
anathema, and heretical. 2. In the state of fallen nature one never
resists interior grace.
Declared and condemned as heretical. 3. In order to merit or demerit in the state of
fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, but freedom
from external compulsion is sufficient.
Declared and condemned as heretical. 4. The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of a
prevenient interior grace for each act, even for the beginning of faith; and
in this they were heretics, because they wished this grace to be such that
the human will could either resistor obey.
Declared and condemned as false and heretical. 5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or
shed His blood for all men without exception.
Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in
this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious,
blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and
heretical. Alexander VII – From the Constitution “Ad sacram
beati Petri Sedem,” Oct. 16, 1656 – The
Sense of Jansenius We declare and define that these five
propositions have been taken from the book of the aforementioned Cornelius
Jansen, Bishop of Ypres, entitled Augustinus, and in the sense
understood by that same Cornelius condemned. Alexander VII – From the Constitution, “Regiminis
apostolicis,” Feb. 15, 1665 – Formulary
of Submission Proposed for the Jansenists “I, N., submit to the apostolic Constitution of
Innocent X, dated May 31, 1653, and to the Constitution of Alexander VII,
dated October 16, 1656, Supreme Pontiffs, and I reject and condemn with a
sincere heart, just as the Apostolic See has condemned them by the said
Constitutions, the five propositions taken from the book of Cornelius Jansen,
entitled Augustinus, and in the sense understood by that same author, and so
I swear: So help me God, and this holy gospel of God.” Alexander VIII – From the Constitution “Inter
multiplices,” Aug. 4, 1690 – Erroneous Articles of
the Gallican Clergy about the Power of the Roman Pontiff 1. To blessed Peter and his successors the vicars
of Christ, and to the Church herself power over spiritual things and over
those pertaining to eternal salvation has been given by God, but not power
over civil and temporal affairs, since the Lord said: “My Kingdom is not of
this world” [John 18:36], and again: “Render therefore to Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” [Luke 20:25], and
hence the statement of the Apostle: “Let every soul be subject to higher
powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained
of God. Therefore he that resisted the power, resisteth the ordinance of God”
[Rom. 13:1 f.]. Therefore, by the command of God, kings and princes cannot be
subject to ecclesiastical power in temporal affairs, nor can they be deposed
by the authority of the keys of the Church, either directly or indirectly;
nor can their subjects be released from loyalty and obedience and be freed
from fulfilling their oath of allegiance; and this opinion, which is
necessary for public tranquillity, and which is no less useful to the Church
than to the Empire, must by every means be retained as being in harmony with
the Word of God, the tradition of the Fathers, and the examples of the
saints. 2. So
there is in the Apostolic See and in the successors of Peter, the vicars of
Christ, such full power over spiritual things that the decree concerning the
authority of the General Councils which are contained in the fourth and fifth
sessions of the sacred ecumenical Council of Constance are valid, and at the
same time always remain unchanged, since these decrees have been approved by
the Apostolic See and confirmed by the use of the Roman Pontiffs themselves,
and by the whole Church and have been observed by the Gallican Church in
continuous religious worship; and they are not to be approved by the Gallican
Church who destroy the force of these decrees, as if they were of doubtful
authority or have been less approved, or who distort the words of the Council
in accordance only with the time of the schism. 3.
Hence the use of the apostolic power must be moderated by the canons which
have been established by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the reverence
of the whole world; likewise, the rules, customs, and institutes accepted by
the kingdom and the Gallican Church are valid, and the limitations of the
Fathers remain unshaken; and this pertains to the fullness of the Apostolic
See, namely, that these statutes and customs, confirmed by the consent of
both so great a See and of the Churches, retain their proper stability. 4. In
questions of faith also, the duties of the Supreme Pontiff are principal
ones, and his decrees pertain to all and individual churches, and yet this
judgment is not unalterable unless the consent of the Church has been added
to it.
Concerning these statements Alexander VIII decreed as follows: “Each
and everything that was considered and decreed in the above mentioned
assemblies of the Gallican clergy held in the year 1682, both in regard to
the extension of the right of regalia and the declaration concerning the
ecclesiastical power and the four propositions contained in that declaration,
with all and individual mandates, judgments, and confirmations, declarations,
epistles, edicts, and decrees edited and published by whatsoever persons,
ecclesiastical or lay, in whatever way qualified, and no matter what authority and power they
enjoy, even the power which requires
individual mention,—all these acts, we declare, by the tenor of these letters, to have been from the very
beginning, to be now, and always to
be, by right itself, null and void, invalid, useless, entirely and
wholly lacking in strength and effectiveness,
and that no one is bound to their
observance or to the observance of any one of them, even if they
have been reinforced by an oath.” Alexander VIII – Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690 – Errors of the Jansenists 1. In the state of fallen nature, for mortal [Viva:
formale] sin and for demerit that liberty is sufficient by which the
mortal sin or demerit was voluntary and free in its cause, namely, in
original sin and in the will of Adam sinning. 2. Although there is such a thing as invincible
ignorance of the law of nature, this, in the state of fallen nature, does not
excuse from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance. 3. It is not permitted to follow a (probable)
opinion or among the probables the most probable. 4. Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to
God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful only. 5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this
kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you
will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will
without any sufficient grace. 6. Grace sufficient for our state is not so much
useful as pernicious, so that we can justly pray: From sufficient grace
deliver us, 0 Lord. 7. Every human act is a deliberate choice of God
or of the world; if of God, it is love of the Father; if of the world, it is
concupiscence of the flesh, that is, it is evil. 8. Of necessity, an infidel sins in every act. 9. In truth he sins who hates sin merely because
of its vileness and its inconsistency with nature, without any reference to
the offense to God. 10. The intention with which anyone detests evil
and follows after good, merely that he may obtain heavenly glory, is not
right nor pleasing to God. 11. Everything which is not in accordance with
supernatural Christian faith, which works through charity, is a sin. 12. When in great sinners all love is lacking,
faith also is lacking; and even if they seem to believe, their faith is not
divine but human. 13. Whoever serves God even in view of an eternal
reward, if he lacks charity, is not free from fault, as often as he acts even
in view of his eternal reward. 14. Fear of hell is not supernatural. 15. Attrition, which is conceived through a fear
of hell and punishments, with a love of benevolence for God in Himself, is
not a good and supernatural motive. 16. Neither the policy nor institution of the
Church has introduced the order of placing satisfaction before absolution,
but the law and prescription of Christ, since the nature of the thing in a
way demands that very order. 17. By that practice of absolving first the order
of penance is inverted. 18. The modern custom as regards the
administration of the sacrament of penance, even if the authority of many men
sustains it and long duration confirms it, is nevertheless not considered by
the Church as a usage but as an abuse. 19. Man ought to do penance during his whole life
for original sin. 20. Confessions made to religious are generally
either sacrilegious or invalid. 21. The parish priest can suspect mendicants who
live on common alms, of imposing too light and unsuitable a penance or
satisfaction because of the advantage or gain of some temporal aid. 22. They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim
the right to receive Communion before they have done worthy penance for their
sins. 23. Similarly, they must be prevented from Holy
Communion, who have not yet a pure love of God, without any admixture. 24. The oblation in the Temple, which was made by
the Blessed Virgin Mary on the day of her purification by means of two turtle
doves, one for a holocaust and the other for sins, sufficiently testifies
that she was in need of purification, and that her Son (who was being
offered) was also stained with the stain of His mother, according to the
words of the law. 25. It is unlawful to place in a Christian temple
an image of God the Father [Viva: sedentis, sitting]. 26. Praise which is offered to Mary, as Mary, is
vain. 27. Sometimes baptism is valid when conferred
under this form: “In the name of the Father, etc. . . ,” omitting these
words: “I baptize thee.” 28. Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister
who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but within his
heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does. 29. Futile and many times refuted is the
assertion about the authority of the Roman Pontiff being superior to that of
an ecumenical Council and about his infallibility in deciding questions of
faith. 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly
established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding
any bull of the pope. 31. The Bull of Urban VIII, “In Eminenti,” is
false.
