Denzinger The Sources of Catholic Dogma

A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites *

[From the Bull "Cantata Domino," February 4, Florentine style,
1441, modern, 1442]

703 The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent,
unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding
from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone
is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the
Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son. These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the
three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, and all these things are one where no opposition of
relationship interferes . *

704 "Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy
Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that
the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning. and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.''
*Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has,
He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But
the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three
principles of the creature, but one principle.

705 Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian
body which is the Church. Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the
Arians, the Eunomians, the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It
condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity.

706 Most strongly it believes, professes, and declares that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and
invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good indeed, since they were made by the highest
good, but changeable, since they were made from nothing, and it asserts that nature is not evil, since all nature, in so far as it is nature, is good. It
professes one and the same God as the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both
Testaments have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts and
venerates. [The books of the canon follow, cf. n. 784; EB n. 32].

707 Besides it anathematizes the madness of the Manichaeans, who have established two first principles, one of the visible, and another of the
invisible; and they have said that there is one God of the New Testament, another God of the Old Testament.
708 It believe, professes, and proclaims that one person of the Trinity, true God, Son of God born from the Father, consubstantial and coeternal with
the Father, in the plenitude of time which the inscrutable depth of divine counsel has disposed for the salvation of the human race, assumed true and
complete human nature from the immaculate womb of the Virgin Mary, and joined with itself in the unity of person, with such unity that whatever is of
God there, is not separated from man, and whatever is of man, is not divided from the Godhead; He is one and the same undivided, both natures, God and
man, remaining in their own peculiar properties, God and man, Son of God and Son of man, equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father
according to humanity, immortal and eternal from the nature of divinity, passible and temporal from the condition of assumed humanity.

709 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that the Son of God in the assumed humanity was truly born of the Virgin, truly suffered, truly died
and was buried, truly rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come at the end of time to judge the
living and the dead.
710 It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things. And first it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus,
Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and all similar blasphemers, who, being unable to accept the personal union of humanity with the Word, denied that
our Lord Jesus Christ was true God, proclaiming Him pure man, who was called divine man by reason of a greater participation in divine grace, which He
had received by merit of a more holy life. It anathematizes also Manichaeus with his followers, who, thinking vainly that the Son of God had assumed not
a true but an ephemeral body, entirely do away with the truth of the humanity in Christ. And also Valentinus who asserts that the Son of God took nothing
from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a heavenly body and passed through the womb of the Virgin just as water flows and runs through an aqueduct. Arius
also, who asserted that the body assumed from the Virgin lacked a soul, and would have the Godhead in place of the soul. Also Apollinaris, who,
understanding that there was no true humanity if in Christ the soul is denied as giving the body form, posited only a sensitive soul, but held that the
Godhead of the Word took the place of a rational soul. It also anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who assert that humanity was united
with the Son of God through grace, and hence there are two persons in Christ, just as they confess that there are two natures, since they were unable to
understand that the union of humanity with the Word was hypostatic, and so refused to accept the subsistence of God. For according to this blasphemy,
the Word was not made flesh, but the Word through grace lived in the flesh; that is, He was made not the Son of God, but rather the Son of God lived in
man. It anathematizes also, execrates, and condemns Eutyches the archimandrite; since he believed according to the blasphemy of Nestorius that the truth
of the Incarnation is excluded, and therefore it is fitting that humanity was so united to the Word of God that the person of the Godhead and of humanity
were one and the same, and also, he could not grasp the unity of person as long as a plurality of natures existed, just as he established that there was one
person of the Godhead and humanity in Christ, so he asserted that there was one nature, meaning that before the union there was a duality of natures, but
in the assumption they passed over into one nature, with the greatest blasphemy and impiety granting either that humanity was turned into Godhead, or
Godhead into humanity. It also anathematizes, execrates, and condemns Macarius of Antioch and all who hold similar views; although he had a correct
understanding of the duality of natures and the unity of person, yet he erred greatly concerning the operations of Christ when he said that in Christ there
was one operation and one will on the part of both natures. All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that
there are two wills and two operations in Christ.

711 It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except
through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death
alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin
had lost with all succession; and that He would come sometime, all the sacred rites of the Old Testament, sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies
disclosed.

712 It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into
ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the
divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that
whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ
could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have
been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be
observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the
law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.
Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism' to cease entirely from circumcision, since,
whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of
death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they
are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or
eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when
danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking,
just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians [[n.. 696].

713 It believes firmly, professes, and proclaims that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving"
[1 Tim. 4:4], since, according to the word of the Lord [ Matt.. 15: 11 ], "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man"; and it asserts that the
indifference of clean and unclean foods of the Mosiac law pertains to the ceremonials which, with the rise of the Gospel passed out of existence and
ceased to be efficacious.. And it says also that the prohibition of the apostles "from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled
[Acts 15:29] befitted that time in which one Church arose from the Jews and the Gentiles, who before lived according to different ceremonies and
customs, so that even the Gentiles observed some things in common with the Jews, and occasion was furnished for coming together into one worship of
God and one faith, and ground for dissension was removed; since to the Jews, by reason of an ancient custom, blood and things strangled seemed
abominable, and they could think that the Gentiles would return to idolatry because of the eating of things sacrificed. But when the Christian religion is so
propagated that no carnal Jew appears in it, but all passing over to the Church, join in the same rites and ceremonies of the Gospel, believing "all things
clean to the clean" [Tit. 1:15], with the ending of the cause for this apostolic prohibition, the effect also ended. Thus it declares that the nature of no food,
which society admits, is to be condemned, and no distinction is to be made by anyone at all, whether man or woman, between animals, and by whatever
kind of death they meet their end; although for the health of body, for the exercise of virtue, for regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things not
denied should be given up, since, according to the Apostle, "all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient" [1 Cor.. 6:12; 10:22].

714 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt.
25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; (couldn't copy the rest)

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Callistus III 1455-1458

CALLISTUS III 1455-1458

Usury and Contract for Rent *

[From the Constitution ""Regimini universalis," May 6, 1455]

716 A petition recently addressed to us proposed the following matter: For a very long time, and with nothing in memory running to the contrary, in
various parts of Germany, for the common advantage of society, there has been implanted among the inhabitants of those parts and maintained up to this
time through constant observance, a certain custom. By this custom, these inhabitants--or, at least, those among them, who in the light of their condition
and indemnities, seemed likely to profit from the arrangement--encumber their goods, their houses, their fields, their farms, their possessions, and
inheritances, selling the revenues or annual rents in marks, florins, or groats (according as this or that coin is current in those particular regions), and for
each mark, florin, or groat in question, from those who have bought those coins, whether as revenues or as rents, have been in the habit of receiving a
certain price appropriately fixed as to size according to the character of the particular circumstances, in conformity with the agreements made in respect
of the relevant properties between themselves and the buyers. As guarantee for the payment of the aforesaid revenues and rents they mortgage those of
the aforesaid houses, lands, fields, farms, possessions, and inheritances that have been expressly named * in the relevant contracts. In the favor of the
sellers it is added to the contract that in proportion as they have, in whole or in part, returned to the said buyers the money thus received, they are entirely
quit and free of the obligation to pay the revenues and rents corresponding to the sum returned. But the buyers, on the other hand, even though the said
goods, houses, lands, fields, possessions, and inheritances might by the passage of time be reduced to utter destruction and desolation, would not be
empowered to recover even in respect of the price paid.

Now, by some a certain doubt and hesitation is entertained as to whether contracts of this kind are to be considered licit. Consequently, certain
debtors, pretending these contracts would be usurious, seek to find thereby an occasion for the nonpayment of revenues and rents owed by them in this
way. . . . We, therefore, ... in order to remove every doubt springing from these hesitations, by our Apostolic authority, do declare by these present letters
that the aforesaid contracts are licit and in agreement with law, and that the said sellers, yielding all opposition, are effectively bound to the payment of
the rents and revenues in conformity with the terms of the said contracts. [The reader is referred to the discussion of this text given by L. Choupin
A.Vacant-E Mangenot, Dict. de theol. cash. 2 (Paris, 1905) 1351-1362 (art.'Calliste III,' sec. ii). The Translator.]
Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils
Pius II 1458-1464

PIUS II 1458-1464

Appeal to the General Council *

[From the Bull "Exsecrabilis,"* Jan. 18; in the ancient Roman opinion 1459; that of today 1460]

717 The execrable and hitherto unheard of abuse has grown up in our day, that certain persons, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, and not from a
desire to secure a better judgment, but to escape the punishment of some offense which they have committed, presume to appeal to a future council from
the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom in the person of the blessed PETER was said: "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17], and, "Whatever thou
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven" [Matt. 16:19]. . . . Wishing therefore to expel this pestiferous poison far from the Church of Christ and to
care for the salvation of the flock entrusted to us, and to remove every cause of offense from the fold of our Savior . . . we condemn all such appeals and
disprove them as erroneous and detestable.

Errors of Zanini de Solcia *

[Condemned in the letter "Cum sicut," Nov. 14, 1459]

717a (1) That the world should be naturally destroyed and ended by the heat of the sun consuming the humidity of the land and the air in such a way
that the elements are set on fire.
717b (2) That all Christians are to be saved.
717c (3) That God created another world than this one, and that in its time many other men and women existed and that consequently Adam was not
the first man.
717d (4) Likewise, that Jesus Christ suffered and died not for the redemption because of His love of the human race, but by the law of the stars.

717e (5) Likewise, that Jesus Christ, Moses, and Mohammed ruled the world by the pleasure of their wills.
717f (6) And that the same Lord our Jesus is illegitimate, and that He exists in the consecrated hosts not with respect to His humanity but with
respect to His divinity only.
717g (7) That wantonness outside of matrimony is not a sin, unless by the prohibition of positive laws, and that these have not disposed of the matter
well, and are checked by ecclesiastical prohibition only from following the opinion of Epicurus as true.

717h (8) Moreover that the taking away of another's property is not a mortal sin, even though against the will of the master.
717i (a) Finally that the Christian law through the succession of another law is about to have an end, just as the law of Moses has been terminated by
the law of Christ.
Zaninus, Canon of Pergamum, is said to have presumed to Affirm these propositions "in a sacrilegious attempt against the dogmas of the holy
Fathers and later to assert them rashly with polluted lips," but afterwards to have freely renounced "these aforesaid errors."

The Blood of Christ *

[From the Bull "Ineffabilis summi providentia Patris," Aug. 1, 1464]

718 . . . By apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents we state and ordain that none of the aforesaid Brethren (Minors and Preachers)
hereafter be allowed to dispute, to preach, to make a statement either publicly or privately, concerning the above mentioned doubt, or to persuade others,
that it may be heretical or a sin to hold or to believe that the most sacred blood itself (as is set before us) in the three days of the passion of the same Lord
Jesus Christ from the divinity Himself was or was not divided or separated in some way, until beyond a question of a doubt of this kind what must be held
has been defined by us and the Apostolic See.

PAUL II 1464-1471

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Sixtus IV 1471-1484

SIXTUS IV 1471-1484

Errors of Peter de Rivo (concerning the Truth of Future Contingencies) *

[Condemned in the Bull "Ad Christi vicarii,'' Jan. 3, 1474]

719 (1) When Elizabeth spoke to the Blessed Virgin Mary saying: "Blessed art thou that hast believed because those things shall be accomplished
that were spoken to thee by the Lord" [Luke 1:45], she seemed to intimate that those propositions, namely: "Thou shalt bring forth a son and thou shalt
call his name Jesus: He shall be great, etc." [Luke 1:31],do not yet contain truth.
720 (2) Likewise, when Christ after His resurrection said: "All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and in the
prophets and in the psalms concerning me" [Luke 24:44] seems to have implied that such propositions were devoid of truth.

721 (3) Likewise, when the Apostle said: "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of things [Heb. 10:1], he
seems to imply that the propositions of the Old Law which concerned the future, did not yet contain the prescribed truth.
722 (4) Likewise, that it does not suffice for the truth of the proposition concerning the future, that the thing will be, but there is required that it will
be without impediment.

723 (5) Likewise, it is necessary to say one of two things, either that in the articles of faith concerning the future actual truth is not present, or that
what is signified in them through divine power could not have been hindered.
They were condemned as "scandalous and deviating from the path of Catholic faith"; they were revoked by the written word of Peter himself.

Indulgence for the Dead

[From the Bull in favor of the Church of St. Peter
of Xancto, Aug. 3, 1476] *

723a In order that the salvation of souls may be procured rather at that time when they need the prayers of others more, and when they can be of
benefit to themselves less, by Apostolic authority from the treasure of the Church wishing to come to the aid of the souls who departed from the life
united with Christ through charity, and who, while they lived, merited that they be favored by such indulgence; desiring this with paternal selection, in so
far as with God's help we can, confident in the mercy of God and in the plenitude of His power, we both concede and grant that, if any parents, friends, or
other faithful of Christ, moved in behalf of these souls who are exposed to purgatorial fire for the expiation of punishments due them according to divine
justice, during the aforementioned ten year period give a certain sum of money for the repair of the church of Xancto, or a value according to an
arrangement with the dean or overseer of said church, or our collector by visiting said church or send it during said ten year period through messengers
delegated by the same, we grant as a suffrage a plenary remission to assist and intercede for the souls in purgatory, in whose behalf they paid the said sum
of money or the value, as mentioned above, for the remission of punishments.

Errors of Peter de Osma (the Sacrament of Penance) *

[Condemned in the Bull "Licet ea," August 9, 1479]

724 (1) That the confession of sins in species will be found really in a statute of the universal Church, not in divine law;
725 (2) that mortal sins with respect to blame and punishment of the other world are abolished without confession, by contrition of heart only;
726 (3) moreover, bad thoughts are forgiven by displeasure only;
727 (4) that it is not demanded of necessity that confession be secret; *

728 (5) that those who confess should not be absolved, if penance has not been done;
729 (6) that the Roman Pontiff cannot remit the punishment of purgatory; *
731 (7) cannot dispense with respect to what the universal Church has established;
732 (8) also that the sacrament of penance, as far as concerns the accumulation of grace, is of nature, but not of the institution of the New or Old
Testament.

733 On these propositions we read in the Bull, Sect. 6: . . We declare each and all the above mentioned propositions to be false, contrary to the holy
Catholic faith, erroneous, and scandalous, and entirely at variance with the truth of the Gospels, also contrary to the decrees of the holy Fathers and other
apostolic constitutions and to contain manifest heresy.

The Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M.*

[From the Constitution "Cum praeexcelsa," Feb. 28, 1476]

734 While in an examination of devout deliberation we are thoroughly investigating the distinguished marks of merit, by which the Queen of
Heaven, the glorious Virgin Mother of God, is preferred to all in the heavenly courts; just as among the stars the morning star foretells the dawn, we
consider it just, even a duty, that all the faithful of Christ for the miraculous conception of this immaculate Virgin, give praise and thanks to Almighty
God (whose providence beholding from all eternity the humility of this same Virgin, to reconcile with its author human nature exposed to eternal death
because of the fall of the first man, by the preparation of the Holy Spirit constituted her the habitation of His Only-begotten Son, from whom He took on
the flesh of our mortality for the redemption of His people, and the Virgin remained immaculate even after childbirth), and therefore that they say Masses
and other divine offices instituted in the Church of God, and that they attend them to ask by indulgences and by the remission of sins to become more
worthy of divine grace by the merits of and by the intercession of this same Virgin.
[From the Constitution "Grave nimis," Sept. 4, 1483]

735 Although the Holy Roman Church solemnly celebrates the public feast of the conception of the immaculate Mary ever Virgin, and has ordained
a special and proper office for this feast, some preachers of different orders, as we have heard, in their sermons to the people in public throughout
different cities and lands have not been ashamed to affirm up to this time, and daily cease not to affirm, that all those who hold or assert that the same
glorious and immaculate mother of God was conceived without the stain of original sin, sin mortally, or that they are heretical' who celebrate the office of
this same immaculate conception, and that those who listen to the sermons of those who affirm that she was conceived without this sin, sin grievously. . . .

We reprove and condemn assertions of this kind as false and erroneous and far removed from the truth, and also by apostolic authority and the
tenor of these present [letters] we condemn and disapprove on this point published books which contain it . . . [but these also we reprehend] who have
dared to assert that those holding the contrary opinion, namely, that the glorious Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin are guilty of the crime of
heresy and of mortal sin, since up to this time there has been no decision made by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See.

INNOCENT VIII 1484-1492 PIUS III 1503

ALEXANDER VI 1492-1503 JULIUS 1503-1513

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Leo X 1513-1521 Lateran Council V 1512-1517

LEO X 1513-1521
LATERAN COUNCIL V 1512-1517

Ecumenical XVIII (The Reform of the Church)

The Human Soul (against the Neo-Aristoteliars) *
[From the Bull "Apostolic) Regiminis" (Session VIII),Dec. 19, 1513]

738 Since in our days (and we painfully bring this up) the sower of cockle, ancient enemy of the human race, has dared to disseminate and advance
in the field of the Lord a number of pernicious errors, always rejected by the faithful, especially concerning the nature of the rational soul, namely, that it
is mortal, or one in all men, and some rashly philosophizing affirmed that this is true at least according to philosophy, in our desire to offer suitable
remedies against a plague of this kind, with the approval of this holy Council, we condemn and reject all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, or
is one in all men, and those who cast doubt on these truths, since it [the soul] is not only truly in itself and essentially the form of the human body, as was
defined in the canon of Pope CLEMENT V our predecessor of happy memory published in the (yen eral) Council of VIENNE [n. 481] but it is also
multiple according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, multiplied, and to be multiplied. . . . And since truth never contradicts truth, we
declare [see n. 1797] every assertion contrary to the truth of illumined faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatize
otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable
infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.

"Mountains of Piety" and Usury *

[From the Bull "Inter multiplices," April 28
(Session X, May 4), 1515]

739 With the approval of the holy Council, we declare and define that the aforesaid "Mountains of piety" established by the civil authorities and
thus far approved and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See, in which a moderate rate of interest is received exclusively for the expenses of the
officials and for other things pertaining to their keeping, as is set forth, for an indemnity of these as far as this matter is concerned, beyond the capital
without a profit for these same Mountains, neither offer any species of evil, nor furnish an incentive to sin, nor in any way are condemned, nay rather that
such a loan is worthwhile and is to be praised and approved, and least of all to be considered usury. . . . Moreover, we declare that all religious and
ecclesiastics as well as secular persons, who henceforth shall dare to preach or dispute in word or in writing against the form of the present declaration
and sanction, incur the penalty of excommunication of a sentence [automatically] imposed [latae sententiae], a privilege of any nature whatsoever
notwithstanding.

The Relation Between the Pope and the Councils *

[From the Bull "Pastor Aeternus" (Session Xl) Dec. 19, 1516]

740 Nor should this move us, that the sanction [pragmatic] itself, and the things contained in it were proclaimed in the Council of Basle . . .. since
all these acts were made after the translation of that same Council of Basle from the place of the assembly at Basle, and therefore could have no weight,
since it is clearly established that the Roman Pontiff alone, possessing as it were authority over all Councils, has full right and power Of proclaiming
Councils, or transferring and dissolving them, not only according to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, from the words of the holy Fathers and even of
other Roman Pontiffs, of our predecessors, and from the decrees of the holy canons, but also from the particular acknowledgment of these same Councils.

Indulgences *
[From the Bull "Cum postquam" to the Legate Cajetan
de Vio, Nov. 9, 1518]

740a And lest in the future anyone should allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Roman Church concerning such indulgences and their ellicacy, or
excuse himself under pretext of such ignorance, or aid himself by pretended protestations, but that these same persons may be convicted as guilty of
notorious lying and be justly condemned, we have decided that you should be informed by these presents that the Roman Church, which the other
churches are bound to follow as their mother, has decreed that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER the key bearer, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ on
earth, by the power of the keys, to which it belongs to open the kingdom of heaven, by removing the obstacles in the faithful of Christ (namely the fault
and punishment due to actual sins, the fault by means of the sacrament of penance, but the temporal punishment due for actual sins according to divine
justice by means of the indulgence of the Church), for the same reasonable causes can concede indulgences from the superabundant merits of Christ and
the saints to these same faithful of Christ, who belong to Christ by the charity that joins the members, whether they be in this life or in purgatory; and by
granting an indulgence by apostolic authority to the living as well as to the dead, has been accustomed to dispense from the treasury of the merits of Jesus
Christ and the saints, and by means of absolution to confer that same indugence or to transfer it by means of suffrage. And for that reason that all, the
living as well as the dead, who have truly gained such indulgences, are freed from such temporal punishment due for their actual sins according to divine
justice, as is equivalent to the indulgence granted and acquired. And thus by apostolic authority in accordance with the tenor of these letters we decree
that it should be held by all and be preached under punishment of excommunication, of a sentence [automatically] imposed [latae sententiae]. . . . .

Leo X sent this Bull to the Swiss in the year 1519 with a letter dated April 30, 1519, in which he concluded as follows concerning the doctrine
of the Bull:
740b You will be solicitous about a thorough consideration and preservation of the power of the Roman Pontiff in the granting of such indulgences
according to the true definition of the Roman Church, which we have commanded should be observed and preached by all . . . according to these letters
which we are ordering to be delivered to you . . . You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does
not permit errors.

Errors of Martin Luther *

[Condemned in the Bull "Exsurge Domine," June 15, 1520]

741 I. It is an heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an
obstacle.
742 2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
743 3. The inflammable sources [fomes] of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delays a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings

744 with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and
745 satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and
746 detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their
baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

747 7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contrition given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the
highest penance; the best penance, a new life."
748 8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence
in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
749 9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

750 10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain
unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there
has been forgiveness.
751 11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you
shall loose, etc." [Matt. 16:19]. Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been
absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

752 12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, orthe priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless
he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
753 13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no
priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.
754 14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.
755 15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious
of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe
and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
756 16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the
Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

757 17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
758 18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are
allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.
759 19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

760 20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.
761 21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
762 22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful. namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately
hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to
better things.

763 23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
764 24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.
765 25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself
in blessed PETER.
766 26. The word of Christ to PETER: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, etc." (Matt. 16) is extended merely to those things bound by Peter
himself.

767 27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for
morals or for good works.
768 28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially
in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
769 29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees,
and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.

770 30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of CONSTANCE, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal
Church could not condemn.
771 31. In every good work the just man sins.
772 32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
773 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
774 34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

775 35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally; because of the most hidden vice of pride.
776 36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
777 37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture, which is in the canon.
778 38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are
beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

779 39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishments.
780 40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
781 41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money-bags of beggary.
Censure of the Holy Pontiff: "All and each of the above mentioned articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove,
and entirely reject as respectively heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, and in opposition to Catholic
truth.

Hadrian VI 1522 - 1523 Clement VII 1523 - 1534

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Paul III 1534-1549 Council of Trent 1545-1563

PAUL III 1534-1549

COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545-1563

Ecumenical XIX (Contra Novatores 16 cent.)

SESSION III (Feb.4, 1546)
The Creed of the Catholic Faith is Accepted *
782 This sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the three legates of the Apostolic See
presiding over it, in consideration of the magnitude of the matters to be transacted, especially those which are comprised under these two heads, the
extirpation of heresies and the reform of morals, because of which chiefly the Synod was convoked . . ., has proposed that the creed of faith, which the
Holy Roman Church utilizes, inasmuch as it is that principle, wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and is the firm and sole
foundation, against which the "gates of Hell shall never prevail" [Matt. 16:18], be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches.
This creed is as follows:

[The Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed follows, see n. 86.]

Session IV (April 8, 1546)

The Sacred Books and the Traditions of the Apostles are Accepted *

783 The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the same three Legates of the
Apostolic See presiding over it, keeping this constantly in view, that with the abolishing of errors, the purity itself of the Gospel is preserved in the
Church, which promised before through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God first promulgated with His own mouth,
and then commanded "to be preached" by His apostles "to every creature" as the source of every saving truth and of instruction in morals [Matt. 28:19 ff.,
Mark 16:15], and [the Synod] clearly perceiving that this truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which
have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come
down even to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, [the Synod] following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and holds in veneration
with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author or both, and also the
traditions themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy
Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And so that no doubt may arise in anyone's mind as to which are the books that
are accepted by this Synod, it has decreed that a list of the Sacred books be added to this decree.

784 They are written here below:

Books of the Old Testament: The five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four
books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Psalter of
David consisting of 150 psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel,
Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, that is Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two
books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Books of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke the
Evangelist, fourteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the
Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Phi lemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of
the Apostle James, one of the Apostle Jude, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and
canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and if
both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand in what order and in what
manner the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of Faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in
confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

The Vulgate Edition of the Bible is Accepted and the

Method is Prescribed for the Interpretation
of (Sacred) Scripture, etc.*

785 Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod taking into consideration that no small benefit can accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known
which one of all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are in circulation is to be considered authentic, has decided and declares that the said old
Vulgate edition, which has been approved by the Church itself through long usage for so many centuries in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and
expositions, be considered authentic, and that no one under any pretext whatsoever dare or presume to reject it.

786 Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and
morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare
to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and
interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to
be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law. . . . [Then laws
are listed concerning the printing and approbation of books, for which among other matters the decree is:] that henceforth the Sacred Scripture, especially
the aforesaid old and Vulgate edition, be printed as correctly as possible, and that no one be allowed either to print or cause to be printed any books
whatever concerning sacred matters without the name of the author, nor to sell them in the future or even to keep them, unless they have been first
examined and approved by the ordinary. . .

Session v (June 17, 1546)

Decree On Original Sin *
787 That our Catholic faith, "without which it is impossible to please God"[Heb. 11:16] may after the purging of errors continue in its own perfect
and spotless purity, and that the Christian people may not be "carried about with every wind of doctrine" [Eph. 4:14], since that old serpent, the perpetual
enemy of the human race, among the very many evils with which the Church of God in these our times is troubled, has stirred up not only new, but even
old dissensions concerning original sin and its remedy, the sacred ecumenical and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit with the
same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding over it, wishing now to proceed to the recalling of the erring and to the confirming of the wavering, and
following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and of the holy Fathers and of the most approved Councils, as well as the judgment and the unanimity of
the Church itself, has established, confesses, and declares the following concerning original sin:

788 I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his
holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God
and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth "had the empire of death"
[Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n.
174], let him be anathema.

789 2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from
God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death
"and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul," let him be anathema, since he contradicts
the Apostle who says: "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" [Rom. 5:12;
see n. 175].

790 3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which is one in origin and transmitted to all is in each one as his own by propagation, not by
imitation, is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ [see n.
711], who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, "made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption" [1 Cor. 1:30]; or if he denies that that merit
of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism, rightly administered in the form of the Church: let him be anathema.
"For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved . . ." [Acts 4:12]. Whence that word: "Behold the lamb of God, behold
Him who taketh away the sins of the world" [John 1:29]. And that other: "As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ" [Gal. 3:27].

791 4. "If anyone denies that infants newly born from their mothers' wombs are to be baptized," even though they be born of baptized parents, "or
says they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which must be expiated by the laver of
regeneration" for the attainment of life everlasting, whence it follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is understood to be not
true, but false: let him be anathema. For what the Apostle has said: "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all
men, in whom all have sinned" [Rom. 5:12], is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it.
For by reason of this rule of faith from a tradition of the apostles even infants, who could not as yet commit any sins of themselves, are for this reason
truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, [see n. 102].
"For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [John 3:5].

792 5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts
that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be
anathema. For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because "there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by
baptism unto death" [Rom. 6:4], who do not "walk according to the flesh" [Rom. 8:1], but putting off "the old man" and putting on the "new, who is
created according to God" [Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9 ff.], are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved sons of God, "heirs indeed of God, but
co-heirs with Christ" [Rom.8:17], SO that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that
there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but
manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, "he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned" [2 Tim. 2:5]. This concupiscence, which
at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly
sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

6. This holy Synod declares nevertheless that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and
immaculate Virgin Mary mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope SIXTUS IV of happy memory are to be observed, under the penalties
contained in these constitutions, which it renews [see n. 734 ff:].

SESSION VI (Jan. 13, 1547)

Decree On Justification *

Introduction

792a Since at this time not without the loss of many souls and grave detriment to the unity of the Church there is disseminated a certain erroneous
doctrine concerning justification, the holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, the Most Reverends John Maria,
Bishop of Praeneste, de Monte, and Marcellus, priest of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and apostolic legates a latere,
presiding therein in the name of our Most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, Paul, the third Pope by the providence of God, for the praise and glory of
Almighty God, for the tranquillity of the Church and the salvation of souls, purpose to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine
of justification, which the "son of justice" [Mal. 4:2], Christ Jesus, "the author and finisher of our faith" [Heb. 12:2] taught, the apostles transmitted and
the Catholic Church, under the instigation of the Holy Spirit, has always retained, strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe,
preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.

Chap. 1. On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to Justify Man

793 The holy Synod decrees first that for a correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of justification it is necessary that each one recognize
and confess that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam [Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22: see n. 130], "having become unclean"
[Isa. 64:6], and (as the Apostle says), "by nature children of wrath" [Eph. 2:3], as it (the Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin, to that extent
were they the servants of sin [Rom. 5:20], and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the gentiles by the force of nature [can. 1], but not
even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, although free will was not extinguished in them [can.
5], however weakened and debased in its powers [see n. 81].

Chap. 2. On the Dispensation and Mystery of the Advent of Christ

794 Whereby it came to pass that the heavenly Father, "the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort" [2 Cor. 1:3], when that "blessed fullness of
time" was come [Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4] sent to men Christ Jesus [can. 1], his Son, who had been announced and promised [cf. Gen. 49:10, 18], both before
the Law and at the time of the Law to many holy Fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law, and the "gentiles, who did not
follow after justice, might attain to justice" [Rom. 9:30], and that all men "might receive the adoption of sons" [Gal. 4:5]. "Him God has proposed as a
propitiator through faith in his blood, for our sins" [Rom. 3:25], and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world [1 John 2:2].

Chap. 3. Who are Justifed Through Christ

795 But although Christ died for all [2 Cor. 5:15], yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is
communicated. For, as indeed men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation
they contract through him, in conception, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ, they never would be justified [can. 2 and 10],
since in that new birth through the merit of His passion, the grace, whereby they are made just, is bestowed upon them. For this benefit the Apostle
exhorts us always to "give thanks to the Father who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light" [Col. 1:12], "and has delivered us
from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption and remission of sins [Col. 1:13
ff.].

Chap. 4. A Description of the Justification of the Sinner, and Its

Mode in the State of Grace is Recommended

796 In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first
Adam to the state of grace and of the "adoption of the sons" [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation
after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [John 3:5].

Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of

Adults, and Whence it Proceeds

797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God
through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned
away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and
cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man
himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will
without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: "Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you" [Zach.
1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: "Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted" [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are
anticipated by the grace of God.

Chap. 6. The Manner of Preparation

798 Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:17], they
are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the
sinner is justified by God through his grace, "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" [Rom. 3:24], and when knowing that they are sinners,
turning themselves away from the fear of divine justice, by which they are profitably aroused [can. 8], to a consideration of the mercy of God, they are
raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, and they begin to love him as the source of all justice and are therefore
moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation [can. 9], that is, by that repentance, which must be performed before baptism [Acts 2:38]; and
finally when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written: "He
that cometh to God must believe, that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him" [Heb. 11:6], and, "Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee"
[Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5], and, "The fear of the Lord driveth out sin" [Sirach. 1:27], and, "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit" [Acts 2:38], and, "Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" [Matt. 28:19], and
finally, "Prepare your hearts unto the Lord" [1 Samuel 7:3].

Chap. 7. In What the Justification of the Sinner Consists, and

What are its Causes

799 Justification itself follows this disposition or preparation, which is not merely remission of sins [can. II], but also the sanctification and renewal
of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unjust man becomes a just man, and from being an enemy becomes
a friend, that he may be "an heir according to hope of life everlasting" [Tit. 3:7]. The causes of this justification are: the final cause indeed is the glory of
God and of Christ and life eternal; the efficient cause is truly a merciful God who gratuitously "washes and sanctifies" [1 Cor. 6:11], "signing and
anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance" [Eph. 1:13f.]; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-
begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, "who when we were enemies" [cf. Rom. 5:10], "for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us" [Eph. 2:4],
merited justification for us [can. 10] by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross, and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental
cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the "sacrament of faith,''* without which no one is ever justified. Finally the unique formal cause is the
"justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but by which He makes us just" * [can. 10 and 11], that, namely, by which, when we are endowed
with it by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed, but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each
one according to his own measure, which the "Holy Spirit distributes to everyone as he wills" [1. Cor. 12:11], and according to each one's own disposition
and cooperation.

