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. |