Condemned and prohibited as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding,
injurious, close to heresy, smacking of heresy, erroneous, schismatic, and heretical respectively. Clement XI – From the Constitution, “Vineam
Domini Sabaoth,” July 16, 1705
– An Obsequious Silence in Regard to
Dogmatic Facts In order that, for the future, every occasion of
error may be prevented, and that all sons of the Catholic Church may learn to
listen to the Church herself, not in silence only (for, “even the wicked are
silent in darkness” [I Kings 2:9]), but with an interior obedience, which is
the true obedience of an orthodox man, let it be known that by this
constitution of ours, to be valid forever, the obedience which is due to the
aforesaid apostolic constitutions is not satisfied by any obsequious silence;
but the sense of that book of Jansen which has been condemned in the five
propositions mentioned above, and whose meaning the words of those
propositions express clearly, must be rejected and condemned as heretical by
all the faithful of Christ, not only by word of mouth but also in heart; and
one may not lawfully subscribe to the above formula with any other mind,
heart, or belief, so that all who hold or preach or teach or assert by word
or writing anything contrary to what all these propositions mean, and to what
each single one means, we declare, decree, state, and ordain, with this same
apostolic authority, that all, as transgressors of the aforementioned
apostolic constitutions, come under each and every individual censure and
penalty of those constitutions. Pius VI – From the
Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794 – Errors
of the Synod of Pistoia [A. Errors about the
Church] Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de
Grat., sec. 1] 1. The proposition, which asserts “that
in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more
important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of
the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”—heretical. The Power Attributed to the Community
of the Church, in Order That by This the Power May Be
Communicated to the
Pastors [Episcopal Convocation] 2. The
proposition which states “that power has been given by God to the Church,
that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the
salvation of souls”; if thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical
ministry and of rule is derived from the COMMUNITY of the faithful to the
pastors,—heretical. The Name Ministerial Head Attributed to
the Roman Pontiff [Decree de fide (on
faith), sec. 8] 3. In addition, the proposition which
states “that the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head,” if it is so
explained that the Roman Pontiff does not receive from Christ in the person
of blessed Peter, but from the Church, the power of ministry, which as successor
of Peter, true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church he possesses in
the universal Church,—heretical. The Power of the Church for the
Establishing and the Sanctioning of Exterior
Discipline [Decree de fide, sees. 13, 14] 4. The proposition affirming, “that it
would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that
authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to
exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and
love”; and then also, “that it
pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its
decrees”; in so far as by those undefined words, “extends to exterior
matters,” the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received
from God, which the apostles
themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline— heretical. 5. In that part in which the proposition
insinuates that the Church Rights Attributed to Bishops
Beyond What is Lawful [Decree de
ord., sec. 25] 6. The doctrine of the synod by which it
professes that “it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all
necessary rights for the good government of his diocese,” just as if for the
good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which
belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal
Church,— schismatic, at least erroneous. 7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages
a bishop “to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical
discipline,” and this “against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations
which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of
God and for the greater edification of the faithful”; in that it supposes
that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide
contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the
universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the
intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have
been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and
subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous. 8. Likewise, in that it says it is
convinced that “the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the
government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has
happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any
reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original
rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it”; in the fact
that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not
further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion
of hierarchic government, erroneous. The Right Incorrectly Attributed to
Priests of Inferior Rank in Decrees of Faith
and Discipline [Episcopal
Convocation] 9. The doctrine which states, that “the
reformation of abuses in regard to ecclesiastical discipline ought equally to
depend upon and be established by the bishop and the parish priests in
diocesan synods, and that without the freedom of decision, obedience would
not be due to the suggestions and orders of the bishops,” 1—false, rash,
harmful to episcopal authority, subversive of hierarchic government, favoring
the heresy of Aerius, which was renewed by Calvin [cf. Benedict XIV De Syn.
dioc. (concerning diocesan synods), 13, 1]. [From the Episcopal Convocation.
From the Epistle to the Vic. For. From the Oration to
the Synod, sec. 8. From session
3.] 10. Likewise, the doctrine by which
parish priests and other priests gathered in a synod are declared judges of
faith together with the bishop, and at the same time it is intimated that
they are qualified for judgment in matters of faith by their own right and
have indeed received it by ordination,—false, rash, subversive of hierarchic
order, detracting from the strength of dogmatic definitions or judgments of
the Church, at least erroneous. [Oration to the
Synod, sec. 8] 11. The opinion enunciating that by the
long-standing practice of our ancestors, handed down even from apostolic
times, preserved through the better ages of the Church, it has been accepted
that “decrees, or definitions, or opinions even of the greater sees should
not be accepted, unless they had been recognized and approved by the diocesan
synod,”— false, rash, derogatory, in proportion to its generality, to the
obedience due to the apostolic constitutions, and also to the opinions
emanating from the legitimate, superior, hierarchic power, fostering schism
and heresy. Calumnies Against Some Decisions
in the Matter of Faith Which Have Come Down from Several
Centuries [Faith,
sec. 12] 12. The assertions of the synod, accepted
as a whole concerning decisions in the matter of faith which have come down
from several centuries, which it represents as decrees originating from one
particular church or from a few pastors, unsupported by sufficient authority,
formulated for the corruption of the purity of faith and for causing
disturbance, introduced by violence, from which wounds, still too recent,
have been inflicted,—false, deceitful, rash, scandalous, injurious to the
Roman Pontiffs and the Church, derogatory to the obedience due to the
Apostolic Constitutions, schismatic,
dangerous, at least erroneous. The So-called Peace of
Clement IX [Oration to the Synod,
sec. 2 in the note] 13.
The proposition reported among the acts of the synod, which intimates that
Clement IX restored peace to the Church by the approval of the distinction of
right and deed in the subscription to the formulary written by Alexander
VII,—false, rash, injurious to Clement
IX. 14. In so far as it approves that
distinction by extolling its supporters with praise and by berating their
opponents,—rash, pernicious, injurious
to the Supreme Pontiffs, fostering schism and heresy. The Composition of the Body
of the Church [Appendix
n. 28] 15. The doctrine which proposes that the
Church “must be considered as one mystical body composed of Christ, the head,
and the faithful, who are its members through an ineffable union, by which in
a marvelous way we become with Him one sole priest, one sole victim, one sole
perfect adorer of God the Father, in spirit and in truth,” understood in this
sense, that no one belongs to the body of the Church except the faithful, who
are perfect adorers in spirit and in truth,—heretical. [B. Errors about
Justification, Grace, the Virtues] The State of Innocence [Grace, secs. 4, 7: the
sacraments in general, sec. 1; penance, sec.