800 For although no one can be just but he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this does take place in
this justification of the ungodly when by the merit of that same most holy passion "the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts"
[Rom. 5:5] of those who are justified, and inheres in them [can. II]. Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said
justification together with the remission of sins all these [gifts] infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be
added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body. For this reason it is most truly said that "faith without
works is dead" [Jas.2:17],and is of no profit [can. 19], and "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith, which
worketh by charity" [Gal. 5:6; 6:15]. This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism,
when they ask for "faith which bestows life eternal,''* which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow. Thence also they hear immediately the word
of Christ: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" [Matt. 19:17; can. 18-20]. Therefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are
commanded immediately on being reborn, to preserve it pure and spotless as the "first robe" [Luke 15:22] given to them through Christ Jesus in place of
that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and have life eternal.
*

Chap. 8. How One is to Understand the Gratuitous Justification of a Sinner by Faith

801 But when the Apostle says that man is justified "by faith" [can. 9] and "freely" [Rom. 3:22, 24], these words must be understood in that sense in
which the uninterrupted consent of the Catholic Church has held and expressed, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because "faith
is the beginning of human salvation," * the foundation and root of all justification, "without which it is impossible to please God" [Heb. 11 :6] and to
come to the fellowship of His sons; and are, therefore, said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things which precede justification, whether
faith, or works merit the grace itself of justification; for, "if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works; otherwise (as the same Apostle says) grace is no
more grace" [Rom.11:6].

Chap. 9. Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics

802 Although it is necessary to believe that sins are neither forgiven, nor ever have been forgiven, except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ's
sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the forgiveness of his
sins and rests on that alone, since among heretics and schismatics this vain confidence, remote from all piety [can. 12], may exist, indeed in our own
troubled times does exist, and is preached against the Catholic Church with vigorous opposition. But neither is this to be asserted, that they who are truly
justified without any doubt whatever should decide for themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and is justified, except
him who believes with certainty that he is absolved and justified, and that by this faith alone are absolution and justification effected [can. 14], as if he
who does not believe this is doubtful of the promises of God and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For, just as no pious person
should doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ, and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so every one, when he considers himself and his own
weakness and indisposition, may entertain fear and apprehension as to his own grace [can. 13], since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which
cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.

Chap. 10. Concerning the Increase of Justification Received

803 Having, therefore, been thus justified and having been made the "friends of God" and "his domestics" [John 15:15; Eph. 2:19], "advancing from
virtue to virtue" [Ps. 83:8], "they are renewed" (as the Apostle says) "from day to day" [2 Cor. 4:16], that is, by mortifying the members of their flesh
[Col. 3:5], and by "presenting them as instruments of justice" [Rom. 6:13, 19], unto sanctification through the observance of the commandments of God
and of the Church; in this justice received through the grace of Christ "faith cooperating with good works" [Jas. 2:22], they increase and are further
justified [can. 24 and 32], as it is written: "He that is just, let him be justified still" [Rev. 22:11], and again: "Be not afraid to be justified even to death"
[Sirach. 18:22], and again: "You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith only" [Jas. 2:24]. And this increase of justice Holy Church begs for,
when she prays: "Give unto us, O Lord, an increase of faith, hope and charity" [13th Sun. after Pent.].

Chap. II. The Observance of the Commandments, and the Necessity and Possibility thereof

804 But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments
[can. 20]; no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under an anathema by the Fathers, that the
commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified [can. 18 and 22: cfn. 200 ]. "For God
does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray
for what you cannot do, and assists you that you may be able"; * "whose commandments are not heavy" [ 1 John 5:3
], "whose yoke is sweet and whose burden is light" [Matt. 11:30 ]. For they who are the sons of God, love Christ:
"but they who love him, (as He Himself testifies) keep his words" John 14:23 ], which indeed with the divine help
they can do. For although in this mortal life men however holy and just fall at times into at least light and daily sins,
which are also called venial [can. 23], they do not for that reason cease to be just. For that word of the just,
"Forgive us our trespasses" [Matt. 6:12; cf.n.107 ], is both humble and true. Thus it follows that the just ought to
feel themselves more bound to walk in the way of justice, in that having been now "freed from sin and made
servants of God" [Rom. 6:22 ], "living soberly and justly and piouslyTit. 2:1], they can proceed onwards through
Christ Jesus, through whom they "have access unto this grace" [ Rom. 5:2 ]. For God "does not forsake those who
have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them."* And so no one should flatter himself
because of faith alone [can. 9, 19, 20], thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance,
even though he suffer not with Christ "that he may be also glorifiedRom. 8:17 ]. For even Christ Himself (as the
Apostle says), "whereas he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered and being
made perfect he was made to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation" [ Heb. 5:8 ff.] For this reason the
Apostle himself admonishes those justified saying: "Know you not, that they who run in the race, all run indeed, but
one receiveth the prize? So run, that you may obtain. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty, I so fight, not as
one beating the air, but I chastise my body and bring it under subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to
others, I myself should become a castaway" [ 1 Cor. 9:24 ff.]. So also the chief of the Apostles, Peter: "Labor the
more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election; for doing these things, you shall not sin at
any time" [2 Pet. 1:10]. Thence it is clear that they are opposed to the teaching of orthodox religion who say that the
just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], or (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal
punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their
own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified,
they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: "I have inclined my heart to do thy
justifications on account of the reward"Ps. 118:112 ], and of Moses the Apostle says, that he "looked to the
reward" [ Heb. 11:26 ].

Chap. 12. Rash Presumption of Predestination is to be Avoided

805 No one moreover, so long as he lives in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery
of divine predestination, as to decide for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestined [can. 15], as if
it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more [can. 23], or if he shall have sinned, that he ought to
promise himself an assured reformation. For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has
chosen for Himself [can. 16].

Chap. 13. The Gift of Perseverance

806 So also as regards the gift of perseverance [can. 16] of which it is written: He that "shall persevere to the end,
he shall be saved" Matt. 10:22 ; 24:13 ] (which gift cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him, "who is able
to make him, who stands, stand" [ Rom. 14:4 ], that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him, who falls), let no
one promise himself anything as certain with absolute certitude, although all ought to place and repose a very firm
hope in God's help. For God, unless men be wanting in His grace, as He has begun a good work, so will He perfect
it, "working to will and to accomplish"Phil. 2:13; can. 22].* Nevertheless, let those "who think themselves to
stand, take heed lest they fall1 Cor. 10:12 ], and "with fear and trembling work out their salvation" [Phil. 2:12] in
labors, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity 2 Cor. 6:3 ff.]. For they
ought to fear, knowing that they are born again "unto the hope of glory" [cf1 Rom. Pet. 1:3 ], and not as yet unto
glory in the combat that yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, in which they cannot be victors,
unless with God's grace they obey the Apostle saying: "We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the

flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die. But if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you
shall live"Rom. 8:12 ff.].
 Chap. 14. The Fallen and Their Restoration

807 Those who by sin have fallen away from the received grace of justification, will again be able to be justified
[can. 29] when, roused by God through the sacrament of penance, they by the merit of Christ shall have attended to
the recovery of the grace lost. For this manner of justification is the reparation of one fallen, which the holy Fa*hers
have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of lost grace. For on behalf of those who after baptism fall
into sin, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance, when He said: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retaineJohn 20:22, 23 ]. Hence
it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it
includes not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation of them, or "a contrite and humble heartPs. 50:19 ], but
also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal
absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not
indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of
the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment [can. 30], which (as the Sacred Writings teach) is not always wholly
remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, "have
grieved the Holy Spirit" [cfEph. 4:30 ], and have not feared to "violate the temple of God" 1 Cor. 3:17 ]. Of this
repentance it is written: "Be mindful, whence thou art fallen, do penance, and do the first worksRev. 2:5 ], and
again: "The sorrow which is according to God, worketh penance steadfast unto salvation" [ 2 Cor. 7:10 ], and again:
"Do penance" [ Matt. 3:2 ; 4:17], and, "Bring forth fruits worthy of penanceMatt. 3:8 ].

Chap. 15. By Every Mortal Sin Grace is Lost, but not Faith

808 Against the crafty genius of certain men also, who "by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of
the innocent" Rom. 16:18 ], it must be maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only by
infidelity [can. 27], whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith be not lost [can.
28], thereby defending the doctrine of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the
unbelievers, but also the faithful who are "fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous,
drunkards, railers, extortioners"1 Cor. 6:9 ff.], and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the
assistance of divine grace they can refrain and for which they are separated from the grace of God [can. 27].

Chap. 16. The Fruit of Justipration, that is, the Merit of Good
Works, and the Reasonableness of that Merit

809 To men, therefore, who have been justified in this respect, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace
received, or have recovered it when lost, the words of the Apostle are to be submitted "Abound in every good
work, knowing that your labor is not in vai in the Lord"[1 Cor. 15:58 ]; "for God is not unjust, that he should forget
your work and the love, which you have shown in his name" [ Heb. 6:10 ], and: "Do not lose your confidence, which
has a great reward" [Heb. 10:35 ]. And therefore to those who work well "unto the end" [ Matt. 10:22 ], and who
trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ
Jesus, "and as a recompense" * which is according to the promise of God Himself to be faithfully given to their good
works and merits [can. 26 and 32]. For this is that "crown of justice which after his fight and course" the Apostle
declared "was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge and not only to him, but also to all that love
his coming" 2 Tim. 4:7 ff.]. For since Christ Jesus Himself as the "head into the members"Eph. 4:15 ], and "as the
vine into the branches" John 15:5] continually infuses His virtue into the said justified, a virtue which always
precedes their good works, and which accompanies and follows them, and without which they could in no wise be
pleasing and meritorious before God [can. 2], we must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from
being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God
according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall
have departed this life in gracRev. 14:13 ]), since Christ our Lord says: "If anyone shall drink of the water, that I
will give him, he shall not thirst forever, but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life
everlasting"John 4:14 ]. Thus neither is "our own justice established as our own" from ourselves, nor is the justice of
God [ Rom. 10:3 ] "ignored" or repudiated; for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified [can. 10 and
11] through its inherence in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because it is infused into us by God through the
merit of Christ.

810 Nor indeed is this to be omitted, that although in the sacred Writings so much is ascribed to good works, that
even "he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones" Christ promises "shall not lose his reward" [
Matt. 10:42 ], and the Apostle testifies "that that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh
for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" [2 Cor. 4:17]; nevertheless far be it that a Christian
should either trust or "glory" in himself and not "in the Lord"1 Cor. 1:31 ; 2 Cor. 10:17 ], whose goodness
towards all men is so great that He wishes the things which are His gifts [see n. 141] to be their own merits [can.
32]. And whereas "in many things we all offend" [Jas. 3:2; can. 23], each one should have before his eyes the
severity and judgment as well as mercy and goodness; neither ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be
"not conscious to himself of anything," since the whole life of men must be judged and examined not by the judgment
of men, but of God, who "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the
hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God" [1 Cor.4:4 ff.], "who," as it is written, "will render to every
man according to his works" [ Rom. 2:6 ].
 After this Catholic doctrine of justification [can. 33]--which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts it, no one can
be justified--it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must
hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid.

Canons On Justification *

811 Can. I. If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his
own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be
anathema [cf. n. 793 ff.].
812 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily
be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with
difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema [cn. 795 ,809 ].
813 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His assistance
man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred
upon him: let him be anathema [cf.n. 797 ].
814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to
God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it
cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let
him be anathema [cf. n. 797 ].
815 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man's free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing
in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be
anathema [cf. n. 793, 797 ].
816 Can. 6. If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the
evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of Himself, so that the betrayal of
Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.
817 Can. 7. If anyone shall say that all works that are done before justification, in whatever manner they have been
done, are truly sins or deserving of the hatred of God, or that the more earnestly anyone strives to dispose himself
for grace, so much the more grievously does he sin: let him be anathema [cf.n. 798].
818 Can. 8. If anyone shall say that the fear of hell, whereby by grieving for sins we flee to the mercy of God or
refrain from sinning, is a sin or makes sinners worse: let him be anathema [cn. 798].
819 Can. 9. If anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to understand that nothing else is
required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be
prepared and disposed by the action of his own will: let him be anathema [cf.n. 798, 801 ,804 ].
820 Can. 10. If anyone shall say that men are justified without the justice of Christ by which He merited for us, or
that by that justice itself they are formally just: let him be anathemn. 798 ,799 ].
821 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the
sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of grace and charity, which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit
and remains in them, or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema
[cf.n. 799ff.809 ].
822 Can. 12. If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits
sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified: let him be anath. n. 798,
802 ].
823 Can. 13. If anyone shall say that it is necessary for every man in order to obtain the remission of sins to believe
for certain and without any hesitation due to his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him: let
him be anathema [cf. n. 802 ].
824 Can. 14. If anyone shall say that man is absolved from his sins and justified, because he believes for certain that
he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified, and that by this fait
alone absolution and justification are perfected: let him be anathema [cn. 802].
825 Can. 15. If anyone shall say that a man who is born again and justified is bound by faith to believe that he is
assuredly in the number of the predestined: let him be anathema [cfn. 805 ].
826 Can. 16. If anyone shall say that he will for certain with an absolute and infallible certainty have that great gift of
perseverance up to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation: let him be anathema [n.805
ff.].
827 Can. 17. If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life,
but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power
predestined to evil: let him be anathema [cfn. 800].
828 Can. 18. If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are even for a man who is justified and confirmed
in grace impossible to observe: let him be anathema [cf.n. 804].
829 Can. 19. If anyone shall say that nothing except faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are
indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free, or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to
Christians: let him be anathema [cfn. 800 ].
830 Can. 20. If anyone shall say that a man who is justified and ever so perfect is not bound to observe the
commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if indeed the Gospel were a mere absolute promise
of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments: let him be anathema [cfn. 804].
831 Can. 21. If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus has been given by God to men as a Redeemer in whom they
should trust, and not also as a legislator, whom they should obey: let him be anathema.
832 Can. 22. If anyone shall say that he who is justified can either persevere in the justice received without the
special assistance of God, or that with that [assistance] he cannot: let him be anathema [n. 804 ,806 ].
833 Can. 23. If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who
 falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even
venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be
anathema [cf. n. 805, 810 ].
834 Can. 24. If anyone shall say, that justice received is not preserved and also not increased in the sight of God
through good works but that those same works are only the fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause
of its increase: let him be anathema [cn. 803].
835 Can. 25. If anyone shall say that in every good work the just one sins at least venially, or (what is more
intolerable) mortally, and therefore deserves eternal punishments, and that it is only because God does not impute
those works unto damnation that he is not damned, let him be anathema [cf. n. 804].
836 Can. 26. If anyone shall say that the just ought not to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God and
the merit of Jesus Christ for the good works which have been performed in trod, if by doing well and in keeping the
divine commandments they persevere even to the end: let him be anathema [cf. n. 809].
837 Can. 27. If anyone shall say that there is no mortal sin except that of infidelity, or that grace once received is not
lost by any other sin however grievous and enormous, except the sin of infidelity: let him be anathema [cn. 808].
838 Can. 28. If anyone shall say that together with the loss of grace by sin faith also is always lost, or that the faith
that remains is not a true faith, though it be not a living one, or that he, who has faith without charity, is not a
Christian: let him be anathema [cfn. 808 ].
839 Can. 29. If anyone shall say that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again; or that
he can indeed recover lost justice, but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy
Roman and universal Church, taught by Christ the Lord and His apostles, has hitherto professed, observed, and
taught: let him be anathema [cfn. 807 ].
840 Can. 30. If anyone shall say that after the reception of the grace of justification, to every penitent sinner the guilt
is so remitted and the penalty of eternal punishment so blotted out that no penalty of temporal punishment remains to
be discharged either in this world or in the world to come in purgatory before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven
can be opened: let him be anathema [cf. n. 807 ].
841 Can.31. If anyone shall say that the one justified sins, when he performs good works with a view to an eternal
reward: let him be anathema [cf.n. 804 ]
842 Can. 32. If anyone shall say that the good works of the man justified are in such a way the gifts of God that they
are not also the good merits of him who is justified, or that the one justified by the good works, which are done by
him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (whose living member he is), does not truly merit
increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase o
glory: let him be anathema [cfn. 803 and 809 ].
843 Can. 33. If anyone shall say that because of this Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy Synod
in this present decree, there is in some degree a detraction from the glory of God or from the merits of Jesus Christ
our Lord, and that the truth of our faith, and in fact the glory of God and of Jesus Christ are not rather rendered
illustrious: let him be anathema [n. 810 ]

SESSION Vll (March 3, 1547)

Foreword *

843a For the completion of the salutary doctrine of justification, which was a promulgated in the last session with the
unanimous consent of the Fathers, it has seemed fitting to treat of the most holy sacraments of the Church, through
which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased or being lost is restored. Therefore the holy,
ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit with the same legates of the Apostolic
See presiding therein, in order to destroy the errors, and to uproot the heresies concerning these most holy
sacraments, which in this stormy period of ours have been both revived from the heresies previously condemned by
our Fathers, and also have been invented anew, which are exceedingly detrimental to the purity of the Catholic
Church and to the salvation of souls; this Synod in adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic
traditions and to the unanimous opinion of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought it proper to establish and
decree these present canons, intending (with the assistance of the divine Spirit) to publish later the remaining which
are wanting for the completion of the work begun.

Canons on the Sacraments in General

844 Can. I. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord,
or that there are more or less than seven, namely baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order,
and matrimony, or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and strictly speaking a sacrament: let him be
anathema.
845 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that these same sacraments of the new Law do not differ from the sacraments of the
Old Law, except that the ceremonies are different and the outward rites are different: let him be anathema.
846 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that these seven sacraments are equal to each other in such a way that one is not for
any reason more worthy than the other: let him be anathema.
847 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are
superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them
through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.
848 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that these sacraments have been instituted for the nourishing of faith alone: let him be
anathema.
849 Can. 6. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or
that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle in the way, as-though they were only
outward signs of grace or justice, received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession by which the
 faithful among men are distinguished from the unbelievers: let him be anathema.
850 Can. 7. If anyone shall say that grace, as far as concerns God's part, is not given through the sacraments always
and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some persons: let him be anathema.

851 Can. 8. If anyone shall say that by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work
which has been worked [ ex opere operato , but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let
him be anathema.
852 Can. 9. If anyone shall say that in the three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation, and orders, there is not
imprinted on the soul a sign, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, on account of which they cannot be
repeated: let him be anathema.
853 Can. 10. If anyone shall say that all Christians have power to administer the word and all the sacraments: let him
be anathema.
854 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, the intention at least
of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.
855 Can. 12. If anyone shall say that a minister who is in mortal sin, although he observes all the essentials which
pertain to the performance or conferring of the sacrament, neither performs nor confers the sacrament: let him be
anathema.
856 Can. 13. If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used
in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at
pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.

Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism *

857 Can. 1. If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ: let him be
anathema.
858 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those
words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" ( John 3:5), are distorted
into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.
859 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that in the Roman Church (which is the mother and the teacher of all churches) there
is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism: let him be anathema.
860 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the baptism, which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be
anathema.
861 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathem [cf.
n.796 ].
862 Can. 6. If anyone shall say that one who is baptized cannot, even if he wishes, lose grace, however much he
may sin, unless he is unwilling to believe: let him be anathema [n. 808 ].
863 Can. 7. If anyone shall say that those who are baptized are by baptism itself made debtors to faith alone, and
not to the observance of the whole law of Christ: let him be anathema [cf.n. 802].
864 Can. 8. If anyone shall say that those baptized are free from all precepts of the holy Church, which are either
written or handed down, so that they are not bound to observe them, unless they of their own accord should wish to
submit themselves to them: let him be anathema.
865 Can. 9. If anyone shall say that men are to be so recalled to the remembrance of the baptism which they have
received, that they understand that all the vows which have been taken after baptism are void by virtue of the
promise already made in baptism itself, as if by them they detracted from the faith which they professed, and from
the baptism itself: let him be anathema.
866 Can. 10. If anyone shall say that all sins which are committed after baptism are either remitted or made venial by
the mere remembrance and the faith of the baptism received: let him be anathema.
867 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that baptism truly and rightly administered must be repeated for him who has
denied the faith of Christ among infidels, when he is converted to repentance: let him be anathema.
868 Can. 12. If anyone shall say that no one is to be baptized except at that age at which Christ was baptized, or
when at the very point of death, let him be anathema.
869 Can. 13. If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are
not to be numbered among the faithful, and therefore, when they have reached the years of discretion, are to be
rebaptized, or that it is better that their baptism be omitted than that they, while not believing, by their own act be
baptized in the faith of the Church alone: let him be anathema.
870 Can. 14. If anyone shall say that those who have been baptized in this.manner as infants, when they have grown
up, are to be questioned whether they wish to ratify what the sponsors promised in their name, when they were
baptized, and if they should answer that they are not willing, that they must be left to their own will, and that they are
not to be forced to a Christian life in the meantime by any other penalty, except that they be excluded from the
reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments until they repent: let him be anathema.

Canons on the Sacrament of Confirmation *

871 Can. I. If anyone shall say that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not rather a true
and proper sacrament, or that in former times it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, by which those
approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith before the Church: let him be anathema.
872 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that they who ascribe any power to the sacred chrism of confirmation offer an
outrage to the Holy Spirit: let him be anathema.
873 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple
 priest: let him be anathema.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Julius III 1550-1555 Council of Trent, continued

JULIUS III 1550-1555

COUNCIL OF TRENT, continued
SESSION XIII (Oct. II, 1551)
Decree On the Most Holy Eucharist *

873a The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully a assembled in the Holy Spirit with the same legates and nuncios of the
Apostolic See presiding therein, although it has convened for this purpose not without the special guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, namely to
publish the true and ancient doctrine concerning faith and the sacraments, and to provide a remedy for all the heresies and other very serious troubles by
which the Church of God is at present wretchedly agitated and torn into many different factions, yet from the beginning has had this especially among its
desires, to uproot the "cockles" of execrable errors and schisms, which the enemy in these troubled times of our has "sown" [Matt. 13:25ff.], in the
doctrine of the faith, in the use and worship of the sacred Eucharist, which our Savior, moreover, left in His Church as a symbol of that unity and charity
with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united. Therefore, this same sacred and holy synod, transmitting that sound and genuine
doctrine of this venerable and divine sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Catholic Church, instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ himself and by his
Apostles, and taught by the "Holy Spirit who day by day brings to her all truth" [John 14:26], has always held and will preserve even to the end of time,
forbids all the faithful of Christ hereafter to venture to believe, teach, or preach concerning the Most Holy Eucharist otherwise than is explained and
defined in this present decree.

Chap. 1. The Real Presence of our Lord Jesus in the Most

Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

874 First of all the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that in the nourishing sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the
consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially [can. I] contained under the species of those
sensible things. For these things are not mutually contradictory, that our Savior Himself is always seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven
according to the natural mode of existing, and yet that in many other places sacramentally He is present to us in His own substance by that manner of
existence which, although we can scarcely express it in words, yet we can, however, by our understanding illuminated by faith, conceive to be possible to
God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe. For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have discussed this
most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so wonderful a sacrament at the Last Supper, when after the blessing
of the bread and wine He testified in clear and definite words that He gave them His own body and His own blood; and those words which are recorded
[Matt. 26:26ff.; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 ff.] by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by St. Paul [1 Cor. 11:23 ff.], since they contain within
themselves that proper and very clear meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, it is a most disgraceful thing for some contentious and
wicked men to distort into fictitious and imaginary figures of speech, by which the real nature of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the
universal sense of the Church, which, recognizing with an ever grateful and recollecting mind this most excellent benefit of Christ, as the pillar and
ground of truth [1 Tim. 3:15], has detested these falsehoods, devised by impious men, as satanical.

Chap. 2. The Reason for the Institution of this

Most Holy Sacrament

875 Our Savior, therefore, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament in which He poured forth, as it were, the
riches of His divine love for men, "making a remembrance of his wonderful works" [Ps. 110:4], and He commanded us in the consuming of it to cherish
His "memory" [1 Cor. 11:24], and "to show forth his death until He come" to judge the world [1 Cor. 11:23]. But He wished that this sacrament be
received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt. 26:26], by which they may be nourished and strengthened [can. 5], living by the life of Him who said: "He
who eateth me, the same also shall live by me" [John 6:58], and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal
sins. He wished, furthermore, that this be a pledge of our future glory and of everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one "body" of which He
Himself is the "head" [1 Cor. 11:23; Eph. 5:23], and to which He wished us to be united, as members, by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that
we might "all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us" [cf. 1 Cor. 1:10].

Chap. 3. The Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist

Over the Other Sacraments

876 This, indeed, the most Holy Eucharist has in common with the other sacraments, that it is a "symbol of a sacred thing and a visible * form of an
invisible grace"; but this excellent and peculiar thing is found in it, that the other sacraments first have the power of sanctifying, when one uses them, but
in the Eucharist there is the Author of sanctity Himself before it is used [can. 4]. For the apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the
Lord [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22] when He Himself truly said that what He was offering was His body; and this belief has always been in the Church of
God, that immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and His true blood together with His soul and divinity exist under the species of
bread and wine; but the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine by the force of the words, but the body itself
under both by force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, "who hath now risen from the dead to die no
more" [Rom. 6:9], are mutually united, the divinity also because of that admirable hypostatic union [can. I and 3] with His body and soul. Therefore, it is
very true that as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under any part
whatsoever of that species, likewise the whole (Christ) is present under the species of wine and under its parts [can. 3].

Chap. 4. Transubstantiation

877 But since Christ, our Redeemer, has said that that is truly His own body which He offered under the species of bread [cf. Matt. 26:26ff.; Mark
14:22ff.; Luke 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:23 ff.], it has always been a matter of conviction in the Church of God, and now this holy Synod declares it again, that
by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and
of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic
Church [can. 2].

Chap. 5. The Worship and Veneration to be Shown to this

Most Holy Sacrament

878 There is, therefore, no room left for doubt that all the faithful of Christ in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church
offer in veneration [can. 6] the worship of latria which is due to the true God, to this most Holy Sacrament. For it is not less to be adored because it was
instituted by Christ the Lord to be received [cf. Matt. 26:26 ff.]. For we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father when
introducing Him into the world says: "And let all the Angels of God adore Him" [Heb. 1:6; Ps. 96:7], whom the Magi "falling down adored" [cf. Matt.
2:11], who finally, as the Scripture testifies [cf. Matt. 28:17], was adored by the apostles in Galilee. The holy Synod declares, moreover, that this custom
was piously and religiously introduced into the Church of God, so that this sublime and venerable sacrament was celebrated every year on a special feast
day with extraordinary veneration and solemnity, and was borne reverently and with honor in processions through the streets and public places. For it is
most proper that some holy days be established when all Christians may testify, with an extraordinary and unusual expression, that their minds are
grateful to and mindful of their common Lord and Redeemer for such an ineffable and truly divine a favor whereby the victory and triumph of His death
is represented. And thus, indeed, ought victorious truth to celebrate a triumph over falsehood and heresy, that her adversaries, placed in view of so much
splendor and amid such deep joy of the universal Church, may either vanish weakened and broken, or overcome and confounded by shame may some day
recover their senses.

Chap. 6. The Reservation of the Sacrament of the

Holy Eucharist and Bearing it to the Sick

879 The custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in a holy place is so ancient that even the age of the NICENE Council recognized it. Moreover, the
injunction that the sacred Eucharist be carried to the sick, and be carefully reserved for this purpose in the churches, besides being in conformity with the
greatest equity and reason, is also found in many councils, and has been observed according to a very ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Therefore
this holy Synod decrees that this salutary and necessary custom be by all means retained [can. 7].

Chap. 7. The Preparation that Must be Employed to Receive

the Holy Eucharist Worthily

880 If it is not becoming for anyone to approach any of the sacred functions except solemnly, certainly, the more the holiness and the divinity of this
heavenly sacrament is understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to take heed lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and
holiness [can. 2], especially when we read in the Apostle those words full of terror: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment
to himself not discerning the body of the Lord" [1 Cor. 11:29]. Therefore, the precept, "Let a man prove himself" [1 Cor. 11:28], must be recalled to mind
by him who wishes to communicate. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that this examination is necessary, that no one conscious of mortal sin, however
contrite he may seem to himself, should approach the Holy Eucharist without a previous sacramental confession. This, the holy Synod has decreed, is
always to be observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom by their office it may be incumbent to celebrate, provided the recourses of a
confessor be not lacking to them. But if in an urgent necessity a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible
[see n. 1138 ff.].

Chap. 8. The Use of the Admirable Sacrament

881 As to its use our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this Holy Sacrament. For they have taught that some
receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others only spiritually, namely those who eating with desire the heavenly bread set before them, by a living faith,
"which worketh by charity" [Gal. 5:6], perceive its fruit and usefulness; while the third receive it both sacramentally and spiritually [can. 8]; and these are
they who so prove and prepare themselves previously that "clothed with the wedding garment" [Matt. 22:11, ff.], they approach this divine table. Now as
to the reception of the sacrament it has always been the custom in the Church of God for the laity to receive communion from the priests, but that the
priests when celebrating should communicate themselves [can. 10]; this custom proceeding from an apostolical tradition should with reason and justice
be retained.

882 And finally this holy Synod with paternal affection admonishes, exhorts, entreats, and beseeches, "through the bowels of the mercy of our God"
[Luke 1 :78], that each and all, who are classed under the Christian name, will now finally agree and be of the same opinion in this "sign of unity," in this
"bond of charity,''* in this symbol of concord, and that mindful of so great a majesty and such boundless love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own
beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His "own flesh to eat" [John 6:48 ff.], they may believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His
body and blood with that constancy and firmness of faith, with that devotion of soul, that piety and worship, as to be able to receive frequently that
"supersubstantial bread" [Matt. 6:11], and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul and the perpetual health of mind, that being invigorated by the
strength thereof [1Samuel 19:8], after the journey of this miserable pilgrimage, they may be able to arrive in their heavenly country to eat without any
veil that same bread of angels Ps. 77:25] which they now eat under the sacred veils.

But whereas it is not enough to declare the truth, unless errors be exposed and repudiated, it has seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these
canons, so that all, now that the Catholic doctrine has been made known, may also understand what heresies are to be avoided and guarded against.

Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist *

883 Can. 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let
him be anathema [cf. n. 874, 876].
884 Can. 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the
entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls
transubstantiation: let him be anathema [cf. n. 887]

885 Can 3. If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part
of each species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema [cf. n. 876].
886 Can. 4. If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous
sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved
or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema [cf. n. 876].

887 Can. 5. If anyone says that the special fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that from it no other fruits are produced: let
him be anathema [cf. 875].
888 Can. 6: If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the
worship of latria (the act of adoration), and therefore not to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to be borne about in procession according
to the praiseworthy and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set before the people publicly to be adored, and that the adorers of it
are idolaters: let him be anathema [cf. n. 878]

889 Can. 7. If anyone says that it is not lawful that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a sacred place, but must necessarily be distributed immediately
after the consecration among those present; or that it is not permitted to bring it to the sick with honor: let him be anathema [cf. n. 879].
890 Can. 8. If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received only spiritually, and not also sacramentally and in reality: let him be
anathema [cf. n. 881].

891 Can. 9. If anyone denies that all and each of the faithful of Christ of both sexes, when they have reached the years of discretion, are bound
every year to communicate at least at Easter according to the precept of holy mother Church: let him be anathema [cf. n. 437].
892 Can. 10. If anyone says that it is not lawful for a priest celebrating to communicate himself: let him be anathema [cf. n. 881].
893 Can. 11. If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema.
And that so great a Sacrament may not be unworthily received, and therefore unto death and condemnation, this holy Council ordains and declares that
sacramental confession must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened by mortal sin, however contrite they may consider
themselves. If anyone moreover teaches the contrary or preaches or obstinately asserts, or even publicly by disputation shall presume to defend the
contrary, by that fact itself he is excommunicated

SESSION XIV (NOV. 25, 1551)

Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance *

893a The holy ecumenical and general council of Trent, lawfully assembled a in the Holy Spirit with the same delegate and nuncios of the Holy
Apostolic See presiding, although for a necessary reason much discussion on the sacrament of penance has been introduced in the decree on justification
[see n. 807, 839], because of the kindred nature of the subjects, nevertheless so great is the number of errors of various kinds about this sacrament in this
our age that it will be no small public advantage to have handed down a more exact and fuller definition, in which, after all errors have been displayed
and refuted, Catholic truth should become clear and manifest; and this truth which this holy synod now proposes is to be preserved for all time by all
Christians.