4] 16. The doctrine of the synod about the
state of happy innocence, such as it represents it in Adam before his sin,
comprising not only integrity but also interior justice with an inclination
toward God through love of charity, and primeval sanctity restored in some
way after the fall; in so far as, understood comprehensively, it intimates
that that state was a consequence of creation, due to man from the natural
exigency and condition of human nature, not a gratuitous gift of God, false,
elsewhere condemned in Baius, and in Quesnel, erroneous, favorable to the
Pelagian heresy. Immortality Viewed as a Natural
Condition of Man [Baptism,
sec. 2] 17. The proposition stated in these words:
“Taught by the Apostle, we regard death no longer as a natural condition of
man, but truly as a just penalty for original guilt,” since, under the
deceitful mention of the name of the Apostle, it insinuates that death, which
in the present state has been inflicted as a just punishment for sin by the
just withdrawal of immortality, was not a natural condition of man, as if
immortality had not been a gratuitous gift, but a natural
condition,—deceitful, rash, injurious to the Apostle, elsewhere condemned. The Condition of Man in the
State of Nature [On Grace,
sec. 10] 18. The doctrine of the synod stating that
“after the fall of Adam, God announced the promise of a future Redeemer and
wished to console the human race through hope of salvation, which Jesus was
to bring”; nevertheless, “that God willed that the human race should pass
through various states before the plenitude of time should come”; and first,
that in the state of nature “man, left to his own lights, would learn to
distrust his own blind reason and would move himself from his own aberrations
to desire the aid of a superior light”; the doctrine, as it stands, is
deceitful, and if understood concerning the desire of the aid of a superior
light in relation to the salvation promised through Christ, that man is
supposed to have been able to move himself to conceive this desire by his own
proper lights remaining after the fall,—suspected, favorable to the
Semi-pelagian heresy. The Condition of Man under
the Law [Ibid.] 19. Likewise, the doctrine which adds that
under the Law man “became a prevaricator, since he was powerless to observe
it, not indeed by the fault of the Law, which was most sacred, but by the
guilt of man, who, under the Law, without grace, became more and more a
prevaricator”; and it further adds, “that the Law, if it did not heal the
heart of man, brought it about that he would recognize his evil, and, being
convinced of his weakness, would desire the grace of a mediator”; in this
part it generally intimates that man became a prevaricator through the
nonobservance of the Law which he was powerless to observe, as if “He who is
just could command something impossible, or He who is pious would be likely
to condemn man for that which he could not avoid” (from St. Caesarius Serm.
73, in append., St. Augustine, Serm. 273, edit. Maurin; from St.
August., De nat, et grat., c. 43; De grat. et lib. arb., c. 16;
Enarr. in psalm. 56, n. 1),—false scandalous, impious, condemned in
Baius. 20. In that part in which it is to be
understood that man, while under the Law and without grace, could conceive a
desire for the grace of a Mediator related to the salvation promised through
Christ, as if “grace itself does not effect that He be invoked by us” (from
Cone. Araus. II, can. 3),—the proposition as it stands, deceitful, suspect,
favorable to the Semipelagian heresy. Illuminating and Exciting Grace [Grace,
sec. 11] 21. The proposition which asserts “that
the light of grace, when it is alone, effects nothing but to make us aware of
the unhappiness of our state and the gravity of our evil; that grace, in such
a case, produces the same effect as the Law produced: therefore, it is
necessary that God create in our heart a sacred love and infuse a sacred
delight contrary to the love dominating in us; that this sacred love, this
sacred delight is properly the grace of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of
charity by which, when it is perceived, we act by a sacred love; that this is
that root from which grow good works; that this is the grace of the New
Testament, which frees us from the servitude of sin, makes us sons of God”;
since it intimates that that alone is properly the grace of Jesus Christ,
which creates in the heart a sacred love, and which impels us to act, or
also, by which man, freed from the slavery of sin, is constituted a son of
God; and that that grace is not also properly the grace of Jesus Christ, by
which the heart of man is touched through an illumination of the Holy Spirit
(TRID. sess. 6, c. 5), and that no true interior grace of Christ is given,
which is resisted,—false, deceitful, leading to the error condemned in the
second proposition of Jansen as heretical, and renewing it. Faith as the First Grace
[Faith,
sec. 1] 22. The
proposition which declares that faith, “from which begins the series of
graces, and through which, as the first voice, we are called to salvation and
to the Church”: is the very excellent virtue itself of faith by which men are
called and are the faithful; just as if that grace were not prior, which “as
it precedes the will, so it precedes faith also” (from St. August., De
dono persev., c. 16, n. 41),—suspected of heresy, and savoring of it,
elsewhere condemned in Quesnel, erroneous. The Twofold
Love [Grace,
sec. 8] 23. The doctrine of the synod about the
twofold love of dominating cupidity and of dominating charity, stating that
man without grace is under the power of sin, and that in that state through
the general influence of the dominating cupidity he taints and corrupts all
his actions; since it insinuates that in man, while he is under the servitude
or in the state of sin, destitute of that grace by which he is freed from the
servitude of sin and is constituted a son of God, cupidity is so dominant
that by its general influence all his actions are vitiated in themselves and
corrupted; or that all his works which are done before justification, for
whatsoever reason they may be done, are sins; as if in all his acts the
sinner is a slave to the dominating cupidity,—false, dangerous, leading into
the error condemned by the Tridentine Council as heretical, again condemned
in Baius, art. 40. Sec. 12
24. But in this part, indeed, no
intermediate affections are placed between the dominating cupidity and the
dominating charity, planted by nature itself and worthy of praise because of
their own nature, which, together with love of the beatitude and a natural
inclination to good “have remained as the last outline and traces of the
image of God” (from St. August., De spirit, et litt., c. 28); just as
if “between the divine love which draws us to the kingdom, and illicit human
love which is condemned, there should not be given a licit human love which
is not censured” (from St. August., Serm. 349 de car., edit.
Maurin),—false, elsewhere condemned. Servile Fear
[On Penance,
sec. 3] 25. The doctrine which in general asserts
that the fear of punishment “cannot be called evil if it, at least, prevails
to restrain the hand”; as if the fear itself of hell, which faith teaches
must be imposed on sin, is not in itself good and useful as a supernatural
gift, and a motion inspired by God preparing for the love of justice,—false,
rash, dangerous, injurious to the
divine gifts, elsewhere condemned, contrary to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, and to the common opinion of the Fathers, namely “that there
is need,” according to the customary
order of preparation for justice, “that fear should first enter, through which charity will come; fear is a
medicine, charity is health” (from S.
August,, In [I] epist. Io., c. 4, tract. 9; in Io.
evang., tract 41, n. 10; Enarr. in psalm, 127, n. 7; Serm.
157 de verbis Apost, n. 13; Serm. 161 de verbis Apost.,
n. 8; Serm. 349 de caritate, n. 7). The
Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only [Baptism,
sec. 3] 26. The
doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions
(which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children)
in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are
punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of
fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of
fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment
between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which
the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. [C. Errors] about the
Sacraments, and First about the Sacramental Form with a
Condition Attached [Baptism,
sec. 12] 27. The
deliberation of the synod which, under pretext of clinging to ancient canons
in the case of doubtful baptism, declares its intention of omitting mention
of the conditional form,—rash, contrary to practice, to the law, to the
authority of the Church. The Partaking of the Victim in the
Sacrifice of the Mass [The Eucharist,
sec. 6] 28. The proposition of the synod in
which, after it states that “a partaking of the victim is an essential part
in the sacrifice,” it adds, “nevertheless, it does not condemn as illicit
those Masses in which those present do not communicate sacramentally, for the
reason that they do partake of the victim, although less perfectly, by
receiving it spiritually,” since it insinuates that there is something
lacking to the essence of the sacrifice in that sacrifice which is performed
either with no one present, or with those present who partake of the victim
neither sacramentally nor spiritually, and as if those Masses should be
condemned as illicit, in which, with the priest alone communicating, no one
is present who communicates either sacramentally or spiritually,—false,
erroneous, suspected of heresy and savoring of it. The Efficacy of the Rite of
Consecration [The Eucharist,
sec. 2] 29. The doctrine of the synod, in that
part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of
consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in
which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests
performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these
two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really,
substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and
wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits
to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole
substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine
into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith ,
and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith; since by an
indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both
of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the
Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely
scholastic question,—dangerous,
derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of
transubstantiation, favorable to heretics. The Application of the Fruit
of the Sacrifice [The
Eucharist, sec. 8] 30. The doctrine of the synod, by which,
while it professes “to believe that the oblation of the sacrifice extends
itself to all, in such a way, however, that in the liturgy there can be made
a special commemoration of certain individuals, both living and dead, by
praying God specially for them,” then it immediately adds: “Not, however,
that we should believe that it is in the will of the priest to apply the
fruit of the sacrifice to whom He wishes, rather we condemn this error as
greatly offending the rights of God,
who alone distributes the fruit of the sacrifice to whom He wishes and according to the measure
which pleases Him”; and consequently, from this it derides “as false the
opinion foisted on the people that
they who give alms to the priest on the condition that he celebrate a Mass will receive from it special
fruit”; thus understood, that besides
the special commemoration and prayer a special offering itself, or
application of the Sacrifice which is made by the priest does not benefit, other things being equal, those for whom it is
applied more than any others, as if
no special fruit would come from a special application, which the Church recommends and commands should be
made for definite persons or classes
of persons, especially by pastors for their flock, and which, as if coming down from a divine precept, has
been clearly expressed by the sacred
synod of Trent (sess. 23, c. 1 de reform; BENED. XIV, Constit. “Cum
semper oblatas,” sec. 2),—false, rash, dangerous, injurious to the Church, leading into the error elsewhere
condemned in Wycliffe. The Suitable Order to Be
Observed in Worship [The
Eucharist, sec. 5] 31. The proposition of the synod
enunciating that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine
services and ancient custom, that there be only one altar in each temple, and
therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom,—rash, injurious to the
very ancient pious custom nourishing and approved for these many centuries in
the Church, especially in the Latin Church. [Ibid.] 32. Likewise, the prescription forbidding
cases of sacred relics or flowers being placed on the altar,—rash, injurious
to the pious and approved custom of the Church. [Ibid.,
sec. 6] 33. The
proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause
through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles
relating to the order of the liturgy, “by recalling it (the liturgy) to a
greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by
uttering it in a loud voice”; as if the present order of the liturgy,
received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the
forgetfulness of the principles by which it
should be regulated,—rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to
the Church, favorable to the charges
of heretics against it. The Order of
Penance
[Penance,
sec. 7] 34. The declaration of the synod by
which, after it previously stated that the order of canonical penance had
been so established by the Church, in accord with the example of the apostles
that it was common to all, and not merely for the punishment of guilt, but
especially for the disposition to grace, it adds that “it (the synod)
recognizes in that marvelous and venerable order the whole dignity of so
necessary a sacrament, free from the subtleties which have been added to it
in the course of time”; as if, through the order in which without the
complete course of canonical penance
this sacrament has been wont to be administered, the dignity of the sacrament had been lessened,—rash,
scandalous, inducing to a contempt of the dignity of the sacrament as it has
been accustomed to be administered
throughout the whole Church, injurious
to the Church itself. [Penance, sec.
10, n. 4] 35. The proposition conceived in these
words: “If charity in the beginning is always weak, it behooves the priest,
in obtaining an increase of this charity in the ordinary way, to make those
acts of humiliation and penance which have been recommended in every age by
the Church precede; to reduce those acts to a few prayers or to some fasting
after absolution has already been conferred, seems to be a material desire of
keeping for this sacrament the mere name of penance, rather than an
illuminating and suitable means to increase that fervor of charity which
ought to precede absolution; indeed we are far from blaming the practice of
imposing penances to be fulfilled after absolution; if all our good works
have our defects always joined to them, how much more ought we to fear lest
we admit very many imperfections into the very difficult and very important
work of our reconciliation”; since it implies that the penances which are
imposed, to be fulfilled after absolution, are to be considered as a
supplement for the defects admitted in the work of our reconciliation, rather
than as truly sacramental penances and satisfactions for the sins confessed,
as if, in order that the true reason for the sacrament, not the mere name, be
preserved, it would be necessary that in the ordinary way the acts of humiliation
and penance, which are imposed as a means of sacramental satisfaction, should
precede absolution,— false, rash,
injurious to the common practice of the Church, leading to the error contained in the heretical note
in Peter of Osma. The Previous Disposition
Necessary for Admitting Penitents to
Reconciliation
[Grace,
sec. 15] 36. The
doctrine of the synod, in which, after it stated that “when there are
unmistakable signs of the love of God dominating in the heart of a man, he
can deservedly be considered worthy of being admitted to participation in the
blood of Jesus Christ, which takes place in the sacraments,” it further adds,
“that false conversions, which take place through attrition (incomplete
sorrow for sins), are not usually efficacious nor durable,” consequently,
“the shepherd of souls must insist on unmistakable signs of the dominating
charity before he admits his penitents to
the sacraments”; which signs, as it (the decree) then teaches (sec.
17), “a pastor can deduce from a firm
cessation of sin and from fervor in
good works”; and this “fervor of charity,” moreover, it prescribes (De poenit, sec. 10) as the disposition
which “should precede absolution”; so
understood that not only imperfect contrition, which is sometimes
called by the name of attrition, even
that which is joined with the love with which a man begins to love God as the
fountain of all justice, and not only
contrition formed by charity, but also the fervor of a dominating charity,
and that, indeed, proved by a long continued practice through fervor in good works, is generally
and absolutely required in order that
a man may be admitted to the sacraments, and penitents especially be admitted
to the benefit of the absolution,—false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, contrary to the
safe and approved practice of the
Church, detracting from the efficacy of the sacrament and injurious to
it. The Authority for
Absolving [Penance, sec. 10, n. 6] 37. The teaching of the synod, which
declares concerning the authority for absolving received through ordination
that “after the institution of dioceses and parishes, it is fitting that each
one exercise this judgment over those persons subject to him either by reason
of territory or some personal right,” because “otherwise confusion and
disturbance would be introduced”; since it declares that, in order to prevent
confusion, after dioceses and parishes have been instituted, it is merely
fitting that the power of absolving be exercised upon subjects; so
understood, as if for the valid use of this power there is no need of
ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, without which the Tridentine Synod
declares that absolution conferred by a priest is of no value,—false, rash,
dangerous, contrary and injurious to the Tridentine Synod, erroneous. [Ibid.,
sec. 11] 38. Likewise, that teaching in which,
after the synod professed that “it could not but admire that very venerable
discipline of antiquity, which (as it says) did not admit to penance so
easily, and perhaps never, that one who, after a first sin and a first
reconciliation, had relapsed into guilt,” it adds, that “through fear of
perpetual exclusion from communion and from peace, even in the hour of death,
a great restraint will be put on those who consider too little the evil of
sin and fear it less,” contrary to canon 13 of the first Council of Nicea, to
the decretal of Innocent I to Exuperius Tolos, and then also to the decretal
of Celestine I to the .Bishops of Vienne, and of the Province of Narbon,
redolent of the viciousness at which the Holy Pontiff is horrified in that
decretal. The Confession of Venial Sins [Penance, sec.