Chap. 1. The Necessity and Institution of the

Sacrament of Penance

894 If in all who have been regenerated, there were this gratitude toward God, so that they would constantly safeguard the justice received in
baptism by His bounty and His grace, there would have been no need to institute [can. 2] another sacrament besides baptism for the remission of sins. But
"since God, rich in mercy" [Eph. 2:4] "knoweth our frame" Ps. 102:14], He offers a remedy of life even to those who may afterwards have delivered
themselves to the servitude of sin, and to the power of Satan, namely, the sacrament of penance [can. 1], by which the benefit of the death of Christ is
applied to those who have fallen after baptism. Penance has indeed been necessary for all men, who at any time whatever have stained themselves with
mortal sin, in order to attain grace and justice, even for those who have desired to be cleansed by the sacrament of baptism, so that their perversity being
renounced and amended, they might detest so great an offense against God with a hatred of sin and a sincere sorrow of heart. Therefore, the Prophet says:
"Be converted and do penance for all your iniquities; and iniquity shall not be your ruin" [Ezech. 18:30]. The Lord also said: "Except you do penance,
you shall all likewise perish" [Luke 13:3]. And the prince of the apostles, Peter, recommending penance to sinners about to receive baptism said: "Do
penance and be baptized every one of you" [Acts 2:38]. Moreover, neither before the coming of Christ was penance a sacrament, nor is it after His
coming to anyone before baptism. But the Lord instituted the sacrament of penance then especially, when after His resurrection from the dead He
breathed upon His disciples, saying: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain,
they are retained" [John 20:22]. In this act so significant and by words so clear, the consensus of all the Fathers has always recognized that the power of
forgiving and retaining sins had been communicated to the apostles and their legitimate successors for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after
baptism [can. 37], and that with good reason the Catholic Church has repudiated and condemned as heretics the Nova. tians, at one time stubbornly
denying the power of forgiveness. Therefore, this holy Council, approving and receiving this true meaning of these words of the Lord, condemns the false
interpretations of those who, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, falsely distort those words to the power of preaching the word of God and of
announcing the Gospel of Christ.

Chap. 2. The Difference Between the Sacrament of Penance and

that of Baptism

895 Moreover, it is clear that this sacrament differs in many respects from baptism [can. 2]- For aside from the fact that in the matter and form, by
which the essence of a sacrament is effected, it differs very widely, it is certainly clear that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church
exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered it through the gateway of baptism. "For what have I to do," says St. Paul, "to judge them that are
without?" [1 Cor. 5:12]. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of "baptism" has once made "members
of his own body" [1 Cor. 12:13]. For these, if they should afterwards have defiled themselves by somecrime, He did not now wish to have cleansed by the
repetition of baptism, since that is in no way permitted in the Catholic Church, but to be placed, as it were, as culprits before the tribunal, so that by the
sentence of the priests they may be freed not only once, but as often as they, repentant for the sins committed, have had recourse to Him. Furthermore,the
fruit of baptism is one thing; that of penance is another thing. For by putting on Christ by baptism [Gal. 3:27], we are made an entirely new creature in
Him, obtaining a full and complete remission of all sins, to which newness and integrity, however, we can in no way arrive by thesacrament of penance
without many tears and labors on our part, for divine justice demands this, so that penance has justly been called by the holy Fathers, "a laborious kind of
baptism." This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet
not regenerated [can. 6].

Chap. 3. The Parts and Fruits of the Sacrament of Penance

896 Furthermore, the holy Council teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance, in which its force chiefly consists, is set down in these words
of the minister: "I absolve thee, etc."; to which indeed certain prayers are laudably added according to the custom of holy Church; yet in no way do they
pertain to the essence of this form, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament. The matter, as it were, of this sacrament, on the other
hand, consists in the acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction [can. 4]. These, inasmuch as by the institution of God
they are required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament for the full and perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance.
The reality and effectus of this sacrament, however, so far as concerns its force and efficacy, is reconciliation with God, which at times in pious persons
and in those who receive this sacrament with devotion is wont to be followed by peace of conscience and serenity with an exceedingly great consolation
of spirit. The holy Council, while recording these matters regarding the parts and effect of this sacrament, condemns the opinions of those who maintain
that the parts of penance are the terrors of conscience and faith [can. 4].

Chap. 4. Contrition

897 Contrition, which has the first place among the aforementioned acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of the soul and a detestation of sin committed,
with a determination of not sinning in the future. This feeling of contrition is, moreover, necessary at all times to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and thus
for a person who has fallen after baptism it especially prepares for the remission of sins, if it is united with trust in divine mercy and with the desire of
performing the other things required to receive this sacrament correctly. The holy Synod, therefore, declares that this contrition includes not only
cessation from sin and a resolution and a beginning of a new life, but also hatred of the old, according to this statement: "Cast away from you all your
transgressions, by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" [Ezech. 18:31]. And certainly, he who has
considered those lamentations of the saints: "To Thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before Thee" Ps. 50:6]; "I have labored in my groanings; I
shall wash my bed every night" Ps. 6:7]; "I will recount to Thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul" [Isa. 38:15], and others of this kind, will readily
understand that they emanate from a certain vehement hatred of past life and from a profound detestation of sins.

898 The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God,
before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament
which is included in it. That imperfect contrition [can. 5] which is called attrition, since it commonly arises either from the consideration of the baseness
of sin or from fear of hell and its punishments, if it renounces the desire of sinning with the hope of pardon, the Synod declares, not only does not make a
person a hypocrite and a greater sinner' but is even a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, not indeed as already dwelling in the penitent, but
only maying him, assisted by which the penitent prepares a way for himself unto justice. And though without the sacrament of penance it cannot per se
lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it does dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of penance. For the Ninivites, struck in a
salutary way by this fear in consequence of the preaching of Jonas which was full of terror, did penance and obtained mercy from the Lord [cf. Jonas 3].
For this reason, therefore, do some falsely accuse Catholic writers, as if they taught that the sacrament of penance confers grace without any pious
endeavor on the part of those who receive it, a thing which the Church of God has never taught or pronounced. Moreover, they also falsely teach that
contrition is extorted and forced, and that it is not free and voluntary [can. 5]

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Julius III 1550-1555 Council of Trent, continued

JULIUS III 1550-1555

COUNCIL OF TRENT, continued
SESSION XIII (Oct. II, 1551)
Decree On the Most Holy Eucharist *

Chap. 5. Confession

899 From the institution of the sacrament of penance as already explained the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession
of sins was also instituted by our Lord, [Jas. 5:16; John 1:9; (Luke 17:14)], and by divine law is necessary for all who have fallen after baptism [can. 7],
because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left behind Him priests as His own vicars [Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23], as
rulers and judges, to whom all the mortal sins into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen should be brought, so that they in virtue of the power of
the keys may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is evident that priests could not have exercised this judgment without a
knowledge of the matter, nor could they indeed have observed justice in imposing penalties, if the faithful had declared their sins in general only, and not
specifically and one by one. From this it is gathered that all mortal sins of which they have knowledge after a careful self-examination must be
enumerated in confession by the penitents, even though they are most secret and have been committed only against the two last precepts of the decalogue
[Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:28], sins which sometimes wound the soul more grievously, and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly. For
venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, although they may rightly and profitably and
without any presumption be declared in confession [can. 7], as the practice of pious persons indicates, may be passed over in silence without guilt and
may be expiated by many other remedies But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, make men children of wrath [Eph. 2:3] and enemies of God, it
is necessary to ask pardon for all of them from God by an open and humble confession. While, therefore, the faithful of Christ strive to confess all sins
which occur to their memory, they undoubtedly lay all of them before the divine mercy to be forgiven [can. 7]. While those who do otherwise and
knowingly conceal certain sins, lay nothing before the divine bounty for forgiveness by the priest. "For if one who is ill is ashamed to make known his
wound to the physician, the physician does not remedy what he does not know." * Furthermore, it is gathered that those circumstances also must be
explained in confession, which alter the species of the sin, [can. 7], because without them the sins themselves are neither honestly revealed by the
penitents, nor are they known to the judges, and it would not be possible for them to judge rightly the gravity of the crimes and to impose the punishment
which is proper to those penitents. Hence it is unreasonable to teach that these circumstances have been conjured up by idle men. or that one circumstance
only must be confessed, namely up by idle men, or that one circumstance only must be confessed, namely to have sinned against a brother.

900 But it is also impious to say that a confession, which is ordered to be made in this manner [can. 8] is impossible, or to call it a torture of
conscience; for it is clear that in the Church nothing else is exacted of the penitents than that each one, after he has carefully examined himself and
searched all the nooks and recesses of his conscience, confess those sins by which he recalls that he has mortally offended his Lord and God; moreover,
the other sins which do not occur to him after diligent thought, are understood to be included in a general way in the same confession; for these sins we
trustingly say with the Prophet: "From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord" Ps. 18:13]. But, truly, the difficulty of such confession and the shame of
disclosing the sins might appear a burdensome matter indeed, if it were not alleviated by so many and such great advantages and consolations which are
most certainly bestowed by absolution upon all those who approach this sacrament worthily.

901 Moreover, as regards the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, although Christ has not prohibited that one confess sins publicly in
expiation for his crimes and for his own humiliation, and as an example to others, as well as for the edification of the Church offended, yet this is not
commanded by divine precept, nor would it be advisedly enjoined by any human law that offenses, especially secret ones, be disclosed by a public
confession [can. 6]. Therefore, since secret sacramental confession, which the holy Church has used from the beginning and which she still uses, has
always been recommended by the most holy and most ancient Fathers in emphatic and unanimous agreement, the empty calumny of those who do not
fear to teach that this is foreign to the divine mandate and is a human invention, and that it had its origin in the Fathers assembled in the Lateran Council
[can. 8] is manifestly disproved; for neither did the Church through the Lateran Council decree that the faithful of Christ should confess, a matter which
she recognized was necessary and instituted by divine law, but that the precept of confession should be fulfilled at least once a year by each and all, when
they have reached the years of discretion. Hence, this salutary custom of confessing to the great benefit of souls is now observed in the whole Church
during that sacred and especially acceptable time of Lent, a custom which this holy Council completely approves and sanctions as pious and worthy to be
retained [can. 8; see n. 427 f.].

Chap. 6. The Minister of this Sacrament and Absolution

902 With regard to the minister of this sacrament the holy Synod declares false and entirely foreign to the truth of the Gospel all doctrines which
perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men besides bishops and priests [can. 10], believing that those words of the Lord: "Whatsoever
you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" [Matt. 18:18; and
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" [John 20:23], were indifferently and
indiscriminately addressed to all the faithful of Christ contrary to the institution of this sacrament, so that anyone may have the power of remitting sins,
public sins by way of rebuke, if the rebuked acquiesces, and secret ones through a voluntary confession made to anyone. It also teaches that even priests
who are bound by mortal sin exercise as ministers of Christ the office of forgiving sins by virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, and that they
are of an erroneous opinion who contend that this power does not exist in bad priests. However, although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of
the benefaction of another, yet it is not a bare ministry only, either of announcing the Gospel or declaring the forgiveness of sins, but it is equivalent to a
judicial act, by which sentence is pronounced by him as if by a judge [can. 9]. And, therefore, the penitent should not so flatter-himself on his own faith
as to think that even though he have no contrition, and that the intention of acting earnestly and absolving effectively be wanting in the priest,
nevertheless he is truly and before God absolved by reason of his faith alone. For faith without penance effects no remission of sins, and he would be
most negligent of his own salvation, who would know that a priest was absolving him in a jesting manner, and would not earnestly consult another who
would act seriously.

Chap. 7. The Reservation of Cases

903 Therefore, since the nature and essence of a judgment require that the sentence be imposed only on subjects, there has always been the
conviction in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it as most true, that this absolution which the priest pronounces upon one over whom he has no
ordinary or delegated jurisdiction has no value. It seemed to be a matter of very great importance to our most holy Fathers for the discipline of the
Christian people that certain more atrocious and grave crimes should be absolved not by anyone indiscriminately, but only by the highest priests. Hence
the sovereign Pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme power given them in the universal Church, could right fully reserve to their own exclusive judgment
certain more serious cases of crimes. Neither should it be a matter of doubt, since all things which are from God are well ordered, that the same may
lawfully be done by all bishops each in his own diocese, "to edification," however, "not to destruction" [2 Cor. 13:10], by virtue of the authority over their
subjects given to them above other priests inferior in rank, especially with regard to those crimes to which the censure of excommunication is at- i tached.
That this reservation of crimes has force not only in external administration, but also in the sight of God is in accord with divine authority [can. 11]. But
lest anyone perish on this account, it has always been piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no reservation at the moment of death,
and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all penitents from any sins and censures whatsoever; and since outside this moment priests have no
power in reserved cases, let them strive to persuade penitents to this one thing, that they approach their superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of
absolution.

Chap. 8. The Necessity and Fruit of Satisfaction

904 Finally with regard to satisfaction, which of all the parts of penance has been recommended by our Fathers to the Christian people in all ages,
and which is especially assailed in our day under the pretext of piety by those who "have an appearance of piety, but who have denied the power thereof"
[2 Tim. 3:51], the holy Synod declares that it is absolutely false and contrary to the word of God that the guilt is never forgiven by the Lord without the
entire punishment also being remitted [can. 12, 15]. For clear and illustrious examples are found in the Sacred Writings [cf. Gen. 3:16 f.; Num. 12:14 f.;
20:11 f.; 2 Samuel 12:13]. f., etc.], besides which divine tradition refutes this error with all possible clarity. Indeed the nature of divine justice seems to
demand that those who have sinned through ignorance before baptism may be received into grace in one manner, and in another those who at one time
freed from the servitude of sin and the devil, and on receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, did not fear to "violate the temple of God knowingly" [1 Cor.
3:17], "and to grieve the Holy Spirit" [Eph. 4:30]. And it befits divine clemency that sins be not thus pardoned us without any satisfaction, lest, seizing
the occasion [Rom. 7:8], and considering sins trivial, we, offering injury and "affront to the Holy Spirit" [Heb. 10:29], fall into graver ones, "treasuring up
to ourselves wrath against the day of wrath" [Rom. 2:5; Jas. 5:3]. For, without doubt, these satisfactions greatly restrain from sin, and as by a kind of rein
act as a check, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant in the future; they also remove the remnants Of sin, and destroy vicious habits acquired by
living evilly through acts contrary to virtue. Neither was there ever in the Church of God any way considered more secure for warding off impending
punishment by the Lord than that men perform these works of penance [Matt. 3:28; 4:17; 11:21 etc.] with true sorrow of soul. Add to this that, while we
suffer by making satisfaction for our sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus, "who made satisfaction for our sins" [Rom. 5:10; 1 John 2:1 f.], from
whom is all our sufficiency [2 Cor. 3:5], having also a most certain pledge from Him that "if we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified" [cf. Rom.
8:17]. Neither is this satisfaction which we discharge for our sins so much our own as it is through Jesus Christ; for we who can do nothing of ourselves,
as if of ourselves, with the cooperation "of Him who" comforts us, "we can do all things." Thus man has not wherein to glory; but all "our glorying" [cf. 1
Cor. 1:31 2 Cor. 10:17; Gal. 6:14] is in Christ, "in whom we live, in whom we move" [cf. Acts 17:28], in whom we make satisfaction, "bringing forth
fruits worthy of penance" [Luke 3:8] which have their efficacy from Him, by Him are offered to the Father, and through Him are accepted by the Father
[can. 13 f.].

905 The priests of the Lord ought, therefore, so far as the spirit and pru- dence suggest, to enjoin salutary and suitable satisfactions, in keeping with
the nature of the crimes and the ability of the penitents, lest, if they should connive at sins and deal too leniently with penitents, by the imposition of
certain very light works for grave offenses, they might become participators in the crimes of others [cf. 1 Tim. 5:22]. Moreover, let them keep before their
eyes that the satisfaction which they impose be not only for the safeguarding of a new life and a remedy against infirmity, but also for the atonement and
chastisement of past sins; for the ancient Fathers both believe and teach that the keys of the priests were bestowed not only to loose, but also to bind [cf.
Matt. 16:19; John 20:23; can. 15]. Nor did they therefore think that the sacrament of penance is a tribunal of wrath or of punishments; as no Catholic ever
understood that from our satisfactions of this kind the nature of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any way
diminished; when the Innovators wish to observe this, they teach that the best penance is a new life, in order to take away all force and practice of
satisfaction [can. 13].

Chap. 9. The Works of Satisfaction

906 It teaches furthermore that so great is the liberality of the divine munificence that not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by us in
atonement for sin can we make satisfaction to God the Father through Jesus Christ, or by punishments imposed by the judgment of the priest according to
the measure of our offense, but also, (and this is the greatest proof of love) by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and patiently borne by us [can.
13].

The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction *

907 It has seemed fit to the holy Synod to add to the preceding doctrine on penance the following matters concerning the sacrament of extreme
unction, which was considered by the Fathers * the consummation not only of penance, but also of the whole Christian life which should be a perpetual
penance. In the first place, therefore, as regards its institution it declares and teaches that our most clement Redeemer, who wished that a provision be
made for salutary remedies at all times for His servants against all the weapons of all enemies, just as He made provision for the greatest aids in other
sacraments by which Christians, as long as they live, can preserve themselves free from every very grave spiritual injury, so He fortified the end of life
with, as it were, the most powerful defense, by the sacrament of extreme unction [can. 1 ]. For, although "our adversary seeks" and seizes throughout our
entire life occasions "to devour" [1 Pet. 5:8] our souls in every manner, yet there is no time when he directs more earnestly all the strength of his cunning
to ruin us completely, and if possible to drive us also from faith in the divine mercy, than when he sees that the end of life is upon us.

Chap. 1. The Institution of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction

908 This sacred unction for the sick, however, was instituted by Christ our Lord as truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, alluded to
in Mark [Mark 6:13], indeed, but recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the Apostle and brother of the Lord [can. 1]. "Is any man," he
says, "sick among you?" "Let him bring in the priestsof the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord and the
prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" [Jas. 5:14, 15]. In these words, as
the Church has learned from apostolic tradition transmitted from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, form, proper ministration, and effect of this salutary
sacrament. For the Church has understood that the matter is the oil blessed by the bishop, since the unction very appropriately represents the grace of the
Holy Spirit, with which the soul of the sick person is visibly anointed; and that these words are the form: "By this anointing, etc."

Chap. 2. The Effect of the Sacrament

909 Furthermore, the significance and effect of this sacrament are explained in these words: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and
the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him" [Jas. 5:15]. For the thing signified is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose
anointing wipes away sins, if there be any still to be expiated, and the remains of sin, and relieves, and strengthens the soul of the sick person [can. 2] by
exciting in him great confidence in divine mercy, supported by which the sick person bears more lightly the miseries and pains of his illness, and resists
more easily the temptations of the evil spirit who "lies in wait for his heel" [Gen. 3:15], and sometimes attains bodily health, when it is expedient for the
salvation of the soul.

Chap. 3. The Minister of this Sacrament and the Time

When it Should be Administered

910 And now, as regards the prescribing of those who can receive and administer this sacrament, this, too, was clearly expressed in the words
above. For it is also indicated there that the proper ministers of this sacrament are the presbyters of the Church [can. 4], under which name in that place
are to be understood not the elders by age or the foremost in rank among the people, but either bishops or priests duly ordained by them with the
"imposition of the hands of the priesthood" [1 Tim. 4:14; can. 4]. It is also declared that this unction is to be applied to the infirm, but especially to those
who are so dangerously ill that they seem to be facing the end of life, for which reason it is also called the sacrament of the dying. But if the sick should
recover after the reception of this sacrament of extreme unction, they can with the aid of this sacrament be strengthened again, when they fall into another
similar crisis of life. Therefore, under no condition are they to be listened to, who contrary to so open and clear a statement of the Apostle James [Jas.
5:14] teach that this unction is either a figment of the imagination or a rite received from the Fathers, having neither a command of God nor a promise of
grace [can. 1]; and likewise those who assert that this has now ceased, as though it were to be referred to the grace of healing only in the primitive
Church; and those who maintain that the rite and practice which t e holy Roman Church observes in the administration of this sacrament are opposed to
the thought of James the Apostle, and therefore ought to be changed to another; and finally, those who affirm that this extreme unction may be contemned
by the faithful without sin [can. 3] or all these things very manifestly disagree with the clear words of this great Apostle. Nor, indeed, does the Roman
Church, the mother and teacher of all others, observe anything else in the administration of this unction with reference to those matters which constitute
the substance of this sacrament than what the blessed James has prescribed. Nor, indeed, could there be contempt for so great a sacrament without
grievous sin and offense to the Holy Spirit.

These are the things which this sacred ecumenical Synod professes and teaches concerning the sacraments of penance and extreme unction, and
it sets them forth to be believed and held by all the faithful of Christ. Moreover, the following canons, it says, must be inviolately observed, and it
condemns and anathematizes forever those who assert the contrary.

Canons On the Sacrament of Penance *

911 Can. 1. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord to reconcile the
faithful, as often as they fall into sin after baptism: let him be anathema [cf. n. 894].
912 Can. 2. If anyone, confusing the sacraments, says that baptism itself is the sacrament of penance, as though these two sacraments are not
distinct, and that therefore penance is not rightly called "a second plank after shipwreck": let him be anathema [cf. n. 894].

913 Can. 3. If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;
and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained" [John 20:22 f.], are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of
penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood from the beginning, but, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, distorts them to an authority
for preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema [cf. n. 894].

914 Can. 4. If anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins there are three acts required on the part of the penitent, as it were, the
matter of the sacrament of penance, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or says, that there are
only two parts of penance, namely the terrors of a troubled conscience because of the consciousness of sin, and the faith received rom the Gospel or from
absolution, by which one believes that his sins ave been forgiven him through Christ: let him be anathema [cf. n. 896].

915 Can. 5. If anyone says that this contrition, which is evoked by examination, recollection, and hatred of sins "whereby one recalls his years in the
bitterness of his soul" [Isa. 38:15], by pondering on the gravity of one's sins, the multitude, the baseness, the loss of eternal happiness, and the incurring
of eternal damnation, together with the purpose of a better life, is not a true and a beneficial sorrow, and does not prepare for grace, but makes a man a
hypocrite, and a greater sinner; finally that this sorrow is forced and not free and voluntary: let him be anathema [cf. n. 898].

916 Can. 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted by divine law or is necessary for salvation; or says that the manner of
secretly confessing to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is alien to the institution and
the mandate of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be anathema [cf. n. 899 f.].
917 Can. 7. If anyone says that in the sacrament of penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess each and all mortal
sins, of which one has remembrance after a due and diligent examination, even secret ones and those which are against the two last precepts of the
decalogue, and the circumstances which alter the nature of sin; but that this confession is useful only for the instruction and consolation of the penitent,
and formerly was observed only for imposing a canonical satisfaction; or says, that they who desire to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be
pardoned by divine mercy; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema [cf. n. 899-901 ]

918 Can. 8. If anyone says that the confession of all sins as the Church observes is impossible, and is a human tradition to be abolished by the pious,
or that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex are not bound to it once a year, according to the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and for
this reason the faithful of Christ must be persuaded not to confess during the Lenten season; let him be anathema [cf. n. 900 f.].
919 Can. 9. If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but an empty service of pronouncing and declaring to
the one confessing that his sins are forgiven, provided only that he believes that he has been absolved, or * even if the priest does not absolve seriously,
but in jest; or says that the confession of the penitent is not required, so that the priest may be able to absolve him: let him be anathema [cf. n 902].

920 Can. 10. If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing, or, that not only priests are the
ministers of absolution, but that these words were spoken also to each and all of the faithful: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also
in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven" [Matt. 18:18; and, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them
and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" [John 20:23], that by virtue of these words anyone can absolve sins, public sins indeed by reproof only,
if the one reproved accepts correction, secret sins by voluntary confession: let him be anathema [cf. n. 902].

921 Can. 11. If anyone says that bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves, except those of external administration, and that on
this account the reservation of cases does not prohibit a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases: let him be anathema [cf. n. 903].
922 Can. 12. If anyone says that the whole punishment, together with the guilt, is always pardoned by God, and that the satisfaction of penitents is
nothing other than faith, by which they perceive that Christ has made satisfaction for them: let him be anathema [cf. n. 904].
923 Can. 13. If anyone says that for sins, as far as temporal punishment is concerned, there is very little satisfaction made to God through the merits
of Christ by the punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or by those enjoined by the priest, but voluntarily undertaken, as by fasts, prayers,
almsgiving, or also by other works of piety, and that therefore the best penance is only a new life: let him be anathema [cf. n. 904 ff.].
924 Can. 14. If anyone says that the satisfactions by which penitents atone for their sins through Jesus Christ are not a worship of God, but the
traditions of men, obscuring the doctrine of grace, the true worship of God, and the very beneficence of the death of Christ: let him be anathema * [cf. n.
905].

925 Can. 15. If anyone says that the keys have been given to the Church only to loose, and not also to bind, and that therefore priests, by imposing
penalties on those who confess, act contrary to the institution of Christ; and that it is fiction that, after eternal punishment has been remitted by virtue of
the keys, there usually remains a temporal punishment to be discharged: let him be anathema [cf. n. 904].

Canons on Extreme Unction *

926 Can. 1 If anyone says that extreme unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ [cf. Mark 6:13], and
promulgated by blessed James the Apostle [Jas. 5:14], but is only a rite accepted by the Fathers, or a human fiction: let him be anathema [cf. n. 907 ff].
927 Can. 2. If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace nor remit sins, nor alleviate the sick, but that it has already
ceased, as if it had at one time only been a healing grace: let him be anathema [cf. n. 909].

928 Can. 3. If anyone says that the rite of extreme unction and its practice, which the holy Roman Church observes, is opposed to the statement of
the blessed Apostle James, and that it is therefore to be changed, and can be contemned without sin by Christians: let him be anathema [cf. n. 910].
929 Can. 4. If anyone says that the priests of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests ordained
by a bishop, but the elders by age in each community, and that for this reason a priest alone is not the proper minister of extreme unction let him be
anathema [cf. n. 910].

MARCELLUS II PAULUS IV 1555 - 1559 *

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius IV 1559-1565 Council of Trent, conclusion

PIUS IV 1559-1565
COUNCIL OF TRENT, conclusion

SESSION XXI (July 16, 1562)

The Doctrine on Communion under both

Species and that of Little Children *

Preface

929a The holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit with the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding
has decreed that those things which relate to communion under both species, and to that of little children are to be explained here, since in different places
various monstrous errors concerning the tremendous an most holy sacrament of the Eucharist are being circulated by the wiles of the evil spirit; and for
this reason in some provinces many seem to have fallen away from the faith and from obedience to the Catholic Church. Therefore, it warns all the
faithful of Christ not to venture to believe' teach, or preach hereafter about those matters, otherwise than is explained or defined in these decrees.

Chap. 1. That Laymen and Clerics who not Of Bring Mass are not
Bound by Divine Law to Communion under Both Species

930 Thus, the holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, [Isa.
11:2]. and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics not officiating are bound by no divine
law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under
either species suffices for them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at the Last Supper instituted and delivered to the apostles this venerable
sacrament under the species of bread and wine [cf. Matt. 26:26 f.; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:23], f.], yet, that institution and tradition do not
contend that all the faithful of Christ by an enactment of the Lord are bound [can. 1, 2] to receive under both species [can. 1, 2]. But neither is it rightly
inferred from that sixth discourse in John that communion under both forms was commanded by the Lord [can. 3], whatever the understanding may be
according to the various interpretations of the holy Fathers and Doctors. For, He who said: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
blood, you shall not have life in you" [John 6:54], also said: "If anyone eat of this bread, he shall live forever" [John 6:52]. And He who said: "He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting" [John 6:55] also said: "The bread, which I shall give, is my flesh for the life of the world"
[John 6:52]: and finally, He who said: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him" [John 6:57], said nevertheless: "He
that eateth this bread, shall live forever" [John 6:58].

Chap. 2. The Power of the Church Concerning

the Administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

931 It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving
their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the
veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. Moreover, the Apostle seems to have intimated this in no
obscure manner, when he said: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" [1 Cor. 4:1]; and that
he himself used this power is quite manifest in this sacrament as well as in many other things, not only in this sacrament itself, but also in some things set
down-with regard to its use, he says: "The rest I will set in order when I come" [1 Cor. 11:23]. Therefore holy mother Church, cognizant of her authority
in the administration of the sacraments, although from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both species was not infrequent, nevertheless,
since that custom in the progress of time has been already widely changed, induced by weighty and just reasons, has approved this custom of
communicating under either species, and has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the
authority of the Church [can. 2].

Chap. 3. Christ Whole and Entire and a True Sacrament is

Received under Either Species

932 Moreover, it declares that although our Redeemer, as has been said before, at that Last Supper instituted this sacrament and gave it to the
apostles under two species, yet it must be confessed that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament is received even under either species alone, and that
on that account, as far as regards its fruit, those who receive only one species are not to be deprived of any grace which is necessary for salvation [can. 3].

Chap. 4. Little Children are not

Bound to Sacramental Communion

933 Finally, the same holy Synod teaches that little children without the use of reason are not bound by any necessity to the sacramental communion
of the Eucharist [can. 4.], since having been "regenerated" through "the laver" of baptism [Tit. 3:5], and having been incorporated with Christ they cannot
at that age lose the grace of the children of God which has already been attained; Nor is antiquity, therefore, to be condemned, if at one time it observed
this custom in some places. For, just as those most holy Fathers had good reason for an observance of that period, so certainly it is to be believed without
controversy that they did this under no necessity for salvation.

Canons on Communion Under Both Species

and that of Little Children *

934 Can. 1. If anyone says that each and every one of the faithful of Christ ought by a precept of God, or by necessity for salvation to receive both
species of the most holy Sacrament: let him be anathema [cf. n. 930].
935 Can. 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of
bread only to layman and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this: let him be anathema [cf. n. 931].

936 Can. 3. If anyone denies that Christ whole and entire, who is the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread,
because, as some falsely assert, He is not received according to the institution of Christ Himself under both species: let him be anathema [cf. n. 930, 932].
937 Can. 4. If anyone says that for small children, before they have attained the years of discretion, communion of the Eucharist is necessary: let
him be anathema [cf. n. 933].

SESSION XXII (Sept. 17, 1562)

The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass *

937a The holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit with the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding,
has decreed that the faith and doctrine concerning the great mystery of the Eucharist in the holy Catholic Church, complete and perfect in every way,
should be retained and, after the errors and heresies have been repudiated, should be preserved as of old in its purity; concerning this doctrine, since it is
the true and the only sacrifice, the holy Council, instructed by the light of the Holy Spirit, teaches these matters which follow, and declares that they be
preached to the faithful.
Chap. 1. [The Institution of the Most Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass] *

938 Since under the former Testament (as the Apostle Paul bears witness) there was no consummation because of the weakness of the Levitical
priesthood, it was necessary (God the Father of mercies ordaining it thus) that another priest according to the order of Melchisedech [Gen. 14:18; Ps.
109:4; Heb. 7:11] arise, our Lord Jesus Christ, who could perfect [Heb. 10:14] all who were to be sanctified, and lead them to perfection. He, therefore,
our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross by the mediation of death, so that He might
accomplish an eternal redemption for them [edd.: illic, there], nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end with His death [Heb. 7:24,
27] at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice [can. 1] (as the nature of
man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the
world [1 Cor. 11:23 ff.] and its saving grace be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted "a priest
forever according to the order of Melchisedech" Ps. 109:4; offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine, and
under the symbols of those same things gave to the apostles (whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament), so that they might partake, and He
commanded them and their successors in the priesthood in these words to make offering: "Do this in commemoration of me, etc." [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.
11:23], as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught [can. 2]. For, after He had celebrated the ancient feast of the Passover, which the
multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed [Exod. 12:1 ff.] in memory of their exodus from Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, Himself to be
immolated under visible signs by the Church through the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father, when by the shedding of
His blood He redeemed us and "delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into His kingdom [Col. 1:13].

939 And this, indeed, is that "clean oblation" which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice on the part of those who offer it; which the
Lord foretold through Malachias must be offered in every place as a clean oblation [Mal. 1:11] to His name, which would be great among the gentiles,
and which the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians has clearly indicated, when he says that they who are defiled by participation of the "table of the
devils" cannot become partakers of the table of the Lord [1 Cor. 10:21], understanding by table in each case, the altar. It is finally that [sacrifice] which
was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, in the period of nature and the Law [Gen. 4:4; 8:20; 12:8; 22; Ex: passim], inasmuch as it comprises all
good things signified by them, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.

Chap. 2. [The Sacrifice is a Visible Propitiation

for the Living and the Dead ]

940 And since in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who on
the altar of the Cross "once offered Himself" in a bloody manner [Heb. 9:27], the holy Synod teaches that this is truly propitiatory [can. 3], and has this
effect, that if contrite and penitent we approach God with a sincere heart and right faith, with fear and reverence, "we obtain mercy and find grace in
seasonable aid" [Heb. 4:16]. For, appeased by this oblation, the Lord, granting the grace and gift of penitence, pardons crimes and even great sins. For, it
is one and the same Victim, the same one now offering by the ministry of the priests as He who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner of offering
alone being different. The fruits of that oblation (bloody, that is) are received most abundantly through this unbloody one; so far is the latter from being
derogatory in any way to Him [can. 4]. Therefore, it is offered rightly according to the tradition of the apostles [can. 3], not only for the sins of the faithful
living, for their punishments and other necessities, but also for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged.

Chap. 3. [Masses in Honor of the Saints]

941 And though the Church has been accustomed to celebrate some Masses now and then in honor and in memory of the saints, yet she does not
teach that the sacrifice is offered to them, but to God alone, who has crowned them [can. 5]. Thence the priest is not accustomed to say: "I offer sacrifice
to you, Peter and Paul,'' * but giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, so that "they themselves may deign to intercede for us
in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth" [Missal].

Chap. 4. [The Canon of the Mass]

942 And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church,
that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from all error [can. 6], that it
contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists
both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs.

Chap. 5. [The Solemn Ceremonies of the sacrifice of the Mass]

943 And since such is the nature of man that he cannot easily without external means be raised to meditation on divine things, on that account holy
mother Church has instituted certain rites, namely, that certain things be pronounced in a subdued tone [can. 9] in the Mass, and others in a louder tone;
she has likewise [can. 7] made use of ceremonies such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind in accordance
with apostolic teaching and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be commended, and the minds of the faithful excited by these
visible signs of religion and piety to the contemplation of the most sublime matters which lie hidden in this sacrifice.

Chap. 6. [The Mass in which the Priest Alone Communicates]

944 The holy Synod would wish indeed that at every Mass the faithful present receive communion not only by spiritual desire, but also by the
sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that a more abundant fruit of this most holy Sacrifice may be brought forth in them; yet if that is not always
done, on that account it does not condemn [can. 8], those Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, as private and illicit, but rather
approves and commends them, since indeed these Masses should also be considered as truly common, partly because at these Masses the people
communicate spiritually, and partly, too, because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church not only for himself, but for all the faithful who
belong to the Body of Christ.

Chap. 7. [The Water to be Mixed with Wine

to be Offered in the Chalice]

945 The holy Synod then admonishes priests that it has been prescribed by the Church to mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice [can.
9], not only because the belief is that Christ the Lord did so, but also because there came from His side water together with blood [John 19:34], since by
this mixture the sacrament is recalled. And since in the Apocalypse of the blessed John the peoples are called waters [Rev. 17:1,15], the union of the
faithful people with Christ, their head, is represented.

Chap. 8. [The Mass not to be Celebrated in the Vernacular,

and its Mysteries to be Explained to the People]

946 Although the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has nevertheless not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it be celebrated
everywhere in the vernacular [can. 9]. For this reason, since the ancient rite of each church has been approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and
teacher of all churches, and has been retained everywhere, lest the sheep of Christ suffer hunger, and "little ones ask for bread and there is none to break it
unto them" [cf. Lam. 4:4], the holy Synod commands pastors and everyone who has the care of souls to explain frequently during the celebration of the
Masses, either themselves or through others, some of the things which are read in the Mass, and among other things to expound some mystery of this
most holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and feast days.

Chap. 9. [Preliminary Remarks on the Following Canons]

947 Because various errors have been disseminated at this time, and many things are being taught and discussions carried on by many against this
ancient faith founded on the holy Gospel, on the traditions of the apostles, and on the doctrine of the holy Fathers, the holy Synod, after long and grave
deliberations over these matters, has resolved by the unanimous consent of all the fathers, to condemn and to eliminate from the holy Church by means of
the following canons whatever is opposed to this most pure faith and to this sacred doctrine.

Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass *

948 Can. 1. If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being
given to us to eat: let him be anathema [cf. n.938].
949 Can. 2. If anyone says that by these words: "Do this for a commemoration of me" [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24], Christ did not make the apostles
priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema [cf. n. 938].

950 Can. 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice
consummated on the Cross, but not one of propitiation; or that it is of profit to him alone who receives; or that it ought not to be offered for the living and
the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema [cf. n. 940].
951 Can. 4. If anyone says that blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the Cross through the sacrifice of the
Mass, or that by it He is disparaged: let him be anathema [cf. n. 940].

952 Can. 5. If anyone says that it is a deception for Masses to be celebrated in honor of the saints and to obtain their intercession with God, as the
Church intends: let him be anathema [cf. n. 941].
953 Can. 6. If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema [cf. n. 942].
954 Can. 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are
incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema [cf. n. 943].

955 Can. 8. If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated: let him
be anathema [cf. n. 944].
956 Can. 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced
in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is
to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema [cf. n. 943, 945 f.].

SESSION XXIII (July 15, 1563)

956a The Doctrine on the Sacrament of Orders

Chap. 1. [The Institution of the Priesthood of the New Law]

957 Sacrifice and priesthood are so united by the ordinance of God that both have existed in every law. Since, therefore, in the New Testament the
Catholic Church has received from the institution of the Lord the holy, visible sacrifice of the Eucharist, it must also be confessed that there is in this
Church a new visible and external priesthood [can. 1], into which the old has been translated [Heb. 7:12]. Moreover, that this was instituted by that same
Lord our Savior [can. 3], and that to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood was handed down the power of consecrating, of offering and
administering His body and blood, and also of forgiving and retaining sins, the Sacred Scriptures show and the tradition of the Catholic Church has
always taught [can. 1].

Chap. 2. [The Seven Orders]

958 Moreover, since the ministry of this holy priesthood is a divine thing, it was proper that it should be exercised more worthily and with deeper
veneration, that in the most well ordered arrangement of the Church, there should be different orders of ministers [Matt. 16:19; Luke 22:19; John 20:22
f.], who by virtue of their office should administer to the priesthood, so distributed that those who already had the clerical tonsure should ascend through
the minor to the major orders [can. 2]. For the Sacred Scriptures make distinct mention not only of the priests, but also of the deacons [Acts 6:5; 1 Tim.
3:8 f.; Phil. 1:1], and teach in the most impressive words what is especially to be observed in their ordination; and from the very beginning of the Church
the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely those of the subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist,
rector, and porter, though not of equal rank; for the subdiaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and the sacred Councils, in which we
also read very frequently of other inferior orders.

Chap. 3. [The Order of the Priesthood is Truly a Sacrament]

959 Since from the testimony of Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the un- animous consensus of opinion of the Fathers it is evident that by sacred
ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, grace is conferred, no one can doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven
sacraments of the Church [can. 3 ]. For the Apostle says: "I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my
hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of sobriety" [2 Tim. 1:6, 7; cf. 1 Tim. 4: 14].

Chap. 4. [The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Ordination]

960 But since in the sacrament of orders, as also in baptism and in confirmation, a sign is imprinted [can. 4], which can neither be effaced nor taken
away, justly does the holy Synod condemn the opinion of those who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power, and that
those at one time rightly ordained can again become laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the word of God [can. 1 ]. But if anyone should affirm
that all Christians without distinction are priests of the New Testament, or that they are all endowed among themselves with an equal spiritual power, he
seems to do nothing else than disarrange [can. 6] the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is "as an army set in array" [cf. Song. 6:3], just as if, contrary to the
teaching of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors [cf. 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11]. Accordingly, the holy Synod
declares that besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops who have succeeded the Apostles, belong in a special way to this hierarchial order, and
have been "placed (as the same Apostle says) by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God" [Acts 20:29], and that they are superior to priests, and
administer the sacrament of confirmation, ordain ministers of the Church, and can perform many other offices over which those of an inferior order have
no power [can. 7]. The holy Synod teaches, furthermore, that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of other orders, the consent, or call, or authority of
the people, or of any secular power or magistrate is not so required for the validity of the ordination; but rather it decrees that those who are called and
instituted only by the people, or by the civil power or magistrate and proceed to exercise these offices, and that those who by their own temerity take
these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as "thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door" [cf. John
10:1; can. 8]. These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of
order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of
faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, and may adhere
to it.

Canons on the Sacrament of Order *

961 Can. 1. If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and
offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or that
those who do not preach are not priests at all: let him be anathema [cf. n. 957 960].
962 Can. 2. If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church no other orders, both major and minor, by which as by
certain grades, there is an advance to the priesthood: let him be anathema [cf. n. 958].

963 Can. 3. If anyone says that order or sacred ordination is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord, or that it is some
human contrivance, devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters, or that it is only a certain rite for selecting ministers of the word of God and of the
sacraments: let him be anathema [cf. n. 957, 959].
964 Can. 4. If anyone says that by sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not imparted, and that therefore the bishops say in vain: "Receive ye the Holy
Spirit"; or that by it a character is not imprinted or that he who has once been a priest can again become a layman: let him be anathema [cf. n. 852].

965 Can. 5. If anyone says that the sacred unction which the Church uses in holy ordination, is not only not required, but is to be contemned and is
pernicious as also are the other ceremonies of order: let him be anathema [cf. n. 856].
966 Can. 6. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church a hierarchy has not been instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of the bishops, priests,
and ministers: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].

967 Can. 7. If anyone says that the bishops are not superior to priests; or that they do not have the power to confirm and to ordain, or, that the power
which they have is common to them and to the priests; or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power
are invalid, or, that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are
lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].

968 Can. 8. If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of the Roman Pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but a human
invention: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].

SESSION XXIV (NOV. 11, 1563)

Doctrine (Concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony) *

969 The first parent of the human race expressed the perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony under the influence of the divine Spirit, when he
said: "This now is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife' and they shall be
two in one flesh" [Gen. 2:23 f.; cf. Eph. 5:31].
But that by this bond two only are united and joined together, Christ the Lord taught more openly, when referring to those last words, as having
been uttered by God, He said: "Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh" [Matt. 19:6], and immediately ratified the strength of this same bond,
pronounced by Adam so long ago in these words: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder" [Matt. 19:6; Mark10:9].

But the grace which was to perfect that natural love, and confirm the indissoluble union, and sanctify those united in marriage, Christ Himself,
institutor and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His passion. The Apostle Paul intimates this, when he says: "Men, love your wives
as Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it" [Eph. 5:25], directly adding: "This is a great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the
Church" [Eph. 5:32].

970 Since, therefore, matrimony in the evangelical law, by grace through Christ, excels the ancient marriages, our holy Fathers, the Councils, and
the tradition of the universal Church have with good reason always taught that it is to be classed among the sacraments of the New Law; and, since
impious men of this age, madly raging against this teaching, have not only formed false judgments concerning this venerable sacrament, but according to
their custom, introducing under the pretext of the Gospel a carnal liberty, have in writing and in word asserted many things foreign to the mind of the
Catholic Church and to the general opinion approved! from the time of the apostles, not without great loss of the faithful of Christ, this holy and general
Synod wishing to block their temerity has decided, lest their pernicious contagion attract more, that the more prominent heresies and errors of the
aforesaid schismatics are to be destroyed, decreeing anathemas against these heretics and their errors.

971 Can. 1. If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical Law, instituted by Christ the
Lord,. but that it has been invented by men in the Church, and does not confer grace: let him be anathema [cf. n. 969 f.].
972 Can. 2. If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several) wives at the same time, and that it is not forbidden by any divine law
[Matt. 19:4 f.]: let him be anathema [cf. n. 969 f.].

973 Can. 3. If anyone says that only those degrees of consanguinity and, affinity which are expressed in Leviticus [
18:6 f.] can be impediments to' the contract of matrimony and can dissolve it when contracted, and that the Church
can dispense in some of these, or establish more to impede or; invalidate: let him be anathema [cf. n1550 f.].

974 Can. 4. If anyone says that the Church could not establish impediments invalidating marriage [cf. Matt.16:19 ];
or that she has erred in establishing them: let him be anathema.
 975 Can. 5. If anyone says that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved because of heresy, or grievous

cohabitation, or voluntary absence from the spouse: let him be anathema.

976 Can. 6. If anyone says that matrimony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by a solemn religious

profession of either one of the married persons: let him be anathema.

977 Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs,* inasmuch as she has taught and still teaches that in accordance

with evangelical and apostolic doctrine Matt. 10: 1 1Cor. 7 ] the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved because

of adultery of one of the married persons, and that both, or even the innocent one, who has given no occasion for
adultery, cannot during the lifetime of the other contract another marriage, and that he, who after the dismissal of the

adulteress shall marry another, is guilty of adultery, and that she also, who after the dismissal of the adulterer shall
marry another: let him be anathema.
978 Can. 8. If anyone says that the Church errs, when she decrees that for many reasons a separation may take

place between husband and wife with regard to bed, and with regard to cohabitation, for a determined or

indetermined time: let him be anathema.

979 Can. 9. If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed

chastity, can contract marriage, and that such marriage is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or the vow,

and that the contrary is nothing else than a condemnation of marriage, and that all who feel that they have not the gift

of chastity (even though they have vowed it) can contract marriage: let him be anathema. Since God does not refuse
that gift to those who seek it rightly, "neither does he suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able1 Cor.
10:13 ].
Can. 10. If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is

980

not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony [Matt. 19:11 f.;1 Cor.
7:25 f.28-40 ]: let him be anathema.
981 Can. 11. If anyone says that the prohibition of the solemnization of marriages at certain times of the year is a

tyrannical superstition, derived from the superstition of the heathen, or condemns the benedictions and other

ceremonies which the Church makes use of in them: let him be anathema.
982 Can. 12. If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema [see

n. 1500a , 1559 f.].

SESSION XXV (Dec. 3 and 4, 1563)

Decree Concerning Purgatory *

983 Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, in conformitywith the sacred writings and the ancient
tradition of the Fathers in sacred councils, and very recently in this ecumenical Synod, has taught that there is a
purgatory [see n. 940 ,950 ], and that the souls detained there are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, and
especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy Synod commands the bishops that they insist that the
sound doctrine of purgatory, which has been transmitted by the holy Fathers and holy Councils, be believed by the
faithful of Christ, be maintained, taught, and everywhere preached. Let the more difficult and subtle "questions,"
however, and those which do not make for "edification" [cf. 1 Tim. 1:4], and from which there is very often no
increase in piety, be excluded from popular discourses to uneducated people. Likewise, let them not permit
uncertain matters, or those that have the appearance of falsehood, to be brought out and discussed publicly. Those
matters on the contrary, which tend to a certain curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, let them
prohibit as scandals and stumbling blocks to the faithful
 Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images *

984 The holy Synod commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and its administration, that in
accordance with the usage of the Catholic and apostolic Church, received from primeval times of the Christian
religion, and with the consensus of opinion of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred Councils, they above all
diligently instruct the faithful on the intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the
legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their prayers to God
for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through
His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Savior, to have recourse to their prayers,
assistance, and support; and that they who deny that those saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be
invoked, think impiously, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them, to intercede
for each of us individually, is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God, and inconsistent with the honor of
the "one mediator of God and men Jesus Christ" [cf. 1 Tim. 2:5 ], or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to
those who reign in heaven.
985 That the holy bodies of the saints and also of the martyrs and of others living with Christ, who were the living
"members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit" [cf.1 Cor. 3:16 ;6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16 ], which are to be
awakened by Him to eternal life and to be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful, through which many benefits
are bestowed by God on men, so that those who affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the
saints, or that these and other memorials are honored by the faithful without profit, and that the places dedicated to
the memory of the saints for the purpose of obtaining their help are visited in vain, let these be altogether
condemned, just as the Church has for a long time condemned and now condemns them again.
986 Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be placed and
retained especially in the churches, and that due honor and veneration be extended to them, not that any divinity or
virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be venerated, or that anything is to be petitioned from them, or
that trust is to be placed in images, as at one time was done by the gentiles, who placed their hope in idols [Ps.
134:15 f.], but because the honor which is shown them, is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that
by means of the images, which we kiss and before which we bare the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore
Christ, and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear. This is what was sanctioned by the decrees of the
councils, especially that of the second council of NICEA, against the opponents of images [see n. 302 ff.].
987 Indeed let the bishops diligently teach this, that by the accounts of the mysteries of our redemption, portrayed in
pictures or in other representations, the people are instructed and confirmed in the articles of faith which should be
kept in mind and constantly pondered over; then, too, that from all sacred images great profit is derived not only
because the people are reminded of the benefits and gifts, which are bestowed upon them by Christ, but also,
because through the saints the miracles of God and salutary examples are set before the eyes of the faithful, so that
they may give thanks to God for those things, may fashion their own lives and conduct in imitation of the saints, and
be stimulated to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary
to these decrees, let him be anathema.
988 If any abuses shall creep into these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod earnestly desires that they be
entirely abolished, so that no representations of false dogma and those offering occasion of dangerous error to
uneducated persons be exhibited. And if at times it happens that the accounts and narratives of the Holy Scripture,
when this is of benefit to the uneducated people, are portrayed and exhibited, let the people be instructed that not
for that reason is the divinity represented, as if it can be seen with bodily eyes, or expressed in colors and figures. . .

Decree Concerning Indulgences *

989 Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church, and she has made use of such
power divinely given to her, [cf.Matt. 16:19 ;18:18 ] even in the earliest times, the holy Synod teaches and
commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to a Christian people and approved by the authority of the
sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns those with anathema who assert that they are
useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. . . .

Clandestinity Invalidating Matrimony *

[From Session XXIX Chap. (1) "Tametsi" on the reformation of matrimony]

990 Although it is not to be doubted that clandestine marriages made with the free consent of the contracting parties,
are valid and true marriages, so long as the Church has not declared them invalid; and consequently that they are
justly to be condemned, as the holy Synod condemns those with anathema, who deny that they are true and valid,
and those also who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by minors without the consent of parents are invalid, and
that parents can make them sanctioned or void, nevertheless the holy Church of God for very just reasons has
always detested and forbidden them. But while the holy Synod recognizes that those prohibitions by reason of man's
disobedience are no longer of any use, and considers the grave sins which have their origin in such clandes tine
marriage, especially, indeed, the sins of those who remain in the state of damnation, after abandoning the first wife,
with whom they made a secret contract, while they publicly contract another, and live with her in continual adultery,
since the Church, which does not judge what is hidden, cannot correct this evil, unless a more efficacious remedy be
applied, therefore by continuing in the footsteps of the holy Lateran Council [IV] proclaimed under INNOCENT
III, it commands that in the future, before a marriage is contracted, public announcement be made three times on
three consecutive feast days in the Church during the celebration of the Masses, by the proper pastor of the
contracting parties between whom the marriage is to be contracted; after these publications have been made, if no
legitimate impediment is put in the way, one can proceed with the celebration of the marriage in the open church,
 where the parish priest, after the man and woman have been questioned, and their mutual consent has been
ascertained, shall either say: "I join you together in matrimony, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit," or use other words, according to the accepted rite of each province.
991 But if at some time there should be a probable suspicion that a marriage m can be maliciously hindered, if so
many publications precede it, then either one publication only may be made, or the marriage may be celebrated at
once in the presence of the parish priest and of two or three witnesses; then before its consummation the
publications should be made in the church, so that, if any impediments exist, they may the more easily be detected,
unless the ordinary himself may judge it advisable that the publications be dispensed with, which the holy Synod
leaves to his prudence and judgment.
992 Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of another
priest with the authorization of the parish priest or the ordinary, in the presence of two or three witnesses, the holy
Synod renders absolutely incapable of thus contracting marriage, and declares that contracts of this kind are invalid
and nil, inasmuch as by the present decree it invalidates and annuls them.

The Trinity and the Incarnation (against the Unitarians) *

[From the ordinance of Paul IV, "Cum quorundam," * Aug. 7, 1555]

993 Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander
and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to
deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in
accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from
so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and
each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that Almighty God was not three in persons and of an entirely
uncomposedand undivided unity of substance and one single simple essence of divinity; or that our Lord is not true
God of the same substance in every way with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or that He was not conceived of the
Holy Spirit according to the flesh in the womb of the most blessed and ever Virgin Mary, but from the seed of
Joseph just as the rest of men; or that the same Lord and our God, Jesus Christ, did not submit to the most cruel
death of the Cross to redeem us from sins and from eternal death, and to reunite us with the Father unto eternal life;
or that the same most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the
integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of th
omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.

The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent *

[From the Bull of Pius IV, "Iniunctum nobis," Nov. 13, 1565]

994 I, N., with firm faith believe and profess all and everything which is contained in the creed of faith, which the
holy Roman Church uses, namely: I believe * in one God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all
things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father
before all ages, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father,
by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven, and became
incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was also crucified for us under Pontius
Pilate, suffered and was buried; and he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;
he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose
kingdom there shall be no end; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and
the Son; who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets; and in
one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and I await the resurrection
of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
995 The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I
most firmly admit and embrace. I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother
Church has held and does hold, whose [office] it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the
Fathers.
996 I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our
Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although not all are necessary for each individual; these
sacraments are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony; and [I
profess] that the- confer grace, and that of these baptism, confirmation, and order cannot be repeated without
sacrilege. I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn
administration of all the aforesaid sacraments. I embrace and accept each and everything that has been defined and
declared by the holy Synod of Trent concerning original sin and justification.
997 I also profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper sacrifice of propitiation for the living and
the dead, and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially present the
body and blood together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there takes place a
conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood;
and this conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also acknowledge that under one species alone
the whole and entire Christ and the true sacrament are taken.
998 I steadfastly hold that a purgatory exists, and that the souls there detained are aided by the prayers of the
faithful; likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ should be venerated and invoked, and that they offer
prayers to God for us, and that their relics should be venerated. I firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the
Mother of God ever Virgin, and also of the other saints should be kept and retained, and that due honor and
veneration should be paid to them; I also affirm that the power of indulgences has been left in the Church by Christ,
 and that the use of them is especially salutary for the Christian people.
999 I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and to
the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles and vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and
swear true obedience.
1000 Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecumenical Councils, and especially
by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, (and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican, *particularly concerning the
primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching), I without hesitation accept and profess; and at the same
time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by
the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be
saved, (and) which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold, I, N., do promise, vow, and swear that I will,
with the help of God, most faithfully retain and profess the same to the last breath of life as pure and inviolable, and
that I will take care as far as lies in my power that it be held, taught, and preached by my subjects or by those over
whom by virtue of my office I have charge, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

St. Pius V 1566-1572

ST. PIUS V 1566-1572

Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) *

[Condemned in the Bull "Ex omnibus afflictionibus," Oct. 1, 1567]

1001 1. Neither the merits of an angel nor of the first man still in the state of integrity are called grace.
1002 2. Just as an evil work by its nature is deserving of eternal death, so a good work by its own nature is meritorious of eternal life.
1003 3. Felicity would be the reward, and not grace both for the good angels and for the first man, if he had persevered in that state even to the end of
his life.
1004 4. Eternal life was promised to integral man and to the angel in view of good works, and good works in themselves from the law of nature
suffice for attaining it.
1005 5. In the promise made both to the angel and to the first man is contained the disposition of natural justice, whereby for good works without any
other regard eternal life is promised to the just.
1006 6. By the natural law it has been ordained for man that, if he would persevere in obedience, he would attain to that life, in which he could not
die.
1007 7. The merits of the first integral man were the gifts of the first creation, but according to the manner of speech in Sacred Scripture they are not
rightly called grace; for this reason they should be called merits only, not also grace.
1008 8. In the redeemed through the grace of Christ no good merit can be found, which may not be freely bestowed upon one who is unworthy.
1009 9. Gifts bestowed upon integral man and to an angel, perhaps not to be condemned by reason, can be called grace; but, according to the use of
Sacred Scripture, these gifts which were bestowed through Jesus Christ upon those badly meriting and unworthy of them are understood only by the
name of grace; therefore, neither the merits nor the reward, which is rendered to them, should be called grace.
1010 10. The remission of temporal punishment, which often remains after the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the body must properly be
ascribed only to the merits of Christ.
1011 11. The fact that having lived piously and justly in this mortal life even to the end of life we attain eternal life, should not be imputed to the
grace of God, but to the natural order instantly ordained in the beginning of creation by the just judgment of God; neither in this recompense of goods is
regard paid to the merit of Christ, but only to the first institution of the human race, in which it is ordained by the natural law that by the just judgment of
God eternal life is paid for obedience to His mandates.
1012 12. The opinion of Pelagius is: A good work performed without the grace of adoption, is not meritorious of the heavenly kingdom.
1013 13. Good works, performed by the sons of adoption, do not receive a consideration of merit from the fact that they are done through the spirit of
adoption which lives in the hearts of the sons of God, but only from the fact that they are conformable to law, and because through them obedience is
preferred to law.
1014 14. The good works of the just do not receive on the day of the last judgment a fuller reward than they deserve to receive by the just judgment
of God.
1015 15. The reason of merit does not consist in this, that he who works well should have grace and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but in this only, that
he obeys the divine law.
1016 16. That is not true obedience of the law, which is done without charity.
1017 17. They are in agreement with Pelagius who say that it is necessary for reason of merit, that man through the grace of adoption be lifted up to a
deified state.
1018 18. The works of the catechumens, as faith and penance performed before the remission of sins, are merits for eternal life; and they will not
attain this life, unless the impediments of preceding faults are first taken away.
1019 19. The works of justice and temperance which Christ performed, have not obtained greater value from the dignity of the person operating.
1020 20. No sin is venial by its own nature, but every sin deserves eternal punishment.
1021 21. The sublimation and exaltation of human nature in participation with the divine nature has been due to the integrity of the first condition,
and hence must be called natural, and not supernatural.
1022 22. They agree with Pelagius who understand the text of the Apostle to the Romans: "The nations, who do not have a law, do naturally the
things, which are of the law" [Rom. 2:14], concerning nations who do not possess the grace of faith.
1023 23. Absurd is the opinion of those who say that man from the beginning, by a certain supernatural and gratuitous gift, was raised above the
condition of his nature, so that by faith, hope, and charity he cherished God supernaturally.
1024 24. By vain and idle men, in keeping with the folly of philosophers, is the opinion devised which must be referred to Pelagianism, that man was
so constituted from the beginning that through gifts added upon nature by the bounty of the Creator he was raised and adopted into the sonship of God.
1025 25. All works of infidels are sins, and the virtues of philosophers are vices.
1026 26. The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.
1027 27. Free will, without the help of God's grace, has only power for sin.
1028 28. It is a Pelagian error to say that free will has the power to avoid any sin.
1029 29. Not only are they "thieves" and "robbers" who deny that Christ is the way and "the door" of the truth and life, but also whoever teaches that
there can be ascent [cf. John 10:1; to the way of justice (that is to any justice) otherwise than through Him,
1030 30. or, that man can resist any temptation without the help of His grace, so that he may not be led into it and not be overcome by it.
1031 31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as
well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
1032 32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
1033 33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only
received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
1034 34. That distinction of a twofold love, namely a natural one, by which God is loved as the author of nature, and of a gratuitous love, by which
God is loved as one who blesses, is vain and false and devised to ridicule the sacred literature and most of the testimonies of the ancients.
1035 35. Every action which a sinner, or a slave of sin performs is a sin.
1036 36. Natural love which arises from the force of nature, is defended by some doctors according to philosophy alone through the pride of human
presumption with injury to the Cross of Christ.
1037 37. He agrees with Pelagius, who acknowledges anything as a natural good, that is, whatever he thinks has arisen from the forces of nature
alone.
1038 38. All love of a rational creature is either vicious cupidity, by which the world is loved, which is prohibited by John; or that praiseworthy
charity by which "when poured forth" by the Holy Spirit in our heart [Rom. 5:5], God is loved.
1039 39. What is voluntarily done, even though it be done by necessity, is nevertheless freely done.
1040 40. In all his actions a sinner serves his ruling passion.
1041 41. This measure of freedom, which is of necessity, is not found in the Scriptures under the name of freedom, but is merely the name for
freedom from sin.
1042 42. Justice, by which an impious person is justified by faith, consists formally in the obedience of mandates, which is the justice of works; not
however in any grace [habitual] infused into the soul, by which man is adopted into the sonship of God and renewed according to the interior man and
made a sharer of the divine nature, so that, thus renewed through the Holy Spirit, he can in turn live well and obey the mandates of God.

1043 43. In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated
from the remission of sin.
1044 44. In most good works performed by the faithful, simply to obey the mandates of God, such as obedience to parents, paying a trust, abstain ing
from homicide, theft, fornication, certain men are justified, because these are obedience to the law and the true justice of the law; and yet they do not
obtain for them the increments of the virtues.

1045 45. The sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice for no other reason than for that general one by which "every work is performed that man may be
closely connected with God in holy association." *
1046 46. Voluntariness does not pertain to the essence and definition of sin, nor is it a question of definition, but of cause and origin, whether every
sin is bound to be voluntary.
1047 47. Therefore original sin truly has the essence of sin without any relation and respect to will, from which it had its origin.

1048 48. Original sin is voluntary in the habitual will of a child and habitually dominates the child, in this, that a child does not act contrary to the
freedom of the will.
1049 49. And from an habitually dominating will it comes to pass that a small child, dying without the sacrament of regeneration, when he has
attained the use of reason actually holds God in hatred, blasphemes God, and resists the law of God.
1050 50. Bad desires, to which reason does not consent, and which man unwillingly suffers, are prohibited by the precept: "Thou shalt not covet" [cf.
Exod. 20:17].

1051 51. Concupiscence, whether the law of the members, and its depraved desires which men experience against their will, are the true
disobediences of the law.
1052 52. Every crime is of this nature, that it can corrupt its author and all posterity in the way in which the first transgression corrupted.
1053 53. As much as arises from the force of transgression, so much of merited evils do they contract from the one generating, those who are born
with lesser faults as well as those who are born with greater ones.

1054 54. This definitive opinion, that God has given no impossible commands to man, is falsely attributed to Augustine, whereas it belongs to
Pelagius.
1055 55. God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now.
1056 56. There are two things in sin, an act and guilt; when, however, the act has passed, nothing remains except the guilt and the obligation to pay
the penalty.
1057 57. Therefore, in the sacrament of baptism or in the absolution of the priest the guilt of the sin only is taken away, and the ministry of the priests
frees from guilt alone.

1058 58. A penitent sinner is not vivified by the ministry of a priest who absolves, but by God alone, who by suggesting and inspiring penance,
vivifies and brings him back to life; however, by the ministry of the priest on the other hand, the guilt alone is taken away.
1059 59. When by almsgiving and other works of penance we make satis- faction to God for temporal punishments, we do not offer a worthy price to
God for our sins, as some erring persons affirm (for otherwise, at least in some part, we should be redeemers); but we do something, in view of which the
satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated to us.

1060 60. Through the sufferings of the saints communicated in indulgences, our sins are not properly atoned for; but through a communion of charity
their sufferings are communicated to us, that we, who were freed by the price of the blood of Christ from punishments due to sins, may be worthy.
1061 61. That famous distinction of the doctors, that the mandates of the divine law are fulfilled in two ways: in one way, in so far as pertains to the
substance of the works alone; in the other way, in so far as pertains to a definite manner, namely, according to which they can guide the doer to eternal life
(that is in the meritorious manner), is fabricated and should be rejected.

1062 62. That distinction also by which a work is called good in two ways, either because it is right and good from its object and all its circumstances
(which is usually termed moral), or because it is meritorious of the eternal kingdom, in so far as it proceeds from a living member of Christ the Spirit of
charity, must be rejected.
1063 63. Moreover that distinction of a twofold justice, one which is brought to pass through the indwelling Spirit of charity, the other which arises
from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit exciting the heart to penance, but not yet dwelling in the heart and diffusing charity in it, by which the justification
of the divine law may be fulfilled, is similarly condemned.

1064 64. And likewise that distinction of a twofold vivification, the one, by which a sinner is vivified, when the resolution to penance and the
beginning of a new life through the grace of God inspire him; the other, by which he is vivified who is truly justified and is made a living branch on the
vine for Christ, is equally deceitful and in no way consonant with the Scriptures.
1065 65. Some good, or at least not bad use of free will can be admitted only by a Pelagian error; and he who knows and teaches this, does injury to
the grace of Christ.