12] 39. The declaration of the synod about the
confession of venial sins, which it does not wish, it says, to be so
frequently resorted to, lest confessions of this sort be rendered too
contemptible,—rash, dangerous, contrary to the practice of the saints and the
pious which was approved by the sacred Council of Trent. Indulgences [Penance,
sec. 16] 40. The proposition asserting “that an
indulgence, according to its precise notion, is nothing else than the
remission of that part of the penance which had been established by the
canons for the sinner”; as if an indulgence, in addition to the mere
remission of the canonical penance, does not also have value for the
remission of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for actual
sins,—false, rash, injurious to the merits of Christ, already condemned in
article 19 of Luther. [Ibid.] 41. Likewise, in this which is added,
i.e., that “the scholastics, puffed up by their subtleties, introduced the
poorly understood treasury of the merits of Christ and of the saints, and,
for the clear notion of absolution from canonical penance, they substituted a
confused and false notion of the application of merits”; as if the treasures
of the Church, whence the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of
Christ and of the saints,— false, rash, injurious to the merits of Christ and
of the saints, previously condemned in art. 17 of Luther. [Ibid.] 42. Likewise, in this which it adds, that
“it is still more lamentable that that fabulous application is meant to be
transferred to the dead,”— false, rash, offensive to pious ears, injurious to
the Roman Pontiffs and to the practice and sense of the universal Church,
leading to the error fixed in the heretical note in Peter of Osma, again
condemned in article 22 of Luther. [Ibid.] 43. In this, finally, that it most
shamelessly inveighs against lists of indulgences, privileged altars,
etc.,—rash, offensive to the ears of the pious, scandalous, abusive to the
Supreme Pontiffs, and to the practice common in the whole Church. The Reservation
of Cases [Penance,
sec. 79] 44. The proposition of the synod
asserting that the “reservation of cases at the present time is nothing else
than an improvident bond for priests of lower rank, and a statement devoid of
sense for penitents who are accustomed to pay no heed to this
reservation,”—false, rash, evil-sounding, dangerous, contrary to the Council
of Trent, injurious to the hierarchic power. [Ibid.] 45. Likewise, concerning the hope which
it expressed that “when the Ritual and the order of penance had been
reformed, there would be no place any longer for reservations of this sort”;
in so far as, considering the careful generality of the words, it intimates
that, by a reformation of the Ritual and of the order of penance made by a
bishop or a synod, cases can be abolished which the Tridentine Synod (sess.
14, c. 7) declares the Supreme Pontiffs could reserve to their own special
judgment, because of the supreme power given to them in the universal
Church,—the proposition is false, rash, derogatory, and injurious to the
Council of Trent and to the authority of the Supreme Pontiffs. Censures [Penance, sees.
20 and 22] 46. The proposition asserting that “the
effect of excommunication is merely exterior, because by its nature it merely
excludes from exterior communion with the Church”; as if excommunication were
not a spiritual punishment, binding in heaven, obligating souls (from St.
August., Epistle 250 to Bishop Auxilius; Tract 50 in Io.,
12),—false, dangerous, condemned in art. 23 of Luther, at least erroneous. [Secs. 21
and 23] 47. Likewise, the proposition which
teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for
either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should
precede, and that, therefore, sentences called “ipso facto” have no other
force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,—false, rash,
pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. [Sec. 22] 48. Likewise, the proposition which says
that “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of
general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have
fallen,”—false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church. [Sec. 24] 49. Likewise, the proposition which
condemns as null and invalid “suspensions imposed from an informed
conscience,”—false, pernicious, injurious to Trent. [Ibid.] 50.
Likewise, in that decree which insinuates that a bishop alone does not have
the right to make use of the power which, nevertheless, Trent confers on him
(sess. 14, c. i de reform.) of legitimately inflicting suspensions
“from an informed conscience,”—harmful to the jurisdiction of the prelates of
the Church. Orders [Orders,
sec. 4] 51. The doctrine of the synod which says
that in promoting to orders this method, from the custom and rule of the
ancient discipline, was accustomed to be observed, “that if any cleric was
distinguished for holiness of life and was considered worthy to ascend to
sacred orders, it was the custom to promote him to the diaconate, or to the
priesthood, even if he had not received minor orders; and that at that time
such an ordination was not called ‘per saltum,’ as afterwards it was so
called,”— [Sec. 5] 52. Likewise, the doctrine which intimates
that there was no other title for ordinations than appointment to some
special ministry, such as was prescribed in the Council of Chalcedon; adding
(Sec. 6) that, as long as the Church conformed itself to these principles in the
selection of sacred ministers, the ecclesiastical order flourished; but that
those happy days have passed, and new principles have been introduced later,
by which the discipline in the choice of ministers for the sanctuary was
corrupted;— [Sec. 7] 53. Likewise, that among these very
principles of corruption it mentions the fact that there has been a departure
from the old rule by which, as it says (Sec. 5) the Church, treading in the
footsteps of the Apostle, had prescribed that no one should be admitted to
the priesthood unless he had preserved his baptismal innocence, since it
implies that discipline has been corrupted by decrees and rules: 1) Whether by these ordinations “per
saltum” have been forbidden; 2) or by these, for the need and advantage of churches,
ordinations without special title of
office are approved, as the ordination for the title of patrimony, specifically approved by
Trent, that obedience having been
assured by which those so ordained are obliged to serve the
necessities of the Churches in
fulfilling those duties, for which, considering the time and the place, they were ordained by the
bishop, just as it was accustomed to be done from apostolic times in the
primitive Church; 3) or, by these a distinction was made by
canon law of crimes which render the
delinquents irregular; as if, by this distinction, the Church departed from the spirit of the Apostle by
not excluding in general and without
distinction from the ecclesiastical ministry all, whosoever they be, who have not preserved their baptismal
innocence,—the doctrine is false in
its several individual parts, rash, disturbing to the order introduced for
the need and advantage of the churches, injurious to the discipline approved by the canons and
especially by the decrees of the
Council of Trent. [Sec.
13] 54. Likewise, the doctrine which notes as
a shameful abuse ever to offer alms for the celebration of Masses, and for
administering the sacraments, as well as to accept any offering so-called “of
the stole,” and, in general, any stipend and honorarium which may be offered
on the occasion of prayers or of some parochial function; as if the ministers
of the Church should be charged with a shameful abuse because they use the
right promulgated by the Apostle of accepting temporal aids from those to
whom they furnish spiritual ministrations [Gal. 6: 6],—false, rash, harmful
to ecclesiastical and pastoral right, injurious to the Church and its
ministers. [Sec.
14] 55.