1066 66. Violence alone repels the natural liberty of man.

1067 67. Man sins, even to damnation, in what he does by necessity.
1068 68. Purely negative infidelity in those among whom Christ has not been preached, is a sin.
1069 69. The justification of a wicked man takes place formally through obedience to the law, not, however, through the hidden communication and
the inspiration of grace, which makes those justified by it fulfill the law.

1070 70. Man existing in the state of mortal sin, or under the penalty of eternal damnation can have true charity; and even perfect charity can exist
along with the guilt of eternal damnation.
1071 71. Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the
actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom.
1072 72. All afflictions of the just are punishments for sins themselves, therefore, both Job and the martyrs suffered what they suffered on account of
sins.

1073 73. No one except Christ is free from original sin; hence, the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all of her afflictions
in this life as well as those of other just persons were the punishments for actual sin, or for original sin.
1074 74. Concupiscence in the regenerated who have fallen back into mortal sin, and in those in whom it dominates, is a sin, as also are other bad
habits.
1075 75. The bad impulses of concupiscence in the state of depraved man are prohibited by the precept: "Thou shalt not covet" [Exod. 20:17]. hence,
a man aware of these and not consenting, transgresses the precept: "Thou shalt not covet," although the transgression is not to be classed as a sin.

1076 76. As long as there is something of carnal concupiscence in one who loves, he does not fulfill the precept: "Thou shalt love the Lord with thy
whole heart" [Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37].
1077 77. Laborious satisfactions of those who are justified are of no avail to expiate condignly the temporal punishments remaining after the fault has
been remitted.
1078 78. The immortality of the first man was not a benefit of grace, but a natural condition.

1079 79. The opinion of the doctors that the first man could have been created by God and established without natural justice, is false.
1080 These opinions have been carefully considered and examined before us; although some of them could be maintained in some way,* yet in the
strict and proper sense intended by those asserting them, we condemn them respectively as heretical, erroneous, suspect, rash, scandalous, and as giving
offense to pious ears.

Exchanges (i.e., Exchanging of Money, Promissory Notes) *

[From the ordinance "In earn pro nostro," Jan 28, 1571]

1081 First (then) we condemn all those exchanges which are called fictitious, (elsewhere, dry), and are so devised that the contracting parties at
certain market places or at other localities pretend to solemnize exchanges; at which places those who receive money, actually hand over their letters of
exchange, but they are not sent, or they are so sent that, when the time has passed they are brought back void, whence they had set out; or, even when no
letters of this kind were handed over, the money is finally demanded with interest, where the contract had been solemnized; for between givers and
receivers even from the beginning it had been so decided, or surely such was the intention, and there is no one who in the marketplaces or the above
mentioned places makes payment, when such letters are received. And similar to this evil is also that, when money or deposits or by another name
fictitious exchanges are handed over so that afterwards in the same place or elsewhere they are paid back with interest.

1082 But even in the exchanges which are called real, sometimes, as it is reported to me, bankers put off the prescribed term of payment, when a
profit has been received according to tacit or expressed agreement or even only a promise. All these things we declare to be usurious, and strictly prohibit
their being done.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Gregory XIII 1572-1585
GREGORY XIII 1572-1585

Profession of Faith Prescribed for the Greeks *

[From the acts concerning the union of the Greco-Russian church, 1575]

1083 I, N., in firm faith believe and profess each and every thing which is contained in the Creed of faith, which the holy Roman Church uses,
namely: I believe in one God [as in the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, n. 86, 994].
1084 I also believe, and I accept and profess all the things which the holy ecumenical Synod of FLORENCE defined and declared concerning the
union of the western and eastern Church, namely that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; and that He has His essence and His
subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together; and that He proceeds from both eternally, as from one principle and by a single procession,
since what the holy Doctors and Fathers say comes to mean the same thing, that from the Father through the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that the
Son, according to the Greeks, is also the cause, and according to the Latins, indeed the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father. All
things, however, which are of the Father, the Father Himself has given to His only-begotten Son in generation, outside of being the Father; the very fact
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself eternally has from the Father, by whom He has also been eternally begotten. And that the
explanation of these words, "Filioque," for the sake of declaring the truth, and because of imminent necessity, has lawfully and reasonably been added to
the Creed. . . . The text follows from the decrees of the union of the Greeks. Council of FLORENCE.

1085 Besides, I profess and accept all the other things which the holy Roman and Apostolic Church, according to the decrees of the holy ecumenical
general Synod of TRENT, proposed and prescribed should be professed and accepted, as well as the contents in the above mentioned creeds of faith, as
follows:
Apostolic . . . and all the rest, as in the profession of faith of TRENT [n. 995 ff.].

SIXTUS V 1585 - 1590 GREGORY XIV 1590 - 1591

URBAN VII 1590 INNOCENT IX 1591

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Clement VIII 1592-1605

CLEMENT VIII 1592-1605

The Faculty of Blessing Sacred Oils *

[From the Instruction concerning the rites of the Italo-Greeks, August 30, 1595]

1086 (3) . . . Greek priests are not to be forced to accept the holy oils, except the chrism from the Latin diocesan bishops, since oils of this kind are
produced and blessed by them in the furnishing of the oils and the presensation of the sacraments according to the ancient rite. . . . Let them be forced to
accept chrism, however, which, even according to their rite, cannot be blessed except by a bishop.

Ordination of Schismatics
[From the same Instruction] *

1087 (4) Those ordained by schismatic bishops, who have been otherwise duly ordained, the due form having been observed, receive, indeed,
ordination, but not jurisdiction.

Absolution of One in absentia *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, June 20, 1602]

1088 His Holiness . . . condemned and forbade as false, rash, and scandalous the proposition, namely, "that it is lawful through letters or through a
messenger to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor, and to receive absolution from that same absent confessor," and orders in turn that that
proposition thereafter not be taught in public or private gatherings, assemblies, and congresses; and that it never in any case be defended as probable, be
given the stamp of approval, or be reduced in any way to practice.

1089 According to an opinion of the Holy Office, published repeatedly (especially on June 7, 1603, and January 24, 1522) under Clement VIII and
Paul V, this decree also in a divided sense, i.e., on confession and on absolution separately, is sound; to the decree of the Holy Office a reply was made on
July 14. 1605: "The most holy has decreed that the mentioned interpretation of P. Suarez on the above mentioned decree [namely, on the divided sense] is
not adequate," and, according to a decree of the Congregation of the Fathers Theologians on June 7, 1603, it cannot be supported "from that case, when
upon only signs of repentance being given and reported to a priest who is present, absolution is given one on the very point of death after confession of
sins was made to an absent priest, since it contains an entirely conflicting difficulty." This decree, "by the aforesaid Supreme Pontiffs" is said to have been
approved in a decree published on January 24, 1622, by a cardinal, one of the Inquisitors, together with some theologians, and is published a second time:
according infants in Italy and adjacent islands, since this was expressly forbidden [see n. 1459] them by Clement Vlll in the year 1595. to a decree of
January 24, 1622, "from the case of that sick person, to whom on the very point of death upon petitioning for confession and after signs of repentance
were given, and reported to a priest who is coming, absolution is given, although (the circumstances) contain conflicting reason, no controversy can arise
over the spoken decree of Clement VIII.'' *

LEO XI 1605

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Paul V 1605-1621

PAUL V 1605-1621

The Aids or Efficacy of Grace *

[From the formula for ending disputes sent to the superior generals of the Order of Preachers and of theSociety of Jesus, Sept. 5, 1607]

1090 In the matter of aids [de auxiliis] the right is granted by the Supreme Pontiff not only to the disputants but also to the consultors of returning to
their countries and their homes; and it is added that this will be so that His Holiness may promulgate at an opportune time the declaration and conclusion
which were awaited. But it was most seriously forbidden by the same Most Holy Lordship that in treating this question anyone either qualify the position
opposite his own or note it with any censure. Even more he desires that they in turn abstain from harsh words indicating bitterness of mind.*

GREGORY XV 1621 - 1623 URBAN VIII 1623 - 1644

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Innocent X 1644-1655

INNOCENT X 1644-1655

Error of the Dual Head of the Church (or the Primacy of R. P.) *
[From the decree of the Sacred Office, Jan. 24, 1647]

1091 The most holy . . . has decreed and declared heretical this proposition so presented that it established an exact equality between St. PETER and
St. Paul, without subordination and subjection of St. Paul to St. Peter in supreme power, and in the rule of the universal Church: "St. PETER and St. Paul
are the two princes of the Church who form one head, or: there are two Catholic heads and supreme leaders Of the Catholic Church, joined in highest
unity between themselves"; or, "the head Of the Catholic Church consists of two who are most divinely united into one"; or, "there are two supreme
pastors and guardians of the Church, who form one head only."

Errors (5) of Cornelius Jansen *

[Excerpts from "Augustinus" and condemned in the Constitutions
"Cum occasione," May 31. 1658]

1092 I. 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.
1093 2. In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace.
Declared and condemned as heretical.
1094 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.

1095 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 resist or obey.
Declared and condemned as false and heretical.
1096 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 intended in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious,
blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical.

The Aids or Efficacy of Grace *

[From the decree against the Jansenists, April 23, 1654]

1097 But, since at Rome as well as elsewhere there are being circulated certain assertions, acts, manuscripts, and, perchance, printed documents of
the Congregations held in the presence of most happily reigning Clement VIII and Paul V on the question of "Aids of Divine Grace," both under the name
of Francis Payne, once Dean of the Roman Rota, and under the name of Fr. Thomas of Lemos, O.P., and of other prelates and theologians, who, as it is
asserted, were present at the aforementioned Congregations, besides a certain autograph or exemplar of the Constitution of the same Paul V on the
definition of the aforesaid question On Aids, and of the condemnation of the opinion or opinions of Louis Molina, S.J., His Holiness by the present decree
declares and decrees that no trust at all is to be placed in the above-mentioned assertions, acts, on behalf of the opinion of the Brothers, O.S.D., as well as
of Louis Molina and of the other religious, S.J., and in the autograph or exemplar of the above mentioned Constitution of Paul V; and that nothing can or
ought to be alleged by either side or by anyone whatsoever; but that on this aforesaid question the decrees of Paul V and Urban VIII, their predecessors,
are to be observed.*

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Alexander VII 1655-1667

ALEXANDER VII 1655-1667

The Meaning of the Words of Cornelius Jansen *

[From the Constitution "Ad sacram beati PETRI Sedem," Oct. 16, 1656]

1098 (6) 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.

Formulary of Submission Proposed for the Jansenists *

[From the Constitution, "Regiminis apostolicis," Feb. 15. 1665]

1099 "I, N., submit to the apostolic Constitution of INNOCENT X, dated May 31. 1653, and to the Constitution of ALEXANDER VII, dated Oct. 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." *

The Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M.*

[From the Bull "Sollicitudo omnium eccl.," Dec. 8, 1661]

1100 (1) The devotion to the most blessed Virgin Mary is indeed of long standing among the faithful of Christ who believe that her soul, from the
first instant of its creation and infusion into her body, was preserved immune by a special grace and privilege of God from the stain of original sin, in
view of the merits of her Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of our human race, and who, in this sense, esteem and solemnly celebrate the festivity of her
conception; the number of these has increased (after the Constitutions of SIXTUS IV renewed by the Council of Trent, note 734 f., 792.) ... so that ... now
almost all Catholics embrace it. . . . (4) We renew the Constitutions and decrees published by Roman Pontiffs in favor of the opinion that asserts that the
soul of the blessed Virgin Mary at its creation, and at its infusion into her body, was blessed by the grace of the Holy Spirit and was preserved from
original sin.

Various Errors on Moral Matters *

[Condemned in decrees of Sept. 24, 1665, and of March 18. 1666

A. On the 24th Day of September, 1665

1101 1. A man is not bound at any time at all in his life to utter an act of faith, hope, and charity by the force of the divine precepts pertaining to these
virtues.
1102 2. A man belonging to the orders of Knights when challenged to a duel can accept this, lest he incur the mark of cowardice among others.
1103 3. That opinion which asserts that the Bull "Coenae" prohibits absolution of heresy and other crimes only when they are public and that this
does not diminish the power of Trent, in which there is a discussion of secret crimes, in the year 1629, July 18th, in the Consistory of the Sacred
Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals, was seen and sustained.

1104 4. Regular prelates can in the court of conscience absolve any seculars at all of hidden heresy and of excommunication incurred by it.
1105 5. Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce [him], if you cannot prove it.
1106 6. A confessor who in sacramental confession gives the penitent a paper to be read afterwards, in which he incites to lust, is not considered to
have solicited in the confessional, and therefore is not to be denounced.

1107 7. A way to avoid the obligation of denouncing solicitation exists if the one solicited confesses with the solicitor; the latter can absolve that one
without the burden of denouncing.
1108 8. A priest can lawfully accept a twofold stipend for the same Mass by applying to the petitioner even the most special part of the proceeds
appropriated to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII.*
1109 9. After the decree of Urban, * a priest, to whom Masses are given to be celebrated, can give satisfaction through another, by paying a smaller
stipend to him and retaining the other part of the stipend for himself.

1110 10. It is not contrary to justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice. Nor, is it contrary to fidelity if I promise, with
a promise confirmed also by an oath, to him who gives a stipend, what I offer for no one else.
1111 11 We are not bound to express in a subsequent confession sins omitted in confession or forgotten because of the imminent danger of death or
for some other reason.
1112 12. Mendicants can absolve from cases reserved for bishops, when the faculty of the bishop was not obtained for this.

1113 13. He satisfies the precept of an annual confession, who confesses to a regular, presented to a bishop, but unjustly reproved by him.
1114 14. He who makes no confession voluntarily, satisfies the precept of the Church.
1115 15. A penitent by his own authority can substitute another for himself, to fulfill the penance in his place.
1116 16. Those who have provided a benefice can select as confessor for themselves a simple priest not approved by the ordinary.

1117 17. It is permitted a religious or a cleric to kill a calumniator who threatens to spread grave crimes about him or his order, when no other means
of defense is at hand; as it seems not to be, if a calumniator be ready to spread the aforesaid about the religious himself or his order publicly or among
people of importance, unless he be killed.
1118 18. It is permitted to kill a false accuser, false witnesses, and even a judge, from whom an unjust sentence threatens with certainty, if the
innocent can avoid harm in no other way.

1119 19. A husband does not sin by killing on his own authority a wife caught in adultery.
1120 20. The restitution imposed by Pius V * upon those who have received benefits but not reciting [the Divine Office in fulfillment of their
obligation] is not due in conscience before the declaratory sentence of the judge, because it is a penalty.
1121 21. He who has a collective chaplaincy, or any other ecclesiastical benefit, if he is busy with the study of letters, satisfies his obligation, if he
recites the office through another.

1122 22. It is not contrary to justice not to confer ecclesiastical benefits gratuitously, because the contributor who contributes those ecclesiastical
benefits with money intervening does not exact that money for the contribution of the benefit, but for a temporal profit, which he was not bound to
contribute to you.
1123 23. He who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is bound, does not sin mortally, unless he does this out of contempt and disobedience, e.g.,
because he does not wish to subject himself to a precept.

1124 24. Voluptuousness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has procured a
pollution.
1125 25. He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: "I committed a grievous sin against
chastity with an unmarried woman," without mentioning the intercourse.
1126 26. When litigants have equally probable opinions in their defense, the judge can accept money to bring a sentence in favor of one over the
other.

1127 27. If a book is published by a younger or modern person, its opinion should be considered as probable, since it is not established that it has
been rejected by the Holy See as improbable.
1128 28. A nation does not sin, even if without any cause it does not accept a law promulgated by the ruler.

B. On the 18th day of March, 1666

1129 29. On a day of fasting, he who eats a moderate amount frequently, even if in the end he has eaten a considerable quantity, does not break the
fast.
1130 30. All officials who labor physically in the state are excused from the obligation of fasting, and need not make certain whether the labor is
compatible with fasting.
1131 31. All those are entirely excused from fasting, who make a journey by riding, under whatever circumstances they make the journey, even if it is
not necessary and even if they make a journey of a single day.

1132 32. It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and cheese in Lent is binding.
1133 33. Restitution of income because of the omission of stipends can be supplied through any alms that a beneficiary has previously made from the
income of his service.
1134 34. By reciting the paschal office on the day of Palms one satisfies the precept.
1135 35. By a single office anyone can satisfy a twofold precept, for the present day and tomorrow.

1136 36. Regulars can in the forum of conscience use their privileges which were expressly revoked by the Council of Trent.
1137 37. Indulgences conceded to regulars and revoked by Paul V are today revalidated.
1138 38. The mandate of the Council of Trent, made for the priest who of necessity performs the Sacrifice while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as
possible [see note 880], is a recommendation, not a precept.
1139 39. The expression "quamprimum" is understood to be when the priest will confess in his own time.

1140 40. It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible * delight which arises
from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.
1141 41. One living in concubinage is not bound to dismiss the concubine, if she is very useful for the pleasure of him so living (in the vernacular,
"regalo") provided that if she [another reading: he] were missing, he would carry on life with very great difficulty, and other food would affect him living
in concubinage with great loathing, and another maid servant would be found with very great difficulty.

1142 42. It is permitted one who borrows money to exact something beyond the principal, if he obligates himself not to seek the principal until a
certain time.
1143 43. An annual legacy left for the soul does not bind for more than ten years.
1144 44. So far as the forum of conscience is concerned, when the guilty has been corrected and the contumacy ceases, the censures cease.
1145 45. Books prohibited "until they are expurgated" can be retained until they are corrected by the application of diligence.

All these are condemned and prohibited, at least as scandalous.

Perfect and Imperfect Contrition *

[From the decree of the Sacred Office, May 5, 1667]

1146 Concerning the controversy: Whether that attrition, which is inspired by the fear of hell, excluding the will to sin, with the hope of pardon, to
obtain grace in the sacrament of penance requires in addition some act of love of God, to some asserting this, and to others denying it, and in turn
censuring the opposite opinion: . . . His Holiness . . . orders . . . that if they later write about the matter of the aforementioned attrition, or publish books or
writings or teach or preach or in any manner whatever instruct penitents or students and others, let them not dare change either opinion with a note of any
theological censure or contumely, whether it be that of denying the necessity of any love of God in the aforementioned attrition inspired by the fear of
hell, which seems to be the more common opinion among scholastics today, or whether that of asserting the necessity of this love, until something has
been defined by the Holy See concerning this matter.

CLEMENT IX 1667 - 1669 CLEMENT X 1670-1676

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Innocent XI 1676-1689

INNOCENT XI 1676-1689

Frequent and Daily Communion *

[From the Decree C. S. Conc., Feb. 12. 1679]

1147 Although the daily and frequent use of the most holy Eucharist has always been approved by the holy Fathers of the Church, yet never have
they appointed certain days either for receiving it more often or certain days of the weeks and months for abstaining from it, which the Council of Trent
did not prescribe; but, as if it considered the frailty of human nature, although making no command, it merely indicated what it would prefer when it said:
"The Holy Council would indeed wish that at every Mass the faithful present would communicate by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist" [see n.
944]. And this not without cause, for there are very many secret recesses of conscience, various diversions because of the occupations of the spirit,
likewise many graces and gifts of God granted to children, and since we cannot scrutinize these with human eyes, nothing can be established concerning
the worthiness or integrity of anyone, and consequently nothing concerning the more frequent or daily partaking of the bread of life.

And thus, as far as concerns tradesmen themselves, frequent approach to the receiving of the holy sustenance is to be left to the judgment of the
confessors who explore the secrets of the heart, who from the purity of consciences and from the fruit of frequency and from the progress in piety in the
case of laity, tradesmen, and married men, will be obliged to provide for them whatever they see will be of benefit to their salvatlon.
In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another,
except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give
themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly
banquet with a purer mind.
1148 In this, then, will the diligence of pastors be especially alert, not that some may not be deterred from frequent or daily partaking of holy
communion by a single formula of precept, or that days for partaking be established generally, but rather let it be decided what should be permitted to
each, or should be decided for themselves by themselves, or by the priests or confessors; and let this be prohibited entirely: that no one be repelled from
the sacred banquet, whether he approach it frequently or daily, and yet let it attend that everyone taste of the sweetness of the body of the Lord more
rarely or more frequently according to his measure of devotion and preparation.

1149 Similarly nuns who desire holy communion daily will have to be advised to receive communion on the days established by the rule of their
order; if some, however, are distinguished by purity of mind and are so enkindled by fervor of spirit that they seem worthy of more frequent or daily
reception of the most holy Sacrament, let this be permitted them by the superiors.
It will be of benefit, too, besides the diligence of priests and confessors, to make use also of the services of preachers and to have an agreement
with them, that, when the faithful have become used * to frequenting the most holy Sacrament (which they should do), they preach a sermon on the great
preparation for undertaking that, and show in general that those who by devout zeal are stirred to a more frequent or daily partaking of the health bringing
Food, whether lay tradesmen, or married people, or any others, ought to understand their own weakness, so that because of the dignity of the Sacrament
and the fear of the divine judgment they may learn to revere the celestial table on which is Christ; and if at any time they should feel themselves not
prepared, to abstain from it and to gird themselves for a greater preparation.

But let bishops, in whose dioceses such devotion towards the most Blessed Sacrament flourishes, give thanks to God for this, and they should
nurture it by applying to it the proper measure of prudence and judgment, and on their part they will especially prevail upon themselves that no labor or
diligence must be spared to do away with every suspicion of irreverence and scandal in the reception of the true and immaculate lamb, and to increase
virtues and gifts in those who partake of it; and this will happen abundantly, if those, who are bound by such devoted zeal, by surpassing divine grace,
and who desire to be refreshed more frequently by the most holy bread, become accustomed to expend their strength and to prove themselves with
reverence and love. . . .

1150 Furthermore, let bishops and priests or confessors refute those who hold that daily communion is of divine right, . . . Let them not permit that a
confession of venial sins be made to a simple priest without the approbation of a bishop or ordinary.

Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) *

[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]

1151 1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned,
unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring
baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.
1152 2. I think that probably a judge can pass judgment according to opinion, even the less probable.
1153 3. In general, when we do something confidently according to probability whether intrinsic or extrinsic, however slight, provided there is no
departure from the bounds of probability, we always act prudently.*

1154 4. An infidel who does not believe will be excused of infidelity, since l he is guided by a less probable opinion.
1155 5. Even though one sins mortally, we dare not condemn him who uttered an act of love of God only once in his life.
1156 6. It is probable that the precept of love for God is of itself not of grave obligation even once every five years.
1157 7. Then only is it obligatory when we are bound to be justified, and we have no other way by which we can be justified.

1158 8. Eating and drinking even to satiety for pleasure only, are not sinful, provided this does not stand in the way of health, since any natural
appetite can licitly enjoy its own actions.
1159 9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all 1. fault and venial defect.
1160 10. We are not bound to love our neighbor by an internal and formal act
1161 11. We can satisfy the precept of loving neighbor by external acts only.

1162 12. Scarcely will you find among seculars, even among kings, a superfluity for [his] state of life. And so, scarcely anyone is bound to give alms
from what is superfluous to [his] state of life.
1163 13. If you act with due moderation, you can without mortal sin be sad about the moral life of someone and rejoice about his natural death, seek
it with ineffectual desire and long for it, not indeed from dissatisfaction with the person but because of some temporal emolument.

1164 14. It is licit with an absolute desire to wish for the death of a father, not indeed as an evil to the father, but as a good to him who desires it, for a
rich inheritance will surely come his way.
1165 15. It is licit for a son to rejoice over the parricide of his parent perpetrated by himself in drunkenness, because of the great riches that came from it
by inheritance.
1166 16. Faith is not considered to fall under a special precept and by itself.

1167 17. It is enough to utter an act of faith once during life.

1168 18. If anyone is questioned by a public power, I advise him to confess his faith to a noble person as to God and (to be) proud of his faith; I do
not condemn silence as sinful of itself.
1169 19. The will cannot effect that assent to faith in itself be stronger than the weight of reasons impelling toward assent.
1170 20. Hence, anyone can prudently repudiate the supernatural assent which he had.

1171 21. Assent to faith is supernatural and useful to salvation with only the probable knowledge of revelation, even with the fear by which one fears
lest God has not spoken.
1172 22. Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit (faith) in a Rewarder.
1173 23. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification.
1174 24. To call upon God as a witness to a slight lie is not a great irreverence, because of which God wishes or can condemn man.

1175 25. With cause it is licit to swear without the intention of swearing, whether the matter be light or serious.
1176 26. If anyone swears, either alone or in the presence of others, whether questioned or of his own will, whether for sake of recreation or for some
other purpose, that he did not do something, which in fact he did, understanding within himself something else which he did not do, or another way than
that by which he did it, or some other added truth, in fact does not lie and is no perjurer.

1177 27. A just reason for using these ambiguous words exists, as often as it is necessary or useful to guard the well-being of the body, honor,
property, or for any other act of virtue, so that the concealing of the truth is then regarded as expedient and zealous.
1178 28. He who has been promoted to a magistracy or a public office by means of a recommendation or a gift can utter with mental reservation the
oath which is customarily exacted of similar persons by order of the king, without regard for the intent of the one exacting it, because he is not bound to
confess a concealed crime.

1179 29. A grave, pressing fear is a just cause for pretending the administration of sacraments.
1180 30. It is right for an honorable man to kill an attacker who tries to indict calumny upon him, if this ignominy cannot be avoided otherwise; the
same also must be said if anyone slaps him with his hand or strikes with a club and runs away after the slap of the hand or the blow of the club.
1181 31. I can properly kill a thief to save a single gold piece.

1182 32. It is not only permitted to defend, with a fatal defense, these things we possess actually, but also those things to which we have a partial
right, and which we hope to possess.
1183 33. It is permitted an heir as well as a legatee to defend himself against one who unjustly prevents either an inheritance being assumed, or
legacies being paid, just as it is permitted him who has a right to a chair or a benefice against one who unjustly impedes his possession of them.

1184 34. It is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the foetus, lest the girl found pregnant be killed or defamed.
1185 35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born;
and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion.
1186 36. It is permitted to steal not only in extreme, but in grave necessity.

1187 37. Male and female domestic servants can secretly steal from their masters to gain compensation for their work which they judge of greater
worth than the salary which they receive.
1188 38. No one is bound under the pain of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away by small thefts, however great the sum total may be.
1189 39. Whoever moves or induces another to bring a serious loss upon a third party is not bound to a restitution of that loss incurred.

1190 40. A usurious contract is permitted even with respect to the same person, and with a contract to sell back previously entered upon with the
intention of gain.
1191 41. Since ready cash is more valuable than that to be paid, and since there is no one who does not consider ready cash of greater worth than
future cash, a creditor can demand something beyond the principal from the borrower, and for this reason be excused from usury.
1192 42. There is no usury when something is exacted beyond the principal as due because of a kindness and by way of gratitude, but only if it is
exacted as due according to justice.

1193 43. What is it but venial sin if one detract authority by a false charge to prevent great harm to himself?
1194 44. It is probable that he does not sin mortally who imposes a false charge on someone, that he may defend his own justice and honor. And if
this is not probable, there is scarcely any probable opinion in theology.
1195 45. To give the temporal for the spiritual is not simony, when the temporal is not given for a price, but only as a motive for conferring and
effecting the spiritual, or even because the temporal is only a gratuitous compensation for the spiritual, or vice versa.

1196 46. And this also is admissable, even if the temporal is the principal motive for giving the spiritual; furthermore, even if it be the end of the
spiritual thing itself, so that it is considered of greater value than the spiritual thing.
1197 47. When the Council of: Trent says that they sin mortally by sharing the sins of others who do not promote to the churches those whom they
themselves judge to be more worthy and more useful for the Church, the Council either first seems to mean to signify by "more worthy" nothing else than
the worthiness of being selected, using the comparative rather than the positive; or secondly, in a less proper expression takes "more worthy" to exclude
the unworthy, but not the worthy, or finally, and thirdly, it is speaking of what occurs during an assembly.

1198 48. Thus it seems clear that fornication by its nature involves no malice, and that it is evil only because it is forbidden, so that the contrary
seems entirely in disagreement with reason.
1199 49. Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory
under pain of mortal sin.
1200 50. Intercourse with a married woman, with the consent of her husband, is not adultery, and so it is enough to say in confession that one had
committed fornication.

1201 51. A male servant who knowingly by offering his shoulders assists his master to ascend through windows to ravage a virgin, and many times
serves the same by carrying a ladder, by opening a door, or by cooperating in something similar, does not commit a mortal sin, if he does this through fear
of considerable damage, for example, lest he be treated wickedly by his master, lest he be looked upon with savage eyes, or, lest he be expelled from the
house.
1202 52. The precept of keeping feast days is not obligatory under pain of mortal sin, aside from scandal, if contempt be absent.

1203 53. He satisfies the precept of the Church of hearing the Holy Sacrifice, who hears two of its parts, even four simultaneously by different
celebrants.
1204 54. He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can the remaining hours, is held to nothing, since the great part brings the lesser to it.
1205 55. He satisfies the precept of annual communion by the sacrilegious eating of the Lord.
1206 56. Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live like pagans, is a mark of predestination.

1207 57. It is probable that natural but honest imperfect sorrow for sins suffices.
1208 58. We are not bound to confess to a confessor who asks us about the habit of some sin.
1209 59. It is permitted to absolve sacramentally those who confess only half, by reason of a great crowd of penitents, such as for example can
happen on a day of great festivity or indulgence.
1210 60. The penitent who has the habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if there appears no hope of amendment,
is not to be denied absolution or to be put off, provided he professes orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment.

1211 61. He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly
and professedly seeks or enters into.
1212 62. The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.
1213 63. It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.

1214 64. A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even
culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1215 65. It is enough to have believed the mysteries once.

All condemned and prohibited, as they are here expressed,

at least as scandalous and in practice pernicious.

The Holy Pontiff concludes the decree with these words:

1216 Finally, in order that doctors, whether scholastics or any others whatsoever, may refrain from injurious contentions in the future, and that there
be deliberations for peace and charity, the same Holy Pontiff commands them in virtue of holy obedience, to be on their guard in printing books and
manuscripts, as well as theses, disputations, and sermons against any censure and note, and likewise violent railings against such propositions which are
still being carried on among Catholics here and there, until the matter has been considered, and a judgment is rendered * by the Holy See upon these same
propositions.

Errors on "donated omnipotence" *

[Condemned in the decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 23, 1679]

1217 1. God gives us His omnipotence, that we may use it, just as someone gives another a villa or a book.
1218 2. God submits His omnipotence to us.
They are prohibited as at least rash and novel.

Moral Systems *
[Decree of the Holy Office, June 26, 1680]

1219 In a report of the contents of the letters of Father Gonzales Thirsus directed to His Holiness through Father Laurea of the Society of Jesus, their
most blessed Eminences said that the Secretary of State had written to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Spaniards, asking that he inform the said Father
Thirsus what His Holiness commanded, after the letter was kindly received and read not without praise; that he himself freely and boldly preach, teach,
and defend with his pen the more probable opinion, and not vigorously attack the opinion of those who assert that in the conflict of the less probable
opinion with the more probable so recognized and judged, it is lawful to follow the less probable opinion; and to inform him that whatever he shall do
and write in favor of the more probable will be pleasing to His Holiness. Let it be enjoined on the Father General of the Society concerning this order of
His Holiness, that he not only permit the Fathers of the Society of Jesus to write in defense of the opinion of the more probable and to oppose the opinion
of those who assert that in the controversy of the less probable opinion with the more probable so understood and judged, it is allowed to follow the less
probable; but, moreover, let him also write to all the universities of the Society that it is the mind of His Holiness that anyone who will may freely write
as he pleases in behalf of the more probable opinion and may attack the contrary opinion above mentioned; and let him order them to submit themselves
in all things to the orders of His Holiness. *

Error Concerning the Seal of. Confession *

[Condemned in the decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1862]

1220 Concerning the proposition: "It is lawful to use knowledge obtained in confession, provided it is done without any direct or indirect revelation,
and without burden upon the penitent, unless some much greater evil follows from its nonuse, in comparison with which the first would be rightly held of
little account," an explanation or limitation then being added, that it is to be understood concerning the use of the knowledge obtained from confession
with burden to the penitent, any revelation whatsoever being excluded, and in the case in which a much greater burden to the same penitent would follow
from its nonuse,
 it is decided: "that the stated proposition, as far as it admits the use of said knowledge with the burden upon the penitent, must be altogether
prohibited, even with the aforesaid explanation or limitation."

Errors of Michael of Molinos *

[Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687]

1221 1. It is necessary that man reduce his own powers to nothingness, and this is the interior way.
1222 2. To wish to operate actively is to offend God, who wishes to be Himself the sole agent; and therefore it is necessary to abandon oneself
wholly in God and thereafter to continue in existence as an inanimate body.
1223 3. Vows about doing something are impediments to perfection.
1224 4. Natural activity is the enemy of grace, and impedes the operations of God and true perfection, because God wishes to operate in us without
us.

1225 5. By doing nothing the soul annihilates itself and returns to its beginning and to its origin, which is the essence of God, in which it remains
transformed and divinized, and God then remains in Himself, because then the two things are no more united, but are one alone,and in this manner God
lives and reigns in us, and the soul annihilates itself in operative being.
1226 6. The interior way is that in which neither light, nor love, nor resignation is recognized, and it is not necessary to understand God, and in this
way one makes progress correctly.

1227 7. A soul ought to consider neither the reward, nor punishment, nor paradise, nor hell, nor death, nor eternity.
1228 8. He ought not to wish to know whether he is progressing with the will of God, or whether or not with the same resigned will he stands still;
nor is it necessary that he wish to know his own state or his own nothingness; but he ought to remain as an inanimate body.
1229 9. The soul ought not to remember either itself, or God, or anything whatsoever, and in the interior life all reflection is harmful, even reflection
upon its human actions and upon its own defects.

1230 10. If one scandalizes others by one's own defects, it is not necessary to reflect, as long as the will to scandalize is not present, and not to be
able to reflect upon one's own defects, is a grace of God.
1231 11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not.
1232 12. He who gives his own free will to God should care about nothing, neither about hell, nor about heaven; neither ought he to have a desire for
his own perfection, nor for virtues, nor his own sanctity, nor his own salvation, the hope of which he ought to remove.

1233 13. After our free will has been resigned to God, reflection and care about everything of our own must be left to that same God, and we ought to
leave it to Him, so that He may work His divine will in us without us.
1234 14. It is not seemly that he who is resigned to the divine will, ask anything of God; because asking is an imperfection, since the act is of one's
own will and election, and this is wishing that the divine will be conformed to ours, and not that ours be conformed to the divine; and this from the
Gospel: "Seek you shall find" [John 16:24], was not said by Christ for interior souls who do not wish to have free will; nay indeed, souls of this kind
reach this state, that they cannot seek anything from God.

1235 15. Just as they ought not ask anything from God, so should they not give thanks to Him for anything, because either is an act of their own will.
1236 16. It is not proper to seek indulgences for punishment due to one's own sins, because it is better to satisfy divine justice than to seek divine
mercy, since the latter proceeds from pure love of God, and the former from an interested love of ourselves, and that is not a thing pleasing to God and
meritorious, because it is a desire to shun the cross.

1237 17. When free will has been surrendered to God, and the care and thought of our soul left to the same God, no consideration of temptations
need any longer be of concern; neither should any but a negative resistence be made to them, with the application of no energy, and if nature is aroused,
one must let it be aroused, because it is nature.
1238 18. He who in his prayer uses images, figures, pretension, and his own conceptions, does not adore God "in spirit and in truth" [John 4:23].

1239 19. He who loves God in the way which reason points out or the intellect comprehends, does not love the true God.
1240 20. To assert that in prayer it is necessary to help oneself by discourse and by reflections, when God does not speak to the soul, is ignorance.
God never speaks; His way of speaking is operation, and He always operates in the soul, when this soul does not impede Him by its discourses,
reflections, and operations.
1241 21. In prayer it is necessary to remain m obscure and universal faith, with quiet and forgetfulness of any particular and distinct thought of the
attributes of God and the Trinity, and thus to remain in the presence of God for adoring and loving Him and serving Him, but without producing acts,
because God has no pleasure in these.

1242 22. This knowledge through faith is not an act produced by a creature, but it is a knowledge given by God to the creature, which the creature
neither recognizes that he has, and neither later knows that he had it; and the same is said of love.
1243 23. The mystics with Saint Bernard in the Scala Claustralium * (The Ladder of the Recluses) distinguished four steps: reading, meditation,
prayer, and infused contemplation. He who always remains in the first, never passes over to the second. He who always persists in the second, never
arrives at the third, which is our acquired contemplation, in which one must persist throughout all life, provided that God does not draw the soul (without
the soul expecting it) to infused contemplation; and if this ceases, the soul should turn back to the third step and remain in that, without returning again to
the second or first.

1244 24. Whatever thoughts occur in prayer, even impure, or against God, the saints, faith, and the sacraments, if they are not voluntarily nourished,
nor voluntarily expelled, but tolerated with indifference and resignation, do not impede the prayer of faith, indeed make it more perfect, because the soul
then remains more resigned to the divine will.
1245 25. Even if one becomes sleepy and falls asleep, nevertheless there is prayer and actual contemplation, because prayer and resignation,
resignation and prayer are the same, and while resignation endures, prayer also endures.

1246 26. The three ways: the purgative, illuminative, and unitive, are the greatest absurdity ever spoken about in mystical (theology), since there is
only one way, namely, the interior way.
1247 27. He who desires and embraces sensible devotion, does not desire nor seek God, but himself; and anyone who walks by the interior way, in
holy places as well as on feast days, acts badly, when he desires it and tries to possess it.
1248 28. Weariness for spiritual matters is good, if indeed by it one's own love is purified

1249 29. As long as the interior soul disdains discourses about God, and disdains the virtues, and remains cold, feeling no fervor in himself, it is a
good sign.
1250 30. Everything sensible which we experience in the spiritual life, is abominable, base, and unclean.
1251 31. No meditative person exercises true interior virtues; these should not be recognized by the senses. It is necessary to abandon the virtues.
1252 32. Neither before nor after communion is any other preparation or act of thanksgiving required for these interior souls than continuance in a
customary passive resignation, because in a more perfect way it supplies all acts of virtues, which can be practiced and are practiced in the ordinary way.
And, if on this occasion of communion there arise emotions of humility, of petition, or of thanksgiving, they are to be repressed, as often as it is not
discerned that they are from a special impulse of God; otherwise they are impulses of nature not yet dead.

1253 33. That soul acts badly which proceeds by this interior way, if it wishes on feast days by any particular effort to excite some sensible devotion
in itself, since for an interior soul all days are equal, all festal. And the same is said of holy places, because to souls of this kind all places are alike.
1254 34. To give thanks to God by words and by speech is not for interior souls which ought to remain in silence, placing no obstacle before God,
because He operates in them; and the more they resign themselves to God, they discover that they cannot recite the Lord's prayer, i.e., the Our Father.

1255 35. It is not fitting for souls of this interior life to perform works even virtuous ones, by their own choice and activity; otherwise they would not
be dead. Neither should they elicit acts of love for the Blessed Virgin, saints, or the humanity of Christ, because since they are sensible objects, so, too, is
their love toward them.
1256 36. No creature, neither the Blessed Virgin, nor the saints ought to abide in our heart, because God alone wishes to occupy and possess it.

1257 37. On occasion of temptations, even violent ones, the soul ought not to elicit explicit acts of opposite virtues,
but should persevere in the above mentioned love and resignation.
1258 38. The voluntary cross of mortifications is a heavy weight and fruitless, and therefore to be dismissed.
1259 39. The more holy works and penances, which the saints performed, are not enough to remove from the soul
even a single tie.
1260 4o. The Blessed Virgin never performed any exterior work, and nevertheless was holier than all the saints.
Therefore, one can arrive at sanctity without exterior work.
1261 41. God permits and wishes to humiliate us and to conduct us to a true transformation, because in some perfect
souls, even though not inspired, the demon inflicts violence on their bodies, and makes them commit carnal acts,
even in wakefulness and without the bewilderment of the mind, by physically moving their hands and other members
against their wills. And the same is said as far as concerns other actions sinful in themselves, in which case they are
not sins, but in them (Viva: quihis,because with these) the consent is not present.
1262 42. A case may be given, that things of this kind contrary to the will result in carnal acts at the same time on the
part of two persons, for example man and woman, and on the part of both an act follows.
1263 43. God in past ages has created saints through the ministry of tyrants; now in truth He produces saints through
the ministry of demons, who, by causing the aforesaid things contrary to the will, brings it about they despise
themselves the more and annihilate and resign themselves to God.
1264 44. Job blasphemed, and yet he did not sin with his lips because it was the result of the violence of the devil.
1265 45. Saint Paul suffered such violences of the devil in his body; thus he has written: "For the good that I will I do
not do; but the evil which I will not, that I Rom. 7:19 ].
1266 46. Things of this kind contrary to the will are the more proportionate medium for annihilating the soul, and for
leading [Viva:et eam ] it to true transformation and union, nor is there any other way; and this is the easier and safer
way.
1267 47. When things of this kind contrary to the will occur, it is proper to allow Satan to operate, by applying no
effort and making no real attempt, but man should persist in his own nothingness; and even if pollutions follow and
obscene acts by one's own hands, and even worse, there is no need to disquiet oneself [Viva: inquietari ],but
scruples must be banished, as well as doubts and fears, because the mind becomes more enlightened, more
confirmed, and more candid, and holy liberty is acquired. And above all there is no need to confess these matters,
and one acts in a most saintly way by not confessing, because the devil is overcome by this agreement, and the
treasure of peace is acquired.
1268 48. Satan, who produces violences of this kind contrary to the will, afterwards persuades that they are grave
sins, so that the mind distur itself, lest it progress further in the interior way; hence for weakening his powers it is
better not to confess them, because they are not sins, not even venial.
1269 49. Job from the violence of the devil polluted himself with his own hands at the same time as "he offered pure
prayer to God" (thus interpreting the passage from chapter 16. Job) [cf.Job. 16:18 ].
1270 50. David, Jeremias, and many of the holy Prophets suffered violence of this kind, of these impure external
operations contrary to the will.
1271 51. In Sacred Scripture there are many examples of violence to the will unto external sinful acts, as that of
Samson, who by violence killed himself with the PhilistinesJudg. 16:29 f.], entered a marriage with a foreigner [
Judg. 14:1 ff.], and committed fornication with the harlot DalilJudg. 16:4 ff.], which in other times were prohibited
and would have been sins; that of Judith, who had lied to Holofernes, Judith. 2: ff.]; that of Elisaeus, who cursed
children 2 Kings 2:24 ]; that of Elias, who burned the leaders with the troops of King Achab [cf2 Kings 1:10 ff.].
 But whether violence was immediately executed by God, or by the minister of the demons, as it happens in some
souls, is left in doubt.
1272 52. When such things contrary to the will, even impure, happen without confusion of the mind, then the soul can
be united to God, and de facto is always the more united.
1273 53. To recognize in practice, whether an operation has been violence in some persons, the rule which I have for
this is not the protestations of those souls which protest that they have not consented to the said violences or cannot
swear that they have consented, and cannot see that they are the souls who make progress in the interior life, but I
would adopt a rule from a certain light which is superior to actual human and theological cognition, that makes me
recognize for certain, with internal certitude, that such operation is violence; and I am certain that this light proceeds
from God, because it comes to me joined with certitude that it comes forth from God, and it leaves in me no
shadow of doubt to the contrary, in that way by which it sometimes happens that God in revealing something
reassures the soul at the same time that it is He who reveals it, and the soul cannot doubt to the contrary.
1274 54. Persons who lead ordinary spiritual lives, in the hour of death will find themselves deluded and confused
with all the passions to be purged in the other world.
1275 55. Through this interior life one reaches the point, although with much suffering, of purging and extinguishing all
passions, so that he feels nothing more, nothing, nothing; nor is any disquietude felt, just as if the body were dead,
nor does the soul permit itself to be moved any more.
1276 56. Two laws and two desires (the one of the soul, the other of self-love) endure as long as self-love endures;
wherefore, when this is purged and dead, as happens through the interior way, those two laws and two desires are
no longer present; nor, is any lapse incurred further, nor, is anything felt more, not even venial sin.
1277 57. Through acquired contemplation one comes to the state of not committing any more sins, neither mortal nor
venial.
1278 58. One arrives at such a state by no longer reflecting on his own actions, because defects arise from reflection.
1279 59. The interior way is separated from confession, from those who confess, and from cases of conscience, from
theology and from philosophy.
1280 60. For advanced souls, who begin to die from reflections, and who even arrive at the point that they are dead,
God sometimes makes confession impossible, and He Himself supplies it with such great preserving grace as they
receive in the sacrament; and therefore for such souls it is not good in such a case to approach the sacrament of
penance, because it is impossible for them.
1281 61. When the soul arrives at mystical death, it cannot wish for anything more than what God desires, because it
does no longer have a will, since God has taken it away from it.
1282 62. By the interior way it arrives at a continuous, immobile state in an imperturbable peace.
1283 63. By the internal way one even arrives at the death of the senses; moreover, it is a sign that one remains in a
state of nothingness, that is, of mystical death, if the exterior senses no longer represent sensible things (from which
they are) as if they did not exist, because they do not succeed in making the intellect apply itself to them.
1284 64. A theologian is less disposed than an ignorant man for the contemplative state; in the first place, because he
does not have such pure faith; secondly, because he is not so humble; thirdly, because he does not care so much for
his own salvation; fourthly, because he has a head full of phantasms, images, opinions, and speculations, and cannot
enter into that true light.
1285 65. One must obey directors in the exterior life, and the latitude of the vow of obedience of religious extends
only to the external. In the interior life the matter is different, because only God and the director enter.
1286 66. A certain new doctrine in the Church of God is worthy of ridicule, that the soul should be governed as far as
its interior is concerned by a bishop; but if the bishop is not capable, the soul should go to him with his director. I
speak a new doctrine; because neither Sacred Scripture, nor councils, nor bulls, nor saints, nor authors have ever
transmitted it, nor can transmit it, because the Church does not judge about hidden matters, and the soul has its
faculty of choosing whatsoever shall seem good to it Viva: anima ins habet eligendi quaecumque sibi bene
visums ].
1287 67. To say that the interior must be manifested to the exterior tribunal of directors, and that it is a sin not to do
so, is a manifest deception, because the Church does not pass judgment on hidden matters, and they prejudge their
own souls by these deceptions and hypocrisies.
1288 68. In the world there is neither faculty nor jurisdiction for commanding that the letters of a director, as far as the
interior direction of a soul is concerned, should be made manifest; therefore, it is necessary to assert that it is an
insult of Satan, etc.
Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, of
relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Alexander VIII 1689-1691
ALEXANDER VIII 1689-1691

Errors Concerning the Goodness of an Act and Concerning

Philosophic Sin *
[Condemned in the Decr. S. Off., Aug. 24, 1690]

1289 1. Objective goodness consists in the agreement of an object with rational nature; but formal goodness consists in the conformity of an act with
the rule of morals. For this it is sufficient that the moral act tend toward its ultimate end interpretatively. Man is not obliged to love this end, neither in the
beginning nor in the course of his moral life.
Declared and condemned as heretical.
1290 2. Philosophic or moral sin is a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason; but theological and mortal sin is a free
transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is a
grave sin, but is not an offense against God, neither a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.

Declared and condemned as scandalous, rash, an offense to pious ears, and erroneous.*

Errors of the Jansenists *

[Condemned in a Decr. of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690]

1291 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.
1292 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.
1293 3. It is not permitted to follow a (probable) opinion or among the probables the most probable.*

1294 4. Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful only.
1295 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.
1296 6. Grace sufficient for our state is not so much useful as pernicious, so that we can justly pray: From sufficient grace deliver us, O Lord.

1297 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.
1298 8. Of necessity, an infidel sins in every act.
1299 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.
1300 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.

1301 11. Everything which is not in accordance with supernatural Christian faith, which works through charity, is a sin.
1302 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.
1303 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.
1304 14. Fear of hell is not supernatural.

1305 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.
1306 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.
1307 17. By that practice of absolving first the order of penance is inverted.

1308 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.
1309 19 Man ought to do penance during his whole life for original sin.
1310 20. Confessions made to religious are generally either sacrilegious or invalid.
1311 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.

1312 22. They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim the right to receive Communion before they have done worthy penance for their sins.
1313 23. Similarly, they must be prevented from Holy Communion, who have not yet a pure love of God, without any admixture.
1314 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.

1315 25. It is unlawful to place in a Christian temple an image of God the Father [Viva: sedentis, sitting].
1316 26. Praise which is offered to Mary, as Mary, is vain.
1317 27. Sometimes baptism is valid when conferred under this form: "In the name of the Father, etc. . . . ," omitting these words: "I baptize thee."
1318 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.

1319 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.
1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.
1321 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.

Articles (Erroneous) of the Gallican Clergy

(about the Power of the Roman Pontiff) *
[Declared void in Constit., "Inter multiplices," Aug. 4, 1690]

1322 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
resisteth 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 vhich 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.*

1323 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.

1324 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.

1325 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.

Concernig these statements Alexander VIII decreed as follows:

1326 "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."

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Innocent XII 1691-1700

INNOCENT XII 1691-1700

Errors Concerning the Most Pure Love of God *

[Condemned in the brief "Cum alias," March 12, 1699]

1327 1. There is an habitual state of the love of God, which is pure charity and without any admixture of the motive of one's personal interest.
Neither fear of punishment nor desire of reward any longer has a share in it. God is no longer loved for the sake of merit, nor because of one's own
perfection, nor because of the happiness to be found in loving Him.
1328 2. In the state of the contemplative or unitive life, every interested motive of fear and hope is lost.

1329 3. That which is essential in the direction of a soul is to do nothing else than to follow grace, step by step with infinite patience, precaution, and
subtlety. One should restrain himself within these limits so that God may be permitted to act, and he should never aspire to pure love, except when God
by an interior unction begins to open the heart to this word, which is so hard for souls heretofore attached to self, and can therefore scandalize them or
cause them confusion.

1330 4. In the state of holy indifference, a soul no longer has voluntary and deliberate desires for its own interest, with the exception of those
occasions on which it does not faithfully cooperate with the whole of its grace
1331 5. In the same state of holy indifference we wish nothing for ourselves, all for God. We do not wish that we be perfect and happy for self
interest, but we wish all perfection and happiness only in so far as it pleases God to bring it about that we wish for these states by the impression of His
grace.

1332 6. In this state of holy indifference we no longer seek salvation as our own salvation, as our eternal liberation, as a reward of our merits, nor as
the greatest of all our interests, but we wish it with our whole will as the glory and good pleasure of God, as the thing which He wishes, and which He
wishes us to wish for His sake.
1333 7. Dereliction is nothing else than the abnegation or renunciation of oneself, which Jesus Christ requires of us in the Gospel, after we have left
all external things. This denial of ourselves is only with regard to our own interest. . . . The extreme trials in which this abnegation or dereliction of self
must be exercised are the temptations by means of which a jealous God seeks to purify love, by holding out to it no refuge, nor any hope for its welfare,
even eternal.

1334 8. All sacrifices, which are wont to be made by souls who are as disinterested as possible about their eternal happiness, are conditional. . . . But
this sacrifice cannot be absolute in the ordinary state. Only in the case of extreme trials does this sacrifice become in some manner absolute.
1335 9. In extreme trials a soul can be invincibly persuaded by a reflex persuasion (and this is not the deep foundation of conscience) that it has been
justly rejected by God.

1336 10. Then a soul separated from itself expires with Christ on the Cross, saying: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" [Matt. 27:46].
In this involuntary expression of despair there is completed the absolute sacrifice of one's own interest in so far as eternity is concerned.
1337 11. In this state a soul loses all hope of its own interest; but never does it lose in its higher part, that is in its direct and inner acts, a perfect hope,
which is a disinterested longing for the promises.

1338 12. Then a director can permit this soul to acquiesce simply in the loss of its own interest, and in the just condemnation which it believes has
been enjoined on it by God.
1339 13. The inferior part of Christ on the Cross did not communicate his involuntary disturbances to his superior part.
1340 14. In the extreme trials for the purification of love there takes place a certain separation of the upper part of the soul from the lower. . . . In that
separation the acts of the lower part flow from a completely blind and involuntary disturbance, for, whatever is voluntary and intellectual is of the higher
part.

1341 15. Meditation consists of discursive acts which are easily distinguished from one another. . . . The putting together of the discursive and reflex
acts is the proper exercise of an interested love.
1342 16. There is a state of contemplation so sublime and so perfect that it becomes habitual; so that, as often as a soul actually prays, its prayer is
contemplative, not discursive. Then it no longer needs to return to meditation and to its methodical acts.

1343 17. Contemplative souls are deprived of a distinct, sensible, and reflex vision of Jesus Christ at two different times: first, in the newborn fervor
of their contemplation; secondly, when the soul loses the vision of Jesus Christ in extreme trials.
1344 18. In the passive state all the distinct virtues are exercised without any thought that they are virtues. At every moment no other thought is in the
mind than to do that which God wishes, and a zealous love likewise brings it about that no one any longer desires virtue for himself nor is he ever so
endowed with virtue as when he is no longer attached to virtue.

1345 19. In this sense it can be said that a soul in a passive and disinterested state no longer wishes even love itself, in so far as it is its perfection and
its happiness, but only in so far as it is that which God wishes of us.
1346 20. In confession transformed souls must detest their sins and condemn themselves, and desire the remission of their sins not as a personal
purification and liberation, but as the thing which God wills and which He wills us to will because of His glory.

1347 21. Holy mystics have excluded from the state of transformed souls the practices of virtues.
1348 22. Although this doctrine (about pure love) was designated a pure and simple evangelical perfection in universal tradition, the ancient pastors
did not propose it indiscriminately to the multitude of the just, unless the practice of their interested love was proportionate to their grace.
1349 23. Pure love itself alone constitutes the whole interior life; and thence arises the only principle and the only motive of all acts which are
deliberate and meritorious.

Condemned and rejected as, either in the obvious sense of these words, or in the extended meaning of the thoughts, rash, scandalous, ill-
sounding, offensive to pious ears, pernicious, and likewise erroneous in practice.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Clement XI 1700-1721

CLEMENT XI 1700-1721

Concerning Truths which Necessarily Must be Explicitly Believed *

[Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of
Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703]

1349a Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the
point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the
illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the
mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

[Response of the Sacred Office, May 10, 1703]

1349b Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an
understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that
cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb. 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent
necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those
matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.

An Obsequious Silence in Regard to Dogmatic Facts *

[From the Constitution, "Vineam Domini Sabaoth," July 16. 1705]

1350 (Sec. 6 or 25) 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" [1 Samuel 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 (see n.
1092 ff.) 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.

Errors of Paschasius Quesnel *

[Condemned in the dogmatic Constitution, "Unigenitus," * Sept. 8, 1713]

1351 (Sec. 3) 1. What else remains for the soul that has lost God and His grace except sin and the consequences of sin, a proud poverty and a slothful
indigence, that is, a general impotence for labor, for prayer, and for every good work?
1352 2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is
nothing done, but nothing can be done.
1353 3. In vain, O Lord, do You command, if You do not give what you command.

1354 4. Thus, O Lord, all things are possible to him for whom You make all things possible by effecting those same things in him.
1355 5. When God does not soften a heart by the interior unction of His grace, exterior exhortations and graces are of no service except to harden it
the more.
1356 6. The difference between the Judaic dispensation and the Christian is this, that in the former God demanded flight from sin and a fulfillment of
the Law by the sinner, leaving him in his own weakness; but in the latter, God gives the sinner what He commands, by purifying him with His grace.

1357 7. What advantage was there for a man in the old covenant, in which God left him to his own weakness, by imposing on him His law? But what
happiness is it not to be admitted to a convenant in which God gives us what He asks of us?
1358 8. But we do not b long to the new covenant, except in so far as we are participators in that new grace which works in us that which God
commands us.
1359 9. The grace of Christ is a supreme grace, without which we can never confess Christ, and with which we never deny Him.

1360 10. Grace is the working of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard.
1361 11. Grace is nothing else than the omnipotent Will of God, ordering and doing what He orders.
1362 12. When God wishes to save a soul, at whatever time and at whatever place, the undoubted effect follows the Will of God.
1363 13. When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him.

1364 14. Howsoever remote from salvation an obstinate sinner is, when Jesus presents Himself to be seen by him in the salutary light of His grace,
the sinner is forced to surrender himself, to have recourse to Him, and to humble himself, and to adore his Savior.
1365 15. When God accompanies His commandment and His eternal exhortation by the unction of His Spirit and by the interior force of His grace,
He works that obedience in the heart that He is seeking.

1366 16. There are no attractions which do not yield to the attractions of grace, because nothing resists the Almighty.
1367 17. Grace is that voice of the Father which teaches men interiorly and makes them come to Jesus Christ; whoever does not come to Him, after
he has heard the exterior voice of the Son, is in no wise taught by the Father.
1368 18. The seed of the word, which the hand of God nourishes, always brings forth its fruit.
1369 19. The grace of God is nothing else than His omnipotent Will; this is the idea which God Himself gives us in all His Scriptures.

1370 20. The true idea of grace is that God wishes Himself to be obeyed by us and He is obeyed; He commands, and all things are done; He speaks
as the Lord, and all things are obedient to Him.
1371 21. The grace of Jesus Christ is a strong, powerful, supreme, invincible grace, that is, the operation of the omnipotent Will, the consequence and
imitation of the operation of God causing the incarnation and the resurrection of His Son.
1372 22. The harmony of the all powerful operation of God in the heart of man with the free consent of man's will is demonstrated, therefore, to us in
the Incarnation, as in the fount and archetype of all other operations of mercy and grace, all of which are as gratuitous and as dependent on God as the
original operation itself.

1373 23. God Himself has taught us the idea of the omnipotent working of His grace, signifying it by that operation which produces creatures from
nothing and which restores life to the dead.
1374 24. The right idea which the centurion had about the omnipotence of God and of Jesus Christ in healing bodies by a single act of His will,
[Matt. 8:8] is an image of the idea we should have about the omnipotence of His grace in healing souls from cupidity.

1375 25. God illumines the soul, and heals it, as well as the body, by His will only; He gives orders and He is obeyed.
1376 26. No graces are granted except through faith.
1377 27. Faith is the first grace and the source of all others.
1378 28. The first grace which God grants to the sinner Is the remission of sin.
1379 29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted.
1380 30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ, are infallibly saved.

1381 31. The desires of Christ always have their effect; He brings peace to the depth of hearts when He desires it for them.
1382 32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the
elect.
1383 33. Ah, how much one ought to renounce earthly goods and himself for this, that he may have the confidence of appropriating, so to speak,
Christ Jesus to himself, His love, death, and mysteries, as St. Paul does, when he says: "He who loved me, and delivered Himself for me" [Gal.2:20].

1384 34. The grace of Adam produced nothing except human merit.
1385 35. The grace of Adam is a consequence of creation and was due to his whole and sound nature.
1386 36. The essential difference between the grace of Adam and of his state of innocence and Christian grace, is that each one would have received
the first in his own person, but the second is not received except in the person of the risen Jesus Christ to whom we are united.
1387 37. The grace of Adam by sanctifying him in himself was proportionate to him; Christian grace, by sanctifying us in Jesus Christ, is
omnipotent, and worthy of the Son of God.

1388 38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil.
1389 39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to
wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good.
1390 40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemnation.
1391 41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace
knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.

1392 42. The grace of Christ alone renders a man fit for the sacrifice of faith; without this there is nothing but impurity, nothing but unworthiness.
1393 43. The first effect of baptismal grace is to make us die to sin so that our spirit, heart, and senses have no more life for sin than a dead man has
for the things of the world.
1394 44. There are but two loves, from which all our volitions and actions arise: love of God, which does all things because of God and which God
rewards; and the love with which we love ourselves and the world, which does not refer to God what ought to be referred to Him, and therefore becomes
evil.

1395 45. When love of God no longer reigns in the heart of sinners, it needs must be that carnal desire reign in it and corrupt all of its actions.
1396 46. Cupidity or charity makes the use of the senses good or evil.
1397 47. Obedience to the law ought to flow from the source, and this source is charity. When the love of God is the interior principle of obedience
and the glory of God is its end, then that is pure which appears externally; otherwise, it is but hypocrisy and false justice.

1398 48. What else can we be except darkness, except aberration, and except sin, without the light of faith, without Christ, and without charity?
1399 49. As there is no sin without love of ourselves, so there is no good work without love of God.
1400 50. In vain we cry out to God: My Father, if it is not the spirit of charity which cries out.
1401 51. Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity.

1402 52. All other means of salvation are contained in faith as in their own germ and seed; but this faith does not exist apart from love and
confidence.
1403 53. Only charity in the Christian way makes (Christian actions) through a relation to God and to Jesus Christ.
1404 54. It is charity alone that speaks to God; it alone that God hears.
1405 55. God crowns nothing except charity; he who runs through any other incentive or any other motive, runs in vain.

1406 56. God rewards nothing but charity; for charity alone honors God.
1407 57. All fails a sinner, when hope fails him; and there is no hope in God, when there is no love of God.
1408 58. Neither God nor religion exists where there is no charity.
1409 59. The prayer of the impious is a new sin; and what God grants to them is a new judgment against them.
1410 60. If fear of punishment alone animates penance, the more intense this is, the more it leads to despair.

1411 61. Fear restrains nothing but the hand, but the heart is addicted to the sin as long as it is not guided by a love of justice.
1412 62. He who does not refrain from evil except through fear of punishment, commits that evil in his heart, and is already guilty before God.
1413 63. A baptized person is still under the law as a Jew, if he does not fulfill the law, or if he fulfills it from fear alone.
1414 64. Good is never done under the condemnation of the law, because one sins either by doing evil or by avoiding it only through fear.
1415 65. Moses, the prophets, priests, and doctors of the Law died without having given any son to God, since they produced only slaves through
fear.
1416 66. He who wishes to approach to God, should not come to Him with brutal passions, nor be led to Him by natural instinct, or through fear as
animals, but through faith and love, as sons.
1417 67. Servile fear does not represent God to itself except as a stern imperious, unjust, unyielding master.

1418 68. The goodness of God has shortened the road to salvation, by enclosing all in faith and in prayers.
1419 69. Faith, practice of it, increase, and reward of faith, all are a gift of the pure liberality of God.
1420 70. Never does God afflict the innocent; and afflictions always serve either to punish the sin or to purify the sinner.
1421 71. For the preservation of himself man can dispense himself from that law which God established for his use.

1422 72. A mark of the Christian Church is that it is catholic, embracing all the angels of heaven, all the elect and the just on earth, and of all times.
1423 73. What is the Church except an assembly of the sons of God abiding in His bosom, adopted in Christ, subsisting in His person, redeemed by
His blood, living in His spirit, acting through His grace, and awaiting the grace of the future life?
1424 74. The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head, but all the saints as members.

1425 75. The Church is one single man composed of many members, of which Christ is the head, the life, the subsistence and the person; it is one
single Christ composed of many saints, of whom He is the sanctifier
1426 76. There is nothing more spacious than the Church of God; because all the elect and the just of all ages comprise it.
1427 77. He who does not lead a life worthy of a son of God and a member of Christ, ceases interiorly to have God as a Father and Christ as a head.

1428 78. One is separated from the chosen people, whose figure was the Jewish people, and whose head is Jesus Christ, both by not living according
to the Gospel and by not believing in the Gospel.
1429 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries
of Sacred Scripture.
1430 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
1431 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

1432 82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a
Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
1433 83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of
Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures, and have heresies
been born.

1434 84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of
understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
1435 85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to
suffer a kind of excommunication.
1436 86. To snatch from the simple people this consolation of joining their voice to the voice of the whole Church is a custom contrary to the
apostolic practice and to the intention of God.

1437 87. A method full of wisdom, light, and charity is to give souls time for bearing with humility, and for experiencing their state of sin, for
seeking the spirit of penance and contrition, and for beginning at least to satisfy the justice of God, before they are reconciled.
1438 88. We are ignorant of what sin is and of what true penance is, when we wish to be restored at once to the possession of the goods of which sin
has despoiled us, and when we refuse to endure the confusion of that separation.

1439 89. The fourteenth step in the conversion of a sinner is that, after he has already been reconciled, he has the right of assisting at the Sacrifice of
the Church.
1440 90. The Church has the authority to excommunicate, so that it may exercise it through the first pastors with the consent, at least presumed, of
the whole body.
1441 91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when
by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.

1442 92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against
authority or of destroying unity.
1443 93. Jesus sometimes heals the wounds which the precipitous haste of the first pastors inflicted without His command. Jesus restored what they,
with inconsidered zeal, cut off.
1444 94. Nothing engenders a worse opinion of the Church among her enemies than to see exercised there an absolute rule over the faith of the
faithful, and to see divisions fostered because of matters which do not violate faith or morals.