Likewise, the doctrine by which it professes to desire very much that some
way be found of removing the lesser clergy (under which name it designates
the clerics of minor orders) from cathedrals and colleges by providing
otherwise, namely through approved lay people of mature age, a suitable
assigned stipend for the ministry of serving at Masses and for other offices
such as that of acolyte, etc., as formerly, it says, was usually done when
duties of that sort had not been reduced to mere form for the receiving of
major orders; inasmuch as it censures the rule by which care is taken that
“the functions of minor orders are to be performed or exercised only by those
who have been established in them according to rank” (Conc. prov. IV of
Milan), and this also according to the intention of the Tridentine Council
(sess. 23, c. 17) that the duties of sacred orders, from the diaconate to the
porter, laudably received in the Church from apostolic times and neglected
for a while in many places, should be renewed according to the sacred canons,
and should not be considered useless as they are by heretics,”—a rash
suggestion, offensive to pious ears, disturbing to the ecclesiastical
ministry, lessening of the decency which should be observed as far as
possible in celebrating the mysteries, injurious to the duties and functions
of minor orders, as well as to the discipline approved by the canons and
especially by the Tridentine Synod, favorable to the charges and calumnies of
heretics against it. [Sec.
18] 56. The doctrine which states that it
seems fitting that, in the case of canonical impediments which arise from
crimes expressed in the law, no dispensation should ever be granted or
allowed,—harmful to the canonical equity and moderation which has been
approved by the sacred council of Trent, derogatory to the authority and laws
of the Church. [Ibid., sec. 22] 57. The prescription of the synod which
generally and indiscriminately rejects as an abuse any dispensation that more
than one residential benefice be bestowed on one and the same person:
likewise, in this which it adds that the synod is certain that, according to
the spirit of the Church, no one could enjoy more than one benefice, even if
it is a simple one,—for its generality, derogatory to the moderation of the
Council of Trent (sess. 7, c. 5, and sess. 24, c. 17). Betrothals and Matrimony [Memorial Booklet about
Betrothals, etc. sec. 8] 58. The proposition which states that
betrothals properly so-called contain a mere civil act which disposes for the
celebrating of marriage, and that these same betrothals are altogether
subject to the prescription of the civil laws; as if the act disposing for
the sacrament is not, under this aspect, subject to the law of the
Church,—false, harmful to the right of the Church in respect to the effects Rowing
even from betrothals by reason of the canonical sanctions, derogatory to the
discipline established by the Church. [Matrimony, sees.
7, l1, 12] 59. The doctrine of the synod asserting
that “to the supreme civil power alone originally belongs the right to apply
to the contract of marriage impediments of that sort which render it null and
are called nullifying”: which “original right,” besides, is said to be
“essentially connected with the right of dispensing”: adding that “with the
secret consent or connivance of the principals, the Church could justly
establish impediments which nullify the very contract of marriage”; as if the
Church could not and cannot always in Christian marriages, establish by its
own rights impediments which not only hinder marriage, but also render it
null as regards the bond, and also dispense from those impediments by which
Christians are held bound even in the countries of infidels,—destructive of
canons 3, 4, 9, 12 of the 24th session of the Council of Trent, heretical. [Cit. Memorial Booklet about
Betrothals, sec. 10] 60. Likewise, the proposal of the synod to
the civil power, that “it remove from the number of impediments, whose origin
is found in the Collection of Justinian, spiritual relationship and also that
one which is called of public honor”; then, that “it should tighten the
impediment of affinity and relationship from any licit or illicit connection
of birth to the fourth degree, according to the civil computation through the
lateral and oblique lines, in such a way, nevertheless, that there be left no
hope of obtaining a dispensation”; in so tar as it attributes to the civil
power the right either of abolishing or of tightening impediments which have
been established and approved by the authority of the Church; likewise, where
it proposes that the Church can be despoiled by the civil power of the right
of dispensing from impediments established or approved by the
Church,—subversive of the liberty and power of the Church, contrary to Trent,
issuing from the heretical principle condemned above. [D. Errors] Concerning
Duties, Practices, Rules Pertaining to Religious
Worship And First, the Adoration of the
Humanity of Christ. [Faith, sec. 3] 61. The proposition which asserts that “to
adore directly the humanity of Christ, even any part of Him, would always be
divine honor given to a creature”; in so far as, by this word “directly” it
intends to reprove the worship of adoration which the faithful show to the
humanity of Christ, just as if such adoration, by which the humanity and the
very living flesh of Christ is adored, not indeed on account of itself as
mere flesh, but because it is united to the divinity, would be divine honor
imparted to a creature, and not rather the one and the same adoration with
which the Incarnate Word is adored in His own proper flesh (from the and
Council of Constantinople, 5th Ecumenical Council, canon 9,—false, deceitful,
detracting from and injurious to the pious and due worship given and extended
by the faithful to the humanity of Christ. [Prayer,
sec. 17] 62. The doctrine which rejects devotion to
the most Sacred Heart of Jesus among the devotions which it notes as new,
erroneous, or at least, dangerous; if the understanding of this devotion is
of such a sort as has been approved by the Apostolic See,—false, rash,
dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Apostolic See. [Prayer sec. 10, and
the appendix n. 32] 63. Likewise, in this that it blames the
worshipers of the Heart of Jesus also for this name, because they do not note
that the most sacred flesh of Christ, or any part of Him, or even the whole
humanity, cannot be adored with the worship of latria when there is a
separation or cutting off from the divinity; as if the faithful when they
adore the Heart of Jesus, separate it or cut it off from the divinity; when
they worship the Heart of Jesus it is, namely, the heart of the person of the
Word, to whom it has been inseparably united in that manner in which the
bloodless body of Christ during the three days of death, without separation
or cutting off from divinity, was worthy of adoration in the tomb,—deceitful,
injurious to the faithful worshipers of the Heart of Jesus. The Order Prescribed in the
Undertaking of Pious Exercises [Prayer, sec. 14,
Appendix n. 34] 64. The doctrine which notes as
universally superstitious “any efficacy which is placed in a fixed number of
prayers and of pious salutations”; as if one should consider as superstitious
the efficacy which is derived not from the number viewed in itself, but from
the prescript of the Church appointing a certain number of prayers or of
external acts for obtaining indulgences, for fulfilling penances and, in
general, for the performance of sacred and religious worship in the correct
order and due form,— false, rash,
scandalous, dangerous, injurious to the piety of the faithful, derogatory to the authority of the Church,
erroneous, [Penance,
sec. 10] 65. The proposition stating that “the
unregulated clamor of the new institutions which have been called exercises
or missions . . . , perhaps never, or at least very rarely, succeed in
effecting an absolute conversion; and
those exterior acts of encouragement which have appeared were nothing else than the transient brilliance
of a natural emotion,”—rash,
evil-sounding, dangerous, injurious to the customs piously and
salutarily practiced throughout the
Church and founded on the Word of God. The Manner of Uniting the Voice of the
People with the Voice of the Church in Public
Prayers [Prayer,
sec. 24] 66. The
proposition asserting that “it would be against apostolic practice and the
plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their
voice with that of the whole Church”; if understood to signify introducing of
the use of popular language into the liturgical prayers,—false, rash,
disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries,
easily productive of many evils. The Reading of Sacred
Scripture [From the note at the end of
the decree on grace] 67. The doctrine asserting that “only a
true impotence excuses” from the reading of the Sacred Scriptures, adding,
moreover, that there is produced the obscurity which arises from a neglect of
this precept in regard to the primary truths of religion,—false, rash,
disturbing to the peace of souls, condemned elsewhere in Quesnel. The Reading of Proscribed Books
Publicly in Church [Prayer, 29] 68. The
praise with which the synod very highly commends the commentaries of Quesnel
on the New Testament, and some works of other writers who favor the errors of
Quesnel, although they have been proscribed; and which proposes to parish priests
that they should read these same works, as if they were full of the solid
principles of religion, each one in his own parish to his people after other
functions,—false, rash, scandalous, seditious, injurious to the Church,
fostering schism and heresy. Sacred
Images [Prayer, sec.
17] 69. The prescription which in general and
without discrimination includes the images of the incomprehensible Trinity
among the images to be removed from the Church, on the ground that they
furnish an occasion of error to the untutored,—because of its generality, it
is rash, and contrary to the pious custom common throughout the Church, as if
no images of the Most Holy Trinity
exist which are commonly approved and safely
permitted (from the Brief “Sollicitudini nostrae” of Benedict XIV
in the year 1745). 70. Likewise, the doctrine and
prescription condemning in general every special cult which the faithful are
accustomed to attach specifically to some image, and to have recourse to,
rather than to another,—rash, dangerous, injurious to the pious custom
prevalent throughout the Church and also to that order of Providence, by
which “God, who apportions as He wishes to each one his own proper
characteristics, did not want them to be common in every commemoration of the
saints (from St. Augustine, Epistle 78 to the clergy, elders, and
people of the church at Hippo). 71. Likewise, the teaching which forbids
that images, especially of the Blessed Virgin, be distinguished by any title
other than the denominations which are related to the mysteries, about which
express mention is made in Holy Scripture; as if other pious titles could not
be given to images which the Church indeed approves and commends in its public
prayers,—rash, offensive to the ears of the pious, and especially injurious
to the due veneration of the Blessed Virgin. 72. Likewise, the one which would
extirpate as an abuse the custom by which certain images are kept
veiled,—rash, contrary to the custom prevalent in the Church and employed to
foster the piety of the faithful. Feasts [Libell. memor. for the
reformation of feasts, sec. 3] 73. The
proposition stating that the institution of new feasts derived its origin
from neglect in the observance of the older feasts, and from false notions of
the nature and end of these solemnities,—false, rash, scandalous, injurious
to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against the feast days
celebrated by the Church. [Ibid.,
sec. 8] 74. The deliberation of the synod about
transferring to Sunday feasts distributed through the year, and rightly so,
because it is convinced that the bishop has power over ecclesiastical
discipline in relation to purely spiritual matters, and therefore of
abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on those days, on which according to
the early law of the Church, even then that precept flourished; and then,
also, in this statement which it (the synod) added about transferring to
Advent by episcopal authority the fasts which should be kept throughout the
year according to the precept of the Church; insomuch as it asserts that it
is lawful for a bishop in his own right to transfer the days prescribed by
the Church for celebrating feasts or fasts, or to abrogate the imposed
precept of hearing Mass,—a false proposition, harmful to the law of the
general Councils and of the Supreme Pontiffs,
scandalous, favorable to schism. Oaths [Libell. memor. for the
reformation of oaths, sec. 4] 75. The teaching which says that in the
happy days of the early Church oaths seemed so foreign to the model of the
divine Preceptor and to the golden simplicity of the Gospel that “to take an
oath without extreme and unavoidable need had been reputed to be an
irreligious act, unworthy of a Christian person,” further, that “the
uninterrupted line of the Fathers shows that oaths by common consent have
been considered as forbidden”; and from this doctrine proceeds to condemn the
oaths which the ecclesiastical curia, having followed, as it says, the norm
of feudal jurisprudence, adopted for investitures and sacred ordinations of bishops;
and it decreed, therefore, that the law should be invoked by the secular
power to abolish the oaths which are demanded in ecclesiastical curias when
entering upon duties and offices and, in general, for any curial
function,—false, injurious to the Church, harmful to ecclesiastical law,
subversive of discipline imposed and approved by the Canons. Ecclesiastical
Conferences [Ecclesiastical
Conferences, sec. 1] 76.
The charge which the synod brings against the scholastic method as that
“which opened the way for inventing new systems discordant with one another
with respect to truths of a greater value and which led finally to
probabilism and laxism”; in so far as it charges against the scholastic method
the faults of individuals who could misuse and have misused it,— false, rash, against very holy and learned
men who, to the great good of the
Catholic religion, have developed the scholastic method, injurious, favorable
to the criticism of heretics who are hostile to it. [Ibid.] 77.
Likewise in this which adds that “a change in the form of ecclesiastical
government, by which it was brought about that ministers of the Church became
forgetful of their rights, which at the same time are their obligations, has
finally led to such a state of affairs as to cause the primitive notions of
ecclesiastical ministry and pastoral solicitude to be forgotten”; as if, by a
change of government consonant to the discipline established and approved in
the Church, there ever could be forgotten
and lost the primitive notion of ecclesiastical ministry or pastoral
solicitude,—a false proposition, rash, erroneous. [Sec.
14] 78. The
prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the
conferences, in which, after it prefaced “in every article that which
pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinguished from
that which is proper to discipline,” it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished
what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which
is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant
to endure, but more so, from that
which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and
materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed
examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if
the Church which is ruled by the
Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and
burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and
harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous,
dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit
of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous. Complaints Against Some Opinions
Which are Still Discussed in “Catholic
Schools” [Oration to the Synod, sec. 1] 79. The assertion which attacks with
slanderous charges the opinions discussed in Catholic schools about which the
Apostolic See has thought that nothing yet needs to be defined or
pronounced,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools, detracting from the
obedience to the Apostolic Constitutions. [E. Errors Concerning the
Reformation of Regulars] The “three rules” set down as
fundamental by the Synod “for the reformation of
regulars” [Libell. memor. for the
reformation of regulars, sec. 9] 80. Rule I which states universally and
without distinction that “the regular or monastic state by its very nature cannot
be harmonized with the care of souls and with the duties of parochial life,
and therefore, cannot share in the ecclesiastical hierarchy without adversely
opposing the principles of monastic life itself”—false, dangerous to the most
holy Fathers and heads of the Church, who harmonized the practices of the
regular life with the duties of the clerical order,—injurious, contrary to
the old, pious, approved custom of the Church and to the sanctions of the
Supreme Pontiff; as if “monks, whom the gravity of their manners and of their life and whom the holy
institution of Faith approves,” could
not be duly “entrusted with the duties of the clergy,” not only
without harm to religion, but even
with great advantage to the Church. (From
the decretal epistle of St. Siricius to Himerius of Tarraco c. 13.) 81. Likewise, in that which adds that St.
Thomas and St. Bonaventure were so occupied in protecting Orders of
Mendicants against the best of men that in their defenses less heat and
greater accuracy were to be desired,—scandalous, injurious to the very holy
Doctors, favorable to the impious slanders of condemned authors. 82. Rule
II, that “the multiplicity and diversity of orders naturally produce confusion and disturbance,”
likewise, in that which sec. 4 sets forth, “that the founders” of regulars
who, after the monastic institutions
came into being, “by adding orders to orders, reforms to reforms have
accomplished nothing else than to increase more and more the primary cause of
evil”; if understood about the orders and institutes approved by the Holy
See, as if the distinct variety of pious works to which the distinct orders
are devoted should, by its nature, beget disturbance and confusion,—false,
calumnious, injurious not only to the holy founders and their faithful
disciples, but also to the Supreme Pontiffs themselves. 83. Rule III, in which, after it stated
that “a small body living within a civil society without being truly a part
of the same and which forms a small monarchy in the state, is always a
dangerous thing,” it then charges with this accusation private monasteries
which are associated by the bond of a common rule under one special head, as
if they were so many special monarchies harmful and dangerous to the civic
commonwealth,—false, rash, injurious to the regular institutes approved by
the Holy See for the advancement of
religion, favorable to the slanders and
calumnies of heretics against the same institutes. Concerning the “system” or list of
ordinances drawn from rules laid down and contained in the eight
following articles “for the reformation of
regulars” [Sec.