1445 95. Truths have descended to this, that they are, as it were, a foreign tongue to most Christians, and the manner of preaching them is, as it were,
an unknown idiom, so remote is the manner of preaching from the simplicity of the apostles, and so much above the common grasp of the faithful; nor is
there sufficient advertence to the fact that this defect is one of the greatest visible signs of the weakening of the Church and of the wrath of God on His
sons.
1446 96. God permits that all powers be opposed to the preachers of truth, so that its victory cannot be attributed to anyone except to divine grace.

1447 97. Too often it happens that those members, who are united to the Church more holily and more strictly, are looked down upon, and treated as
if they were unworthy of being in the Church, or as if they were separated from Her; but, "the just man liveth by faith" [Rom. 1:17], and not by the
opinion of men.
1448 98. The state of persecution and of punishment which anyone endures as a disgraceful and impious heretic, is generally the final trial and is
especially meritorious, inasmuch as it makes a man more conformable to Jesus Christ.

1449 99. Stubbornness, investigation, and obstinacy in being unwilling either to examine something or to acknowledge that one has been deceived,
daily changes into an odor, as it were, of death, for many people, that which God has placed in His Church to be an odor of life within it, for instance,
good books, instructions, holy examples, etc.
1450 100 Deplorable is the time in which God is believed to be honored by persecution of the truth and its disciples! This time has come. . . . To be
considered and treated by the ministers of religion as impious and unworthy of all commerce with God, as a putrid member capable of corrupting
everything in the society of saints, is to pious men a more terrible death than the death of the body. In vain does anyone flatter himself on the purity of his
intentions and on a certain zeal for religion, when he persecutes honest men with fire and sword, if he is blinded by his own passion or carried away by
that of another on account of which he does not want to examine anything. We frequently believe that we are sacrificing an impious man to God, when
we are sacrificing a servant of God to the devil.

1451 101. Nothing is more opposed to the spirit of God and to the doctrine of Jesus Christ than to swear common oaths in Church, because this is to
multiply occasions of perjury, to lay snares for the weak and inexperienced, and to cause the name and truth of God to serve sometimes the plan of the
wicked.
Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her
practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy
itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly
renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that
sense in which these have been condemned.

INNOCENT XIII 1721-1724 BENEDICT XIII 1724-1730

CLEMENT XII 1730-1740

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Benedict XIV 1740-1758

BENEDICT XIV 1740-1758

Clandestine Marriages in Belgium (and Holland) *

[From the Declaration, "Matrimonia, quae in locis," Nov. 4, 1741]

1452 Marriages which are wont to be entered into in places subject to the dominion of the Federated Orders in Belgium, whether between heretics on
both sides, or between an heretical man on one side and a Catholic woman on the other, or, viceversa, without having observed the form prescribed by the
Sacred Council of Trent, whether such marriages are valid or not has been for a long time greatly disputed in the minds of men, and there are divided and
diverse opinions; a situation which has furnished a rather fruitful source of anxiety and the seed of danger for many years, especially since bishops, parish
priests, and missionaries of these regions have no certainty in regard to the matter and do not dare to decree and to declare anything without consulting
the Holy See. .

1453 (1) Our Most Holy Father, having taken time to ponder the matter, recently enjoined that this declaration and instruction be set down, which
should be employed hereafter as a definite rule and norm by all Belgian bishops, priests, and missionaries of these regions, and vicars apostolic, in
matters of this kind.
1454 (2) Namely, first, in regard to marriages celebrated between heretics in places subject to the authority of the Federated Orders, which did not
observe the form prescribed by Trent, although His Holiness knows that at other times, in certain particular cases and in circumstances attendant and
explained at the time, the Sacred Congregation of the Council has said that they are invalid; nevertheless, His Holiness, being equally certain that nothing
has been generally or universally defined by the Apostolic See regarding marriages of this kind, and, on the other hand, that, in order to furnish advice to
all the faithful residing in those places and to avert more grave disorders, he ought to declare what must be generally held regarding such marriages, after
giving mature consideration to the matter, and sedulously balancing all the weighty reasons pro and con, has declared and decreed that marriages which
have been contracted up to now, and which will be contracted hereafter in the said federated provinces of Belgium between heretics, even if the form
prescribed by Trent shall not have been observed in their celebration, provided no other canonical impediment interferes, are to be considered as valid,
and furthermore, if it should happen that each spouse be received into the bosom of the Catholic Church, they are held bound by the same conjugal tie as
before, even if their mutual consent is not renewed before the Catholic priest; but, if only one of the spouses, either man or woman, should be converted,
neither can, as long as the other is living, enter into another marriage.

1455 (3) Now as regards those marriages which likewise in the same federated provinces of Belgium are contracted by Catholics with heretics
without the form established by Trent, whether a Catholic man takes an heretical woman in marriage, or a Catholic woman marries an heretical man;
grieving very much that there are among Catholics those who, becoming shamefully deranged by a mad love, do not wholeheartedly abhor and think that
they should refrain from these detestable marriages which Holy Mother Church has continually condemned and interdicted, and praising greatly the zeal
of those bishops, who, by proposing severe penalties, endeavor to restrain Catholics from uniting themselves to heretics in this sacrilegious bond, His
Holiness encourages, exhorts, and advises seriously and gravely all bishops, vicars apostolic, parish priests, missionaries, and every other faithful minister
of God and of the Church who reside in those regions, to deter, in so far as they can, Catholics of both sexes from entering into marriages of this kind to
the destruction of their own souls, and to make it their business to avert in every good way and efficaciously to hinder these same marriages. But if by
chance some marriage of this sort, without observing the Tridentine form, has already been contracted there, or may be contracted in the future (which
God forbid!), His Holiness declares that such a marriage, provided that no other canonical impediment exists, must be considered valid, and that neither
of the spouses, as long as the other one lives, can in any way enter into a new marriage under the pretext that the prescribed form was not observed; that
the Catholic spouse, whether man or woman, should especially bear this in mind, that in proportion to the very grave fault he has committed he should do
penance and ask pardon from God, and should try, in proportion to his strength, to draw the other spouse, who is straying from the true faith, back to the
bosom of the Catholic Church, and to win her or his soul, which indeed would be a very excellent means of obtaining pardon for the crime committed,
knowing besides, as has just been said, that he will be perpetually bound by the bond of that marriage.

1456 (4) In addition, the Holy See declares that whatever up to now has been sanctioned and pronounced about marriages, either between heretics or
between Catholics and heretics, in those regions subject to the rule of the Federated Orders in Belgium, is likewise sanctioned and pronounced for similar
marriages contracted outside the limits of the dominion of these same Federated Orders by those who have been assigned to the legions, or military forces
which are customarily sent by these same Federated Orders to guard and to defend the frontier parts commonly called diBarriera; so that, indeed,
marriages entered into there without the Tridentine form between heretics on both sides, or between Catholics and heretics, retain their validity, provided
the spouse in each case belongs to these same military forces or legions; and His Holiness wishes this declaration to include also the city of Mosa
Traiectensis, which is possessed by the Commonwealth of the Federated Orders, not, however, by right of dominion, but only under the name of a pledge,
as they say.

1457 (5) Finally, in regard to marriages which are contracted either in the regions of Catholic princes by those who have a domicile in the federated
provinces, or in the federated provinces by those who have a domicile in the regions of Catholic princes, His Holiness has thought that nothing new
should be decreed and declared, wishing that whenever a dispute arises concerning them, they be decided according to the canonical principles of the
common law, and by the resolution approved in similar cases at other times and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and so he has
declared and decreed and commanded that it be observed by all for the future.

The Minister of Confirmation *

[From the Constitution, "Etsi Pastoralis," for Italian-Greeks, May 26, 1742]

1458 (3) Let Latin bishops unconditionally confirm infants or others bapsized in their dioceses and signed on the forehead with chrism by Greek
priests, since neither by our predecessors nor by us has the faculty been granted, nor is it granted to Greek priests in Italy and the adjacent islands to
confer the sacrament of confirmation on baptized infants. . . . *

Profession of Faith which Is Prescribed for Orientals (Maronites) *

[From the Constitution, "Nuper ad nos.,, March 16. 1743]

1459 5. . . . I, N., with firm faith, etc. I believe in one, etc., [as in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, see n. 86, 994].
1460 I revere also and accept the universal Synods as follows, namely; The first Nicean [see n. 54], and I profess what has been defined in it against
Arius of execrable memory, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, who is born of the substance of the Father,
not made, that He is consubstantial with the Father, that those impious statements have been rightly condemned in the same Synod, such as: "That at
some time He did not exist," or, "that He was made of those things which are not, or of some other substance or essence," or, "that the Son of God is
mutable or changeable."

1461 The first Constantinople, second in order [see n. 85 f.], and I profess that which was defined in it against Macedonius of execrable memory that
the Holy Spirit is not a servant but Lord, not a creature but God, and possessing the one divinity with the Father and the Son.
1462 The first Ephesian [see n. III a f.], third in order, and I profess that which was defined against Nestorius of execrable memory, that divinity and
humanity by an ineffable and incomprehensible union in the one person of the Son of God have constituted for us one Jesus Christ, and that for this
reason the most Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God.

1463 Chalcedon [see n. 148], fourth in order, and I profess that which was defined against Eutyches and Dioscorus, both of execrable memory, that
the one and same Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true man consisting of rational soul
and body, consubstantial with the Father in regard to His divinity, and consubstantial with us in regard to His humanity, in all things similar to us, without
sin; that before time He was born of the Father according to divinity, but that in these latter days the same One, for us and for our salvation, was born of
the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to humanity, and that the one same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten must be recognized in the two natures
without confusion, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, never removing the difference of the natures because of their union, and preserving the peculiar
character of each nature joined in one Person and substance; that this same Lord is not separated and divided into two persons, but is one and the same
Son and Only-begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ: likewise that the divinity of our same Lord Jesus Christ, according to which He is
consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is impassible and immortal; moreover, the same Lord was crucified and died only in the flesh, as was
also defined in the said Synod and in the letter of St. Leo, the Roman Pontiff [cf. n. 143 f.], by whose mouth, the Fathers in the same Synod declared that
Blessed Peter the Apostle spoke, and by this definition there is condemned also that impious heresy of those who, when the Trisagion transmitted by the
angels was being sung in the aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon: "Holy God, strong God, immortal God, have mercy on us," added these words: "Who
was crucified for us," and thereby asserted that the divine nature of the three Persons was passible and mortal.

1464 Second Council of Constantinople [see n. 212 ff.], fifth in order, in which the definition of the aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon was
renewed.
1465 Third Council of Constantinople [see n. 289 ff.], sixth in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Monothelites, that in our one
same Lord, Jesus Christ, there are two natural wills and two natural operations without division, change, separation, or confusion, and that His human
will is not contrary to, but subject to His divine and omnipotent will.

1466 Second Nicean Council [see n. 302 ff.], seventh in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Iconoclasts, that images of Christ and
of the Virgin Mother of God, as well as of other saints, should be kept and retained, and that due honor and veneration should be given.to them
1467 The fourth of Constantinople [see n. 336 ff.], eighth in order, and I profess that in it Photius was rightly condemned, and that Saint Ignatius, the
Patriarch, was rightly reinstated (restored).

1468 I venerate also and accept all the other universal Synods which have been lawfully held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff,
and especially the Synod of Florence; [there follows what is gathered and excerpted as far as the meaning goes from the decree on the union of the
Greeks (namely, n. 691-693), and from the decree for the Armenians (see n. 712 f.), of the Council of Florence]. . . .
1469 Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent [see n. 782 ff.], and I profess what was defined and declared in it, and especially that there is
offered to God in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in
accordance with the faith that had always been in the Church of God, there is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with
the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Christ, and that there is made a change of the whole substance of the bread into the
body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which change the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, and that under each
species and in each single part of each species, when a division is made, the whole Christ is contained.

1470 Likewise, I profess that there are seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, our Lord, for the salvation of the human race, although
not all of them are necessary for each individual: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and (I
profess) that these confer grace, and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege. Likewise (I profess) that
baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if
conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time. Likewise (I profess) that the bond of the sacrament of matrimony is
indissoluble, and that, although a separation of bed and board may be possible between the Spouses because of adultery, heresy, and some other causes,
nevertheless it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

1471 Likewise, (I profess) that the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions must be accepted and revered; also, that power of granting indulgences has
been left to the Church of Christ, and that their use is very salutary for Christian people.
1472 Likewise, I accept and profess what was defined in the aforesaid Synod of Trent about original sin, about justification, about the list and
interpretation of the sacred books of both the New Testament and the Old [cf. n. 787 ff., 783 ff.]

1473 Likewise, all other things I accept and profess, which the Holy Roman Church accepts and professes, and I likewise condemn, reject, and
anathematize, at the same time all contrary things, both schisms and heresies, which have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the same
Church. In addition, I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles and the vicar of
Jesus Christ. And that this faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, etc. . . . [as in the Tridentine profession of faith, see n. 1000].

About not Demanding the Name of an Accomplice *

[From the Brief, "Supreme omnium Ecclesiarum sollicitudo,"July 7, 1745]

1474 (1) For it came to our attention not so long ago that some confessors of those parts, allowing themselves to be seduced by a false idea of zeal,
but straying far from the zeal "according to knowledge" [cf. Rom. 10:2], have begun to bring in and to introduce a certain evil and pernicious practice in
hearing the confessions of the faithful of Christ, and in administering the very saving sacrament of penance: namely, that if by chance they should happen
upon penitents who have an associate in their sin, they demand at times from these penitents the name of such an accomplice or companion, and they
attempt to induce them to reveal this to them not only by persuasion, but what is more detestable, they directly force and compel them to reveal it, under a
threat of denying them sacramental absolution; nay more, they demand that not only the name of the accomplice be made known but also the place of
residence, and this intolerable imprudence they do not hesitate to disguise by the specious pretext of procuring the correction of the accomplice and of
accomplishing other good effects, nor to defend it by falsifying the opinions of learned men, when, in truth, by following false and erroneous opinions of
this sort, or by making a bad application of true and sound principles, they bring destruction not only to their own souls but also to those of their
penitents, and, besides, they render themselves guilty before God, the eternal judge, of many serious evils which they ought to have foreseen would easily
follow from their action. . . . (3) Moreover, in order that we may not seem to be lacking in our apostolic ministry to any degree in so great a danger to
souls, and so that we may not permit our mind on this matter to be obscure or ambiguous to you, we wish you to know that the practice mentioned above
must be entirely repudiated, and this same practice is reproved and condemned by Us through our present letters in the form of a brief, as scandalous and
dangerous, and as harmful to the reputation of one's neighbor as it is to the sacrament itself, and tending to the violation of the most sacred sacramental
seal and alienating the faithful from so advantageous and necessary a use of this same sacrament of penance.

Usury *
[From the Encyclical "Vix pervenit" to the bishops of Italy, Nov. 1, 1745]

1475 (Sec. 3), T. That species of sin which is called usury, and which has its proper seat and place in a contract of lending, consists in this: that
someone, from the loan itself, which of its very nature demands that only as much be returned as was received, wishes more to be returned to him than
was received, and therefore contends that some profit beyond the principal, by reason of the lending, is due to him. Therefore, all profit of this sort, which
surpasses the principal, is unlawful and is usurious.
1476 2. Nor may any defense be summoned to justify that guilt, either from this fact, that the gain is not excessive and over much, but moderate, is
not great but meager; or from this, that he from whom that profit is asked, because of the loan itself, is not a poor man but rich, who is not going to leave
the sum given to him as a loan idle but is going to spend it advantageously to increase his fortune either by buying new estates or by transacting profitable
business. Indeed, that person is convicted of acting contrary to the law of lending, which necessarily is concerned with the equality of what is given and
returned, who, although that same equality has already once been rendered, does not fear to demand something more from someone, by reason of the
lending itself, for which satisfaction has already been made on equal terms; and hence, if he should receive it, he will be obligated to restitution by reason
of his obligation in justice, which they call commutative justice, and whose purpose it is both to preserve inviolably in human contracts the equality
proper to each one, and to repair it exactly when it is not observed.

1477 3. But by this it is not at all denied that sometimes there can perhaps occur certain other titles, as they say, together with the contract of lend ing,
and these not at all innate or intrinsic in general to the nature of a loan, from which titles there arises a just and entirely legitimate cause of rightly
demanding something more above the principal than is due from the loan. Likewise, it is not denied that many times one's own money can be rightly
invested and expended in other contracts of a different nature from the nature of lending, either to secure an annual income for oneself, or also to practice
legitimate commerce and business, and thus procure an honest profit.

1478 4. But, just as in so many different kinds of contracts of this nature, it is well known that if the equality of each one is not observed, whatever is
received more than is just, pertains, if not to usury (for the reason that there is no loan either open or secret), certainly does pertain to some other real
injustice carrying likewise the burden of retribution; so, also, if all things are rightly transacted and carried out according to the scale of justice, there is no
doubt that in these same contracts there occurs a multifold lawful manner and method of maintaining and carrying on human commerce and profitable
business itself for the common good. For, far be it from Christian minds that they should think that, by making use of usury or similar harmful injustices,
there could flourish a profitable commerce; since, on the contrary, we should learn from the divine proverb that "justice exalteth a nation, but sin maketh
nations miserable" [Prov. 14:34].

1479 5. But this must be diligently borne in mind, that one would falsely and certainly rashly persuade himself that there is always found and is
everywhere present, either some legitimate titles together with a loan, or, even excluding a loan, other just contracts, by the aid of which titles or
contracts, it is permitted, as often as money, grain, or something of that kind is lent to another, just so often to receive a moderate increase beyond the
whole and sound principal. And so, if anyone thinks in this manner, he will without any doubt be in opposition not only to the divine Scriptures and to the
judgment of the Catholic Church about usury, but even to human common sense itself, and to natural reason. For, this at least cannot escape anyone, that
in many cases a man is bound to succor another with a pure and simple act of lending, especially when Christ the Lord teaches: "From him that would
borrow of thee, turn not away" [Matt. 5:42]; and that, similarly, in many circumstances, besides the loan itself, there can be place for no other just and
true contract. Whoever, therefore, is willing to consult his conscience, ought first to inquire whether, with a loan there is truly any other just title, or, apart
from a loan there is a just contract, by reason of which the profit which he seeks may be returned immune and free of all guilt.

The Baptism of Jewish Children *

[From the epistle "Postremo menses to the Viceregent in the City, Feb. 28, 1747]

1480 3. . . . The first point to be considered is whether Hebrew children can be lawfully baptized, if the parents are unwilling and reluctant.
Secondly, if we say that this is unlawful, then we must consider whether any case might occur, in which this could not only be done, but would be even
lawful and clearly fitting. Thirdly, we must consider whether the baptism bestowed on Hebrew children at a time when it is now lawful, should be
considered valid or invalid. Fourthly, we must consider what must be done when Hebrew children are brought to be baptized, or when it is discovered that
they have been admitted to sacred baptism; finally, how it can be proved that these same children have already been purified by the saving waters.

1481 If there is any discussion of the first chapter of the first part, whether Hebrew children can be baptized if the parents object, we openly assert
that this has already been defined in three places by St. Thomas, namely, in Quodl. 2, a. 7; in II-II ae, q. 10, a. 12. where, recalling for examination the
question proposed in the Quodlibeta: "Whether the children of Jews and of other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of the parents," he
answered thus: "I reply that it must be said that the custom of the Church has great authority, which should always be followed in all things, etc.
Moreover, the usage of the Church never held that the children of Jews should be baptized against their parents' wishes. . . ," and in addition he says this
in III a, q. 68, a. 10: "I reply that it must be said that children, sons of unbelievers. . ., if they do not yet have the use of free will, are, according to the
natural law, under the care of their parents, as long as they cannot provide for themselves. . ., and, therefore, it would be against natural justice, if such
children were baptized without the parents' consent; just as if someone having the use of reason should be baptized against his will. It would even be
dangerous. . .

1482 Scotus in 4 Sent. dist. 4, q. 9, n. 2, and in questions related to n. 2, thought that a prince could laudably command that small children of
Hebrews and unbelievers be baptized, even against the will of the parents, provided one could prudently see to it that these same children were not killed
by the parents. . . . Nevertheless, the opinion of St. Thomas prevailed in courts . . . and is more widespread among theologians and those skilled in canon
law *. . . .

1483 7. Therefore, this having been established, that it is unlawful to baptize Hebrew children against the will of their parents, now, following the
order proposed in the beginning, we must take up the second part: namely, whether any occasion could ever occur in which that would be lawful and
fitting. . .
1484 8. . . . Since this may happen, that a child of Hebrew parentage be found by some Christian to be close to death, he will certainly perform a
deed which I think is praiseworthy and pleasing to God, if he furnishes the child with eternal salvation by the purifying water. . . .

1485 9. If, likewise, it should happen that any Hebrew child had been cast out and abandoned by its parents, it is the common opinion of all and has
also been confirmed by many decisions, that the child ought to be baptized, even if the parents protest against this and demand the child back. . . .
1486 After we have explained the most obvious cases in which this rule of ours prohibits the baptizing of Hebrew children against the wishes of their
parents, we add some other declarations pertaining to this rule, the first of which is this: If parents are lacking, but the infants have been entrusted to the
guardianship of a Hebrew, they can in no way be lawfully baptized without the assent of the guardian, since all the authority of the parents has passed to
the guardians. . . . 15. The second is this, if the father should enlist in the Christian militia and order his infant son to be baptized, he should be baptized,
even though the Hebrew mother protests, since the child must be considered to be, not under the power of the mother, but under that of the father.* . . .
16. The third is this, that although the mother does not have her children under her own right, nevertheless, if she belongs to the Christian faith and offers
her child for baptism, although the Hebrew father protests, nevertheless, the child should be cleansed by the water of baptism. . . . 17. The fourth is that,
if it is a certainty that the will of parents is necessary for the baptism of children, since under the name of parent a paternal grandfather also is included . .
., then it necessarily follows that, if the paternal grandfather has embraced the Catholic faith and brings his grandchild to the font of saving water,
although the Hebrew mother objects, when the father is dead, nevertheless, the child should be baptized without hesitation. * . . .

1487 18. It is not an imaginary case that sometimes a Hebrew father says that he wants to embrace the Catholic religion and presents himself and his
infant sons to be baptized, but afterwards regrets his intention and refuses to have his son baptized. This happened at Mantua. . . . The case was brought
for examination in the Congregation of the Holy Office, and the Pope on the 24th day of September in the year 1699 decreed that action should be taken
as follows: "His Holiness, having listened to the wishes of the Cardinals, decreed that two infant sons, one three years old, the other five, be baptized. The
other children, namely a son of eight years and a daughter twelve, should be placed in the house of catechumens, if there is one at Mantua, but if not, at
the home of a pious and honorable person for the purpose of finding out their will and of instructing them. . . . "

1488 19. Also some unbelievers are accustomed to bring their children to Christians to be washed with the saving waters, not however that they may
merit the satisfactions of Christ, nor that the guilt of original sin may be washed from their soul, but they do this, motivated by some base superstition,
namely because they think that by the benefit of baptism, these same children may be freed from malignant spirits, from infection, or some illness. . . .

1489 21. Some unbelievers, when they have represented this idea to themselves, that by the grace of baptism their children will be freed from
illnesses and the persecution of the demons, are brought to such a pass of madness that they have also threatened Catholic priests with death. . .
. But, in opposition to this belief, the Congregation of the Holy Office in the presence of the Pope on the 5th day of September, 1625,
contested: "The Sacred Congregation of the general Inquisition held in the presence of His Holiness, having read the letters of the Bishop
Antibarensis, in which he made supplication for a solution of the doubt written below: Whether, when priests are compelled by
Turks to baptize their children, not that they may make them Christians, but for their bodily health, so that they may
be freed from infection, epilepsy, the danger of bewitchment, and wolves, whether in such a case they could pretend
to baptize them, making use of the matter of baptism without the prescribed form? He replied in the negative,
because baptism is the door of the sacraments and a profession of faith, and that in no way can it be simulated. . . . "
1490 29. And so our discourse comes now to those who are presented for baptism neither by their parents nor by
others who have any right over them, but by someone who has no authority. In addition, there is a question about
those whose cases are not comprehended under the dispositions which permits baptism to be conferred, even if the
consent of their elders is withheld. In this case, indeed, they ought not to be baptized, but be sent back to those in
whose power and trust they are lawfully placed. But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either
they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they
may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, wh,though it be unlawful,
nevertheless is true and valid.

Errors Concerning Duelling *

[Condemned in the Constitution, "Detestabilem," Nov. 10, 1752]

1491 1. A military man who would be considered fearful, timid, abject, and unfit for military offices unless he offers or
accepts a duel, and hence would be deprived of an office by which he supports himself and his family, or who
would be perpetually deprived of the hope of promotion otherwise due him and merited by him, is free from guilt
and penalty, whether he offers a duel or accepts one.
1492 2. Those who accept a duel, or even provoke a duel for the sake of protecting their honor, or of avoiding the
disrepute of men, can be excused when they know for certain that the combat will not take place, inasmuch as it will
be prevented by others.
1493 3. A leader or military officer who accepts a duel through grave fear of losing his reputation or his office, does
not incur the ecclesiastical penalties brought by the Church against duelists.
1494 4. It is permitted in the natural state of man to accept and to offer a duel to preserve one's fortunes with honor,
when their loss cannot be prevented by any other means.
1495 5. This permission, claimed for the natural state, can also be applied to the state of the commonwealth which is
badly regulated, that is to say, in which justice is openly denied, either because of the negligence or the wickedness
of the magistracy.
Condemned and prohibited as false, scandalous, and pernicious.

CLEMENT XIII 1758 -- 1769 CLEMENT XIV 1769 -- 1774

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius VI 1775-1799
PIUS VI 1775-1799

Mixed Marriages in Belgium *

[From the Rescript of Pius Vl to Card. de Franckenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and to the Bishops of Belgium,July 13, 1782]
1496 . . . And therefore we must not depart from the uniform opinion of our predecessors and from ecclesiastical discipline, which do not approve
marriages between parties who are both heretics, or between a Catholic on the one hand and a heretic on the other, and this much less in a case where
there is need of a dispensation of some sort. . . .
1497 Passing now to that point about the requested assistance of parish priests in mixed marriages, we say that if the above named admonition to
recall the Catholic party from the unlawful marriage has been fulfilled, and nevertheless he persists in his will to contract it, and it is foreseen that the
marriage will inevitably follow, then the Catholic priest can lend his material presence, nevertheless in such wise that he is bound to observe the
following precautions: First, that he does not assist at such a marriage in a sacred place, nor clothed in any vestment betokening a sacred function, nor
will he recite over the contracting parties any prayers of the Church, and in no way shall he bless them. Secondly, that he will exact and receive from the
contracting heretic a declaration in writing, in which with an oath in the presence of two witnesses, who also ought to sign their names, he obligates
himself to permit his partner the free use of the Catholic religion, and to educate in it all the children who shall be born without any distinction of sex. . . .
Thirdly, that the contracting Catholic make a declaration signed by himself and two witnesses, in which he promises with an oath not only never to
apostatize from his Catholic religion, but to educate in it all his future offspring, and to procure effectively the conversion of the other contracting non-
Catholic.

1498 Fourthly, that which concerns the proclamations commanded by the imperial decree, which the bishops hold to be civil rather than sacred acts,
we answer: Since they have been preordained for the future celebration of marriage and consequently contain a positive cooperation with it, a thing which
certainly exceeds the limits of simple tolerance, we cannot consent that these be made. . . .
1499 It remains now to speak about one more point, concerning which, although we have not been expressly interrogated, nevertheless we do not
think it should be passed over in silence, insomuch as, in practice, it could too frequently happen; namely, this: Whether the contracting Catholic,
afterwards wishing to share in the sacraments, ought to be admitted to them? To this we say that as long as he shall demonstrate that he is sorry for his
sinful union, this can be granted to him, provided he shall sincerely declare before confession that he will procure the conversion of his heretical spouse,
that he renews his promise of educating his children in the orthodox religion, and that he will repair the scandal he has given to the other faithful. If these
conditions obtain, we are not opposed to the Catholic party receiving the sacraments.*

Concerning the Power of the Roman Pontiff

(Against Febronianism) *
[From the Brief, "Super soliditate," Nov. 28, 1786

1500 And since truly, as Augustine teaches,* God has placed the doctrine of truth in the chair of unity, that unfortunate writer on the contrary leaves
nothing undone with which to harass and attack in every way this See of Peter, in which See the Fathers have taught with unanimous agreement that that
chair was established, in which alone unity might be preserved by all; from which the rights of the venerable communion emanate to all the others; and to
which it is necessary that every church and all the faithful everywhere come [cf. Vatican Council, n. 1824]. He has not hesitated to call fanatic the crowd
which he saw breaking forth into these words at the sight of the Pontiff: "He is the man who has received from God the keys of the kingdom of heaven
with the power of binding and loosing, to whom no other bishop can be made equal, from whom these very bishops receive their authority as he himself
received his supreme power from God; moreover, he is the vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church, the supreme judge of the faithful." Could,
therefore (a thing horrible to say), that voice of Christ have been fanatical, which promised [Matt. 16:19] Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven with
the power of binding and loosing; which keys Optatus Milevitanus, following Tertullian, did not hesitate to confess that Peter alone received to be
communicated to the others? Or, are so many solemn decrees of the Popes and Councils repeated so many times to be called fanatic, by which those have
been condemned who denied that in blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, his successor, the Roman Pontiff, was established by God as the visible
head of the Church and the vicar of Jesus Christ, that to him has been transmitted full power of ruling the Church, and that true obedience is due him from
all who are considered Christians; and that such is the power of the primacy, which he holds by divine right, that he is superior to other bishops not only
by his rank of honor but by the plenitude of his supreme power? All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to
renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees, who has said and insinuated indiscriminately by many
ambiguities, that every bishop, no less than the pope, was called by God to govern the Church, and was endowed with no less power; that Christ gave the
same power Himself to all the apostles; and that whatever some people believe is obtained and granted only by the pope, that very thing, whether it
depends on consecration or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can be obtained just as well from any bishop; that Christ wished His Church to be governed in the
manner of a republic; and that, indeed, for that government there is need of a head for the good of unity, but one who does not dare to interfere in the
affairs of others (bishops) who rule at the same time; nevertheless, he has the privilege of exhorting those who are negligent to the fulfillment of their
duties; that the power of the primacy is contained in this one prerogative, of making up for the negligence of others, of looking after the preservation of
unity by encouragement and example; that the popes have no power in another diocese except in an extraordinary case; that the pope is the head because
he holds his power and strength from the Church; that the Pontiffs have made it lawful for themselves to violate the rights of bishops, to reserve to
themselves absolutions, dispensations, decisions, appeals, bestowal of benefices, in a word all other duties which he enumerates one by one and derides
as unjust reservations and injurious to bishops.

The Power of the One Church in the Marriage of Baptized Persons *

[From the Epistle, "Deessemus nobis," to the Bishop of Motula, Sept. 16, 1788]

1500a It is not unknown to us that there are some, who, attributing too much to the authority of the secular princes, and captiously interpreting the
words of this canon [see n. 982], have undertaken to defend this: That, since the Tridentine Fathers did not make use of this form of speaking, "to
ecclesiastical judges alone," or, "all matrimonial cases,"--they (the Tridentine Fathers) have left to lay judges the power of at least invest) gating
matrimonial cases which are of pure fact. But we know that even this sophism and this false kind of quibbling are devoid of all foundation. For the words
of the canon are so general that they embrace and comprise all cases. Moreover, the spirit or purpose of the law extends so widely that it leaves no place
for exception or limitation. For if these cases pertain to the tribunal of the Church alone for no other reason than because the marriage contract is truly and
properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, then, just as this notion of the sacrament is common to all matrimonial cases, so all these
cases ought to pertain to the ecclesiastical judges alone.
Errors of the Synod of Pistoia *
[Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794]

[A. Errors about the Church *

Obscuring of Truths in the Church

[From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]

1501 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]

1502 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]

1503 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]

1504 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.

1505 5. In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church "does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by
means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and
persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments"
[from Benedict XIV in the Brief, "Ad assiduas," of the year 1755, to the Primate, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Kingdom of Poland ],--leading toward
a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.

Rights Attributed to Bishops Beyond What is Lawful

[Decree de ord., sec. 25]

1506 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.

1507 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.

1508 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]

1509 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,''*--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.]

1510 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]

1511 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]

1512 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]

1513 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 (see n. 1099),--false, rash, injurious to Clement IX.
1514 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]
1515 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, sees. 4, 7: the sacraments in general, sec. 1;
penance, sec. 4]

1516 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 [see n. 1001 ff.], and in Quesnel [see n. 1384 ff.], erroneous, favorable to the
Pelagian heresy.

Immortality Viewed as a Natural Condition of Man [Baptism, sec. 2]

1517 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 [see n. 1078].