10] 84. Art. I. “Concerning the one order to
be retained in the Church, and concerning the selection of the rule of St.
Benedict in preference to others, not only because of its excellence but also
on account of the well-known merits of his order; however, with this
condition that in those items which happen to be less suitable to the conditions
of the times, the way of life instituted at Port-Royal is to furnish light
for discovering what it is fitting to add, what to take away; Art. II. “Those who have joined this
order should not be a part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy; nor should they
be promoted to Holy Orders, except one or two at the most, to be initiated as
superiors, or as chaplains of the monastery, the rest remaining in the simple
order of the laity; Art. III. “One monastery only should be
allowed in any one city, and this should be located outside the walls of the
city in the more retired and remote places; Art. IV. “Among the occupations of the
monastic life, a proper proportion should be inviolably reserved for manual
labor, with suitable time, nevertheless, left for devotion to the psalmody,
or also, if someone wishes, for the study of letters; the psalmody should be
moderate, because too much of it produces haste, weariness, and distraction;
the more psalmody, orisons, and prayers are increased beyond a just proportion
of the whole time, so much are the fervor and holiness of the regulars
diminished; Art. V. “No distinction among the monks
should be allowed, whether they are devoted to choir or to services; such
inequality has stirred up very grave quarrels and discords at every
opportunity, and has driven out the spirit of charity from communities of
regulars; Art.
VI. “The vow of perpetual stability should never be allowed; the older monks
did not know it, who, nevertheless, were a consolation of the Church and an
ornament to Christianity; the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience should
not be admitted as the common and stable rule. If anyone shall wish to make
these vows, all or anyone, he will ask advice and permission from the bishop
who, nevertheless, will never permit them to be perpetual, nor to exceed the
limits of a year; the opportunity merely will be given of renewing them under
the same conditions; Art. VII. “The bishop will conduct every
investigation into their lives, studies, and advancement in piety; it will be
his duty to admit and to dismiss the monks, always, however, after taking
counsel with their fellow monks; Art. VIII. “Regulars of orders which still
survive, although they are priests, may also be received into this monastery,
provided they desire to be free in silence and solitude for their own
sanctification only; in which case, there might be provision for the
dispensation stated in the general rule, n. II, in such a way, however, that
they do not follow a rule of life different from the others, and that not
more than one, or at most two Masses be celebrated each day, and that it
should be satisfactory to the other priests to celebrate in common together
with the community; Likewise “for the
reformation of nuns” [Sec. 11] “Perpetual vows should not be permitted
before the age of 40 or 45; nuns should be devoted to solid exercises,
especially to labor, turned aside
from carnal spirituality by which many are distracted; consideration must
also be given as to whether, so far as they are concerned, it would be more satisfactory to leave the
monastery in the city;— The
system is subversive to the discipline now flourishing and already approved and accepted in ancient times,
dangerous, opposed and injurious to the Apostolic Constitutions and to the
sanctions of many Councils, even general ones, and especially of the Council
of Trent; favorable to the vicious calumnies of heretics against monastic
vows and the regular institutes
devoted to the more stable profession of the evangelical counsels. [F. Errors] About
Convoking a National Council [Libell. memor. for convoking
a national council, sec. 1] 85. The proposition stating that any
knowledge whatsoever of ecclesiastical history is sufficient to allow anyone
to assert that the convocation of a national council is one of the canonical
ways by which controversies in regard to religion may be ended in the Church
of the respective nations; if understood to mean that controversies in regard
to faith or morals which have arisen in a Church can be ended by an
irrefutable decision made in a national council; as if freedom from error in
questions of faith and morals belonged to a national council,— schismatic, heretical. Therefore, we command all the faithful
of Christ of either sex not to presume to believe, to teach, or to preach
anything about the said propositions and doctrines contrary to what is
declared in this Constitution of ours; that whoever shall have taught,
defended or published them, or anyone of them, all together or separately,
except perhaps to oppose them, will be subject ipso facto and without any
other declaration to ecclesiastical censures, and to the other penalties
stated by law against those perpetrating similar offenses. But, by this expressed condemnation of
the aforesaid propositions and doctrines, we by no means intend to approve
other things contained in the same book, particularly since in it very many
propositions and doctrines have been detected, related either to those which
have been condemned above, or to those which show an attitude not only of
rash contempt for the commonly approved doctrine and discipline, but of
special hostility toward the Roman Pontiffs and the Apostolic See. Indeed, we
think two must be noted especially, concerning the most august mystery of the
Most Holy Trinity, sec. 2 of the decree about faith, which have issued from
the synod, if not with evil intent, surely rather imprudently, which could
easily drive into error especially the untutored and the incautious. The first, after it is rightly prefaced
that God in His being remains one and most simple, while immediately adding
that God is distinct in three persons, has erroneously departed from the
common formula approved in institutions of Christian Doctrine, in which God
is said to be one indeed “in three distinct persons,” not “distinct in three
persons”; and by the change in this formula, this risk of error crept into
the meaning of the words, so that the divine essence is thought to be
distinct in persons, which (essence) the Catholic faith confesses to be one
in distinct persons in such a way that at the same time it confesses that it
is absolutely undivided in itself. The second, which concerns the three
divine Persons themselves, that they, according to their peculiar personal
and incommunicable properties, are to be described and named in a more exact
manner of speaking, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit; as if less proper and
exact would be the name “Son,” consecrated by so many passages of Scripture,
by the very voice of the Father coming from the heavens and from the cloud,
and by the formula of baptism prescribed by Christ, and by that famous confession
in which Peter was pronounced “blessed” by Christ Himself; and as if that
statement should not rather be retained which the Angelic Doctor,1 having
learned from Augustine, in his turn taught that “in the name of the Word the
same peculiar property is meant as in the name of the Son,” Augustine 2 truly
saying: “For the same reason he is called the Word as the Son.” Nor should the extraordinary and deceitful
boldness of the Synod be passed over in silence, which dared to adorn not
only with most ample praises the declaration of the Gallican Council of the
year 1682, which had long ago been condemned by the Apostolic See, but in
order to win greater authority for it, dared to include it insidiously in the
decree written “about faith,” openly to adopt articles contained in it, and
to seal it with a public and solemn profession of those articles which had
been handed down here and there through this decree. Therefore, surely, not
only a far graver reason for expostulating with them is afforded us by the Synod
than was offered to our predecessors by the assemblies, but also no light
injury is inflicted on the Gallican Church itself, because the synod thought
its authority worth invoking in support of the errors with which that decree
was contaminated. Therefore, as soon as the acts of the
Gallican convention appeared, Our predecessor, Venerable Innocent XI, by
letters in the form of a Brief on the nth day of April, in the year 1682, and
afterwards, more expressly, Alexander VIII in the Constitution, “inter
multiplices” on the 4th day of August, in the year 1690, by reason of their
apostolic duty “condemned, rescinded, and declared them null and void”;
pastoral solicitude demands much more strongly of Us that we “reject and
condemn as rash and scandalous” the recent adoption of these acts tainted
with so many faults, made by the synod, and, after the publication of the
decrees of Our predecessors, “as especially injurious” to this Apostolic See,
and we, accordingly, reject and condemn it by this present Constitution of
Ours, and we wish it to be held as rejected and condemned. |
Pope Clement XI |
|
|