The Condition of Man in the State of Nature

[On Grace, see. 10]

1518 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 Semipelagian heresy.

The Condition of Man under the Law

[Ibid.]

1519 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 "rat., e. 43; De
"rat. et lib. arb., e. 16, Enarr. in psalm. 56, n. I),--false scandalous, impious, condemned in Baius (see n. 1504).

1520 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 Conc. Araus. II, can. 3 [v.n.
176]),--the proposition as it stands, deceitful, suspect, favorable to the Semipelagian heresy.

Illuminating and Exciting Grace

[Grace, sec. 11]

1521 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 [see n. 797]), 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 [see n. 1093].

Faith as the First Grace

[Faith, sec. I]

1522 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 [see n. 1377], erroneous.

The Twofold love

[Grace, sec. 8]

1523 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 [see n. 817, 1040].

Sec. 12

1524 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 ear., edit.
Maurin),--false, elsewhere condemned [see n. 1038, 1297].

Servile Fear
[On Penance, sec. 3]

1525 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 [see n. 746], contrary to the doctrine of the
Council of Trent [see n. 798, 898], 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 [1] epist.
Io., c. 4, tract. 9; in lo. 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]

1526 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]

1527 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]

1528 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]

1529 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: I) 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 [see n. 877, 884], and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [see n. 997]; 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 ]

1530 30. The doctrine of the synod, by which, while it professes "to believethat 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 (sees. 23, c. IDe reform; BENED. XIV, Constit. "Cum semper oblatas," sec. 2),--false,
rash, dangerous, injurious to the Church, leading into the error elsewhere condemned in Wycliffe [see n 599 ].

The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship

[The Eucharist, sec. 5 ]

1531 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 flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the
Church, especially in the Latin Church.

[Ibid]

1532 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]

1533 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 ]

1534 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 ]

1535 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 [see 728 ; cf. n1306 f.]

The Previous Disposition Necessary for Admitting

Penitents to Reconciliation

Grace, sec. 15 ]

1536 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 prescribeDe 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 [cf.798 ], 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]

1537 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 [see no. 903 ], erroneous.

[Ibid.,sec. II]
 38. Likewise, that teaching in which, after the synod professed that "it could not but admire that very venerable
1538
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 [57e], to the decretal of
Innocent I to Exuperius Tolos [see n. 95 ], and then also to the decretal of Celestine I to the Bishops of Vienne, and
of the Province of Narbon [see n. III], 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
1539
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 [see n. 899 ] by the sacred Council of Trent.

Indulgences

[Penance, sec. 16 ]

1540 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, ras,, injurious to t to the merits of Christ, already
condemned in article 19. of Luther [see n.759 ].

[Ibid]

1541 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 [see757 ; cf. n550
ff.].

[Ibid]

42. Likewise, in this which it adds, that "it is still more lamentable that that fabulous application is meant to be
1542
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 [cf. 729 ] in the heretical note in Peter of Osma, again
condemned in article 22 of Luther [see n. 762 ].

[Ibid]

1543 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. 19 ]

1544 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, evilsounding, dangerous, contrary to the Council of Trent [see n.
903 ], injurious to the hierarchic power.

[Ibid]

1545 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 (sees. 14, C. 7 [n. 903 ]) 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
1546
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 lo.,I2),--false,
dangerous, condemned in art. 23 of Luther [see n. 763 ], at least erroneous.

[Sees. 21. and 23]

1547 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]

1548 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
1549
conscience,"--false, pernicious, injurious to Trent.

[Ibid]

1550 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 (sees. 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
1551
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 othertitle for ordinations than appointment to some
1552
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
1553
from the old rule by which, as it says (Sec. 5) the Church, treading in the footsteps of the Apos, 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, ordination 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 accus--tomed 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 intro duced 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]

1554 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
1555
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" (Cone. prov. IV of Milan), and this also according to the intention of
the Tridentine Council (sees. 23, c. 17. "that the duties of sacred orders, from the diaconate to the porter, laudably
received in he Church from apostolic times and neglected for a while m many laces, should be renewed according
to the sacred canons, and should not be considered useless as they are by heretics,"--a rash suggestion, offento
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]

1556 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
1557
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 (sees. 7, C. 5, and sess. 24, c.
17).

Betrothals and Matrimony

[Memorial Booklet about Betrothals, etc. sec. 8 ]

1558 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 flowing even from betrothals by reason of the canonical sanctions,
derogatory to the discipline established by the Church.

[Matrimony, sees. 7, 11, 12 ]

1559 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 [see 973 ff.].

[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,
1560
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 far 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 [see n. 973 ff.].

D. Errors Concerning Duties, Practices, Rules Pertaining

to Religious Worship And First, the Adoration of the Humanity of Christ.
Faith, sec. 3 ]

1561 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 2nd council of Constantinople, 5th Ecumenical Council,
canon 9 [see n. 221 ; cf. n120 ]),--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 ]

1562 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 ]

1563 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 ]

1564 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 ]

1565 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 ]

1566 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 celebrant tion of the mysteries, easily productive of many evils.

The Reading of Sacred Scripture

From the note at the end of the decree on grace ]

1567 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 [sec1429
ff.].
 The Reading of Proscribed Books Publicly in Church
Prayer, 29 ]

1568 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 pros
scribed; 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 ]

1569 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).
1570 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).
1571 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.
1572 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
1573
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]

1574 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 class,--a
false proposition, harmful to the law of the general Council and of the Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favorable to
schism.

Oaths

[Libell. memor. for the reformation of oaths, sec. 4 ]

1575 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 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. I ]

76. The charge which the synod brings against the scholastic method as that "which opened the way for
1576
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
1577
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 ]

1578 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 distinuished from that
which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or usef
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. I ]

79. The assertion which attacks with slanderous charges the opinions discussed in Catholic schools about which
1579
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"
[Libel!. memor. for the reformation of regulars, sec. 9 ]

1580 80. Rule I which states universally and without distinction that "the regular or monastic stem 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 [see
n. 90].)*
1581 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
1582 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.
1583 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]

1584 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-Roy* 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
1585
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;
1586 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;
1587 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;
1588 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;
1589 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;
1590 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
1591 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. I]

1592 "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

[Libel!. memor. for convoking a national council, sec. I ]

1593 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.
1594 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.
1595 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.
1596 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
1597
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* 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 * 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
1598
adorn not only with most ample praises the declaration (n. 1322 ff.) 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,
1599
by letters in the form of a Brief on the 11th 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 (see 1322 ff.),
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.

The Application of the Fruit of the Sacrifice

[The Eucharist, sec. 8]

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius VII 1800-1823

PIUS VII 1800-1823

The Indissolubility of Marriage *

[From the Brief to Charles of Dalberg, Archbishop of
Mainz, November 8, 1803]

1600 "To the doubts proposed to him the Supreme Pontiff, among other remarks, responds": The decision of lay tribunals and of Catholic assemblies
by which the nullity of marriages is chiefly declared, and the dissolution of their bond attempted, can have no strength and absolutely no force in the sight
of the Church. . . .
1601 Those pastors who would approve these nuptials by their presence and confirm them with their blessing would commit a very grave fault and
would betray their sacred ministry. For they should not be called nuptials, but rather adulterous unions. . . .

Versions of Sacred Scripture *

[From the epistle "Magno et acerbo" to the Archbishop of Mohileff, September 3, 1816]

1602 We were overcome with great and bitter sorrow when We learned that a pernicious plan, by no means the first, had been undertaken, whereby
the most sacred books of the Bible are being spread everywhere in every vernacular tongue, with new interpretations which are contrary to the
wholesome rules of the Church, and are skillfully turned into a distorted sense. For, from one of the versions of this sort already presented to Us we notice
that such a danger exists against the sanctity Of purer doctrine, so that the faithful might easily drink a deadly poison from those fountains from which
they should drain "waters of saving wisdom" [Sirach. 15:3]. . . .

1603 For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are
permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage. Furthermore, the Roman Church,
accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription (see n. 785 f.) of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other
tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great
a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be "of one tongue and of the
same speech" [Gen. 11:1].
1604 Since in vernacular speech we notice very frequent interchanges, varieties, and changes, surely by an unrestrained license of Biblical versions
that changelessness which is proper to the divine testimony would be utterly destroyed, and faith itself would waver, when, especially, from the meaning
of one syllable sometimes an understanding about the truth of a dogma is formed. For this purpose, then, the heretics have been accustomed to make their
low and base machinations, in order that by the publication of their vernacular Bibles, (of whose strange variety and discrepancy they, nevertheless,
accuse one another and wrangle) they may, each one, treacherously insert their own errors wrapped in the more holy apparatus of divine speech. "For
heresies are not born," St. Augustine used to say, "except when the true Scriptures are not well understood and when what is not well understood in them
is rashly and boldly asserted.''* But, if we grieve that men renowned for piety and wisdom have, by no means rarely, failed in interpreting the Scriptures,
what should we not fear if the Scriptures, translated into every vulgar tongue whatsoever, are freely handed on to be read by an inexperienced people
who, for the most part, judge not with any skill but with a kind of rashness? . . .

1605 Therefore, in that famous letter of his to the faithful of the Church at Meta, Our predecessor, Innocent III,* quite wisely prescribes as follows:
"In truth the secret mysteries of faith are not to be exposed to all everywhere, since they cannot be understood by all everywhere, but only by those who
can grasp them with the intellect of faith. Therefore, to the more simple the Apostle says: "I gave you milk to drink as unto little ones in Christ, not meat"
[1 Cor. 3:2]. For solid food is for the elders, as he said: "We speak wisdom . . . among the perfect" [1 Cor 2:6]; "for I judged not myself to know anything
among you, but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified" [1 Cor. 2:2]. For so great is the depth of Divine Scripture that not only the simple and the unlettered, but
even the learned and prudent are not fully able to explore the understanding of it. Therefore, Scripture says that many "searching have failed in their
search" [Ps. 63:7].

1606 "So it was rightly stated of old in the divine law, that even the beast which touched the mountain should be stoned" [Heb. 12:20; Exod. 19:12]
lest, indeed, any simple and ignorant person should presume to reach the sublimity of Sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others. For it is written: Seek not
the things that are too high for thee [Sir 3:22] Therefore, the Apostle warns "not to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise, but to be wise unto
sobriety" [Rom. 12:3]. But, noteworthy are the Constitutions, not only of Innocent III, just mentioned, but also of Pius IV,* Clement VIII,* and Benedict
XIV * in which the precaution was laid down that, if Scripture should be easily open to all, it would perhaps become cheapened and be exposed to
contempt, or, if poorly understood by the mediocre, would lead to error. But, what the mind of the Church is in regard to the reading and interpretation of
Scripture your fraternity may know very clearly from the excellent Constitution of another of Our predecessors, CLEMENT XI, "Unigenitus," in which
those doctrines were thoroughly condemned in which it was asserted that it is useful and necessary to every age, to every place, to every type of person to
know the mysteries of Sacred Scripture, the reading of which was to be open to all, and that it was harmful to withdraw Christian people from it, nay
more, that the mouth of Christ was closed for the faithful when the New Testament was snatched from their hands [Propositions of Quesnel 79-85; n.
1429-1435].

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Leo XII 1823-1829

LEO XII 1823-1829

The Versions of Sacred Scripture *

[From the Encyclical "Ubi primum,' May 5, 1824]

1607 . . . The wickedness of our enemies is progressing to such a degree that, besides the flood of pernicious books hostile in themselves to religion'
they are endeavoring to turn to the harm of religion even the Sacred Literature given to us by divine Providence for the progress of religion itself. It is not
unknown to you, Venerable Brethren, that a certain "Society," commonly called "Biblical," is boldly spreading through the whole world, which, spurning
the traditions of the Holy Fathers and against the well-known decree [see n. 786] of the Council of Trent, is aiming with all its strength and means toward
this: to translate--or rather mistranslate--the Sacred Books into the vulgar tongue of every

1608 And to avert this plague, Our predecessors have published many Constitutions [e.g., PIUS VII; see n. 1602 ff.]. . . . We, also, in accord with our
Apostolic duty, encourage you, Venerable Brothers, to be zealous in every way to remove your flock away from these poisonous pastures. "Reprove,
entreat, be instant in season, out of season, in all patience and doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:2], so that your faithful people, clinging exactly to the regulations of our
Congregation of the Index, may be persuaded that, "if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more harm
will arise therefrom than advantage, because of the boldness of men." Experience demonstrates the truth of this and, besides other Fathers, St. Augustine
has declared in these words: "For not . . ." [see n. 1604].

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius VIII 1829-1830

PIUS VIII 1829-1830

Usury *
[Response of Pius Vlll to the Bishop of Rheims,*
given in audience, August 18, 1830]
1609 The Bishop of Rheims in France explains that. . ., the confessors of his diocese do not hold the same opinion concerning the profit received
from money given as a loan to business men, in order that they may be enriched thereby. There is bitter dispute over the meaning of the Encyclical Letter,
"Vix pervenit" [see n. 1475 ff.]. On both sides arguments are produced to defend the opinion each one has embraced, either favorable to such profit or
against it. Thence come quarrels, dissensions, denial of the sacraments to many business men engaging in that method of making money, and countless
damage to souls. To meet this harm to souls, some confessors think they can hold a middle course between both opinions. If anyone consults them about
gain of this sort, they try to dissuade him from it. If the penitent perseveres in his plan of giving money as a loan to business men, and objects that an
opinion favorable to such a loan has many patrons, and moreover, has not been condemned by the Holy See, although more than once consulted about it,
then these confessors demand that the penitent promise to conform in filial obedience to the judgment of the Holy Pontiff whatever it may be, if he should
intervene; and having obtained this promise, they do not deny them absolution, although they believe an opinion contrary to such a loan is more probable.
If a penitent does not confess the gain from money given as a loan, and appears to be in good faith, these confessors, even if they know from other
sources that gain of this sort has been taken by him and is even now being taken they absolve him, making no interrogation about the matter, because they
fear that the penitent, being advised to make restitution or to refrain from such profit, will refuse.

1610 Therefore the said Bishop of Rheims inquires:

1. Whether he can approve the method of acting on the part of these latter confessors.
2. Whether he could encourage other more rigid confessors who come to consult him to follow the plan of action of those others until the Holy
See brings out an express opinion on this question.

Pius Vlll responded:

To 1: They are not to be disturbed. To II: Provided for in the first.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Gregory XVI 1831-1846

GREGORY XVI 1831-1846

Usury *
[Declarations about a response of PIUS VIII *]

1611 A. To the doubts of the Bishop of Viviers: *

1 "Whether the aforesaid judgment of the Most Holy Pontiff must be understood as its words sound, and aside from the title of the law of the
prince, about which the Most Eminent Cardinals speak in these responses, so that it is just a matter of a loan made to business men.
2. "Or whether the title from the law of the prince, about which the Eminent Cardinals speak, must be so understood that it is enough that the
law of the prince declares that it is licit for anyone to agree about a gain made from a loan only, as happens in the civil code of the Franks, without saying
that it (law of the prince) grants the right to receive such gain."

The Congregation of the Holy Office responded August 31, 1831: This has been taken care of in the decree of Wednesday, August 18, 1830, and
let the decrees be given.
1612 B. To the doubt of the Bishop of Nicea:
"Whether penitents, who have taken a moderate gain from a loan only, under title of the law, in doubtful or bad faith, can be sacramentally
absolved without the imposition of the burden of restitution, provided they are sincerely sorry for the sin committed because of doubtful or bad faith, and
are ready in filial obedience to observe the commands of the Holy See."

The Congregation of the Holy' Office responded fan. 17, 1838:

Yes, provided they are ready to observe the commands of the Holy See. . . . *

Indifferentism (against Felicite de Lamennais) *

[From the Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur," Aug. 15, 1832]

1613 Now we examine another prolific cause of evils by which, we lament, the Church is at present afflicted, namely indifferentism, or that base
opinion which has become prevalent everywhere through the deceit of wicked men, that eternal salvation of the soul can be acquired by any profession of
faith whatsoever, if morals are conformed to the standard of the just and the honest. . . . And so from this most rotten source of indifferentism flows that
absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone.

1614 Indeed, to this most unhealthy error that full and immoderate liberty of opinions which is spreading widely to the destruction of the sacred and
civil welfare opens the way, with some men repeatedly asserting with supreme boldness that some advantage flows therefrom to religion itself. But "what
death of the soul is worse than freedom for error?" Augustine used to say [ep. 166*]. For, since all restraint has been removed by which men are kept on
the paths of truth, since their nature inclined to evil is now plunging headlong, we say that the "bottom of the pit" has truly been opened, from which John
[Rev. 9:3] saw "smoke arising by which the sun was darkened with locusts" coming out of it to devastate the earth. . . .
1615 Nor can we foresee more joyful omens for religion and the state from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the
State, and that the mutual concord of the government with the sacred ministry be broken. For it is certain that that concord is greatly feared by lovers of
this most shameless liberty, which has always been fortunate and salutary for the ecclesiastical and the civil welfare.
1616 Having embraced with paternal affection those especially who have applied their mind particularly to the sacred disciplines and to philosophic
questions, encourage and support them so that they may not, by relying on the powers of their own talents alone, imprudently go astray from the path of
truth into the way of the impious. Let them remember "that God is the guide of wisdom and the director of the wise" [cf. Wisd. 7:15], and that it is not
possible to learn to know God without God, who by means of the Word teaches men to know God.* It is characteristic of the proud, or rather of the
foolish man to test the mysteries of faith "which surpasseth all understanding" [Phil. 4:7] by human standards, and to entrust them to the reasoning of our
mind, which by reason of the condition of our human nature is weak and infirm.

The False Doctrines of Felicite de Lamennais *

[From the Encyclical, "Singular) nos affecerant gaudio"
to the Bishops of France, June 25, 1834]

1617 But it is a very mournful thing, by which the ravings of human reason go to ruin when someone is eager for revolution and, against the advice
of the Apostle, strives "to be more wise than it behooveth to be wise" [cf. Rom. 12:3], and trusting too much in himself, affirms that truth must be sought
outside of the Catholic Church in which truth itself is found far from even the slightest defilement of error, and which therefore, is called and is "the pillar
and ground of the truth" [1 Tim. 3 15]. But you well understand, Venerable Brothers, that We are here speaking in open disapproval of that false system of
philosophy, not so long ago introduced, by which, because of an extended and unbridled desire of novelty, truth is not sought where it truly resides, and,
with a disregard for the holy and apostolic traditions, other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, not approved by the Church are accepted as true, on which
very vain men mistakenly think that truth itself is supported and sustained.

Condemnation of the Works of George Hermes *

[From the Brief "Dum acerbissimas," Sept. 26, 1835]

1618 To increase the anxieties by which we are overwhelmed day and night because of this (namely, persecutions of the Church), the following
calamitous and highly lamentable circumstance is added: Among those who strive in behalf of religion by published works some dare to intrude
themselves insincerely, who likewise wish to seem and who show that they are fighting on behalf of the same religion, in order that, though retaining the
appearance of religion yet despising the truth, they can the more easily seduce and pervert the incautious "by philosophy" or by their false philosophic
treatises "and vain deceit" [Col. 2:8], and hence deceive the people and extend helping hands more confidently to the enemies who openly rage against it
(religion). Therefore, when the impious and insidious labors of any one of these writers have become known to us, we have not delayed by means of our
encyclicals and other Apostolic letters to denounce their cunning and depraved plans, and to condemn their errors, and, at the same time, to expose the
deadly deceits by which they very cunningly endeavor to overthrow completely the divine constitution of the Church and ecclesiastical discipline, nay,
even the whole public order itself. Indeed, it has been proved by a very sad fact that at length, laying aside the veil of pretense, they have already raised
on high the banner of hostility against whatever power has been established by God.

1619 But this alone is not the most grievous cause for mourning. For in addition to those who, to the scandal of all Catholics, have given themselves
over to the enemy, to add to our bitter sorrow we see some enter ing even into the study of theology who, through a desire and passion for novelty "ever
learning and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth" [2 Tim. 3:7], are teachers of error, because they have not been disciples of truth. In fact, they
infect sacred studies with strange and unapproved doctrines, and they do not hesitate to profane even the office of teacher, if they hold a position in the
schools and academies; they are known to falsify the most sacred deposit of faith itself, while boasting that they are protecting it Among the teachers of
this sort of error, because of his constant and almost universal reputation throughout Germany, George Hermes is numbered as one who boldly left the
royal path, which universal tradition and the most Holy Fathers have marked out in explaining and vindicating the truths of faith; nay, even haughtily
despising and condemning it, he is now building a darksome way to error of all kinds on positive doubt as a basis for all theological inquiry, and on the
principle which states that reason is the chief norm and only medium whereby man can acquire knowledge of supernatural truths. . . .

1620 Therefore, we ordered that these books be handed over to the theologians most skilled in the German language to be diligently scrutinized in
every part. . . . At length ... [the most Eminent Cardinal Inquisitors], weighing each and everything with great care, as the gravity of the matter
demanded, judged that the author "was growing vain in his thoughts" [Rom. 1:21], and had woven into the said works many absurd ideas foreign to the
teaching of the Catholic Church; but especially concerning the nature of faith and the rule of things to be believed, about Sacred Scripture, tradition,
revelation, and the teaching office of the Church; about motives of credibility, about proofs by which the existence of God is wont to be established and
confirmed; about the essence of God Himself, His holiness, justice, liberty, and His purpose in works which the theologians call external; and also about
the necessity of grace, the distribution of it and of gifts, recompense of awards, and the infliction of penalties, about the state of our first parents, original
sin, and the powers of fallen man; these same books, inasmuch as they contain doctrines and propositions respectively false, rash, captious, inducive to
skepticism and indifferentism, erroneous, scandalous, injurious to Catholic schools, destructive of divine faith, suggesting heresy and other things
condemned by the Church (the Most Eminent Cardinals) decree must be prohibited and condemned.

1621 And so we condemn and reject the aforesaid books wherever and in whatever idiom, in every edition or version so far published or to be
published in the future, which God forbid, under tenor of these present letters, and we further command that they be placed on the Index of forbidden
books.

Faith and Reason (against Louis Eugene Bautain) *

[Theses written by Bautain under order of his bishop, Sept. 8,
1840]

1622 1. Reason can prove with certitude the existence of God and the infinity of His perfections. Faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation;
hence it cannot be brought forward against an atheist to prove the existence of God [cf. n. 1650].
1623 2. The divinity of the Mosaic revelation is proved with certitude by the oral and written tradition of the synagogue and of Christianity.
1624 3. Proof drawn from the miracles of Jesus Christ, sensible and striking for eyewitnesses, has in no way lost its force and splendor as regards
subsequent generations. We find this proof with all certitude in the authenticity of the New Testament, in the oral and written tradition of all Christians.
By this double tradition we should demonstrate it (namely, revelation) to those who either reject it or, who, not having admitted it, are searching for it.

1625 4. We do not have the right to expect from an unbeliever that he admit the resurrection of our divine Savior before we shall have proposed
definite proofs to him; and these proofs are deduced by reason from the same tradition.
1626 5. In regard to these various questions, reason precedes faith and should lead us to it [cf. n. 1651].
1627 6. Although reason was rendered weak and obscure by original sin, yet there remained in it sufficient clarity and power to lead us with certitude
to a knowledge of the existence of God, to the revelation made to the Jews by Moses, and to Christians by our adorable Man-God.*

The Matter of Extreme Unction *

[From the decree of the Sacred Office under Paul V,

Jan. 13. 1611, and Gregory XVI, Sept. 14, 1842]

1628 1. Proposition: "that without doubt the sacrament of extreme unction can be validly administered with oil not consecrated by episcopal
blessing." The Sacred Office on fan. 13, 1611, declared: it is destructive and very close to error.
1629 2. Similarly, to the doubt: whether in a case of necessity as regards the validity of the sacrament of extreme unction, a parish priest could use oil
blessed by himself.

The Sacred Office, Sept. 14, 1842, replied: negatively, according to the form of the decree of Thursday in the presence of His Holiness, Jan. 13,
1611, which resolution Gregory XVI approved on the same day.

Versions of Sacred Scripture *

[From the Encyclical, "Inter praecipuas," May 6, 1844]

1630 . . . Indeed, you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, it has been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the traditional
Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or alter the explanation of the meaning. In
short, you are not ignorant of how much diligence and wisdom is needed to translate faithfully into another tongue the words of the Lord; so that, surely,
nothing could happen more easily than that in the versions of these Scriptures, multiplied by the Biblical societies, very grave errors creep in from the
imprudence or deceit of so many translators; further, the very multitude and variety of those versions conceal these errors for a long time to the
destruction of many. However, it is of little or no interest at all to these societies whether the men likely to read these Bibles translated into the vulgar
tongue, fall into some errors rather than others, provided they grow accustomed little by little to claiming free judgment for themselves with regard to the
sense of the Scriptures, and also to despising the divine tradition of the Fathers which has been guarded by the teaching of the Catholic Church, and to
repudiating the teaching office itself of the Church.

1631 Toward this end those same Biblical associates do not cease to slander the Church and this Holy See of PETER, as if it were attempting for
these many centuries to keep the faithful people from a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures; although, on the other hand, there are extant many very
illuminating documents of remarkable learning which the Supreme Pontiffs and other Catholic bishops under their leadership, have used in these more
recent times, that Catholic peoples might be educated more exactly according to the written and traditional word of God.

1632 Among those rules, which have been written by the Fathers chosen by the Council of Trent and approved by Pius IV * . . . and set in the front
part of the Index of prohibited books, in the general sanction of the statutes one reads that Bibles published in a vulgar tongue were not permitted to
anyone, except to those to whom the reading of them was judged to be beneficial for the increase of their faith and piety. To this same rule, limited
immediately by a new caution because of the persistent deceits of heretics, this declaration was at length appended by the authority of Benedict XIV, that
permission is granted for reading vernacular versions which have been approved by the Apostolic See, or have been edited with annotations drawn from
the Holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men. . . . All the aforesaid Biblical societies, condemned a short time ago by our predecessors,
we again condemn with Apostolic authority.

1633 Hence, let it be known to everyone that all those will be guilty of a very grave fault in the eyes of God and of the Church who persume to enroll
in any one of these societies, or to adapt their work to them or to favor them in any way whatsoever.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius IX 1846-1878
PIUS IX 1846-1878

Faith and Reason *

[From the Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846]

1634 For you know, Venerable Brethren, that these hostile enemies of the Christian name, unhappily seized by a certain blind force of mad impiety,
proceed with this rashness of thought that "opening their mouth unto blasphemies against God" [cf. Rev. 13:6] with a boldness utterly unknown, are not
ashamed to teach openly and publicly that the most holy mysteries of our religion are the fictions and inventions of men; that the teaching of the Catholic
Church is opposed [see n. 1740] to the good and to the advantage of society, and they do not fear even to abjure Christ Himself and God. And, to delude
the people more easily and to deceive especially the incautious and the inexperienced, and to drag them with themselves into error, they pretend that the
ways to prosperity are known to them alone; and do not hesitate to arrogate to themselves the name of philosophers, just as if philosophy, which is
occupied wholly in investigating the truth of nature, ought to reject those truths which the supreme and most clement God Himself, author of all nature,
deigned to manifest to men with singular kindness and mercy, in order that men might obtain true happiness and salvation.

1635 Hence, by a preposterous and deceitful kind of argumentation, they never cease to invoke the power and excellence of human reason, to
proclaim it against the most sacred faith of Christ, and, what is more, they boldly prate that it (faith) is repugnant to human reason [see n. 1706].
Certainly, nothing more insane, nothing more impious, nothing more repugnant to reason itself can be imagined or thought of than this. For, even if faith
is above reason, nevertheless, no true dissension or disagreement can ever be found between them, since both have their origin from one and the same
font of immutable, eternal truth, the excellent and great God, and they mutually help one another so much that right reason demonstrates the truth of faith,
protects it, defends it; but faith frees reason from all errors and, by a knowledge of divine things, wonderfully elucidates it, confirms, and perfects it [cf. n.
1799].

1636 And with no less deceit certainly, Venerable Brothers, those enemies of divine revelation, exalting human progress with the highest praise, with
a rash and sacrilegious daring would wish to introduce it into the Catholic religion, just as if religion itself were not the work of God but of men, or were
some philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means [cf. n. 1705]. Against such unhappily raving men applies very conveniently,
indeed, what Tertullian deservedly made a matter of reproach to the philosophers of his own time: "Who have produced a stoic and platonic and dialectic
Christianity.''* And since, indeed, our most holy religion has not been invented by human reason but has been mercifully disclosed to men by God, thus
everyone easily understands that religion itself acquires all its force from the authority of the same God speaking, and cannot ever be drawn from or be
perfected by human reason.

1637 Indeed, human reason, lest it be deceived and err in a matter of so great importance, ought to search diligently for the fact of divine revelation
so that it can know with certainty that God has spoken, and so render to Him, as the Apostle so wisely teaches, "a rational service" [Rom. 12:1]. For who
does not know, or cannot know that all faith is to be given to God who speaks, and that nothing is more suitable to reason itself than to acquiesce and
firmly adhere to those truths which it has been established were revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?

1638 But, how many, how wonderful, how splendid are the proofs at hand by which human reason ought to be entirely and most clearly convinced
that the religion of Christ is divine, and that "every principle of our dogmas has received its root from above, from the Lord of the heavens," * and that,
therefore, nothing is more certain than our faith, nothing more secure, that there is nothing more holy and nothing which is supported on firmer
principles. For, in truth, this faith is the teacher of life, the index of salvation, the expeller of all faults, and the fecund parent and nurse of virtues,
confirmed by the birth, life, death, resurrection, wisdom, miracles, prophecies of its author and consummator, Christ Jesus; everywhere resplendent with
the light of a supernatural teaching and enriched with the treasures of heavenly riches, especially clear and significant by the predictions of so many
prophets, by the splendor of so many miracles, by the constancy of so many martyrs, by the glory of so many saints, revealing the salutary laws of Christ
and acquiring greater strength every day from these most cruel persecutions, (this faith) has pervaded the whole earth by land and sea, from the rising to
the setting of the sun, under the one standard of the Cross, and also, having overcome the deceits of idolaters and torn away the mist of errors and
triumphed over enemies of every kind, it has illuminated with the light of divine knowledge all peoples, races, nations, howsoever barbarous in culture
and different in disposition, customs, laws, and institutions; and has subjected them to the most sweet yoke of Christ Himself, "announcing peace" to all,
"announcing good" [Isa. 52:7]. All of this certainly shines everywhere with so great a glory of divine wisdom and power that the mind and intelligence of
each one clearly understands that the Christian Faith is the work of God.

1639 And so, human reason, knowing clearly and openly from these most splendid and equally strong proofs that God is the author of the same faith,
can proceed no further; but, having completely cast aside and removed every difficulty and doubt, it should render all obedience to this faith, since it
holds as certain that whatever faith itself proposes to man to be believed or to be done, has been transmitted by God.*

Civil Marriage *
[From the Allocution, "Acerbissimum vobiscum," Sept. 27, 1857]

1640 We say nothing about that other decree in which, after completely despising the mystery, dignity, and sanctity of the sacrament of matrimony;
after utterly ignoring and distorting its institution and nature; and after completely spurning the power of the Church over the same sacrament, it was
proposed, according to the already condemned errors of heretics, and against the teaching of the Catholic Church, that marriage should be considered as a
civil contract only, and that divorce, strictly speaking, should be sanctioned in various cases (see n. 1767); and that all matrimonial cases should be
deferred to lay tribunals and be judged by them (see n. 1774); because no Catholic is ignorant or cannot know that matrimony is truly and properly one of
the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, and that for that reason, there can be no marriage between the faithful without
there being at one and the same time a sacrament, and that, therefore, any other union of man and woman among Christians, except the sacramental
union, even if contracted under the power of any civil law, is nothing else than a disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage very frequently condemned
by the Church, and, hence, that the sacrament can never be separated from the conjugal agreement (see n. 1773), and that it pertains absolutely to the
power of the Church to discern those things which can pertain in any way to the same matrimony.

Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M. *

[From the Bull, "Ineffabilis Deus," Dec. 8, 1854]

1641 . . . To the honor of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, to the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic
Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own, We
declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace
and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original
sin, has been revealed by God, and on this account must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. Wherefore, if any should presume to think
in their hearts otherwise than as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own
judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; and what is more, that by their own act
they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they think in their heart, they should to signify by word or writing or any other
external means.

Rationalism and Indifferentism *

[From the Allocution, "Singular) quadem," Dec. 9, 1854]

1642 There are, besides, Venerable Brothers, certain men pre-eminent in learning, who confess that religion is by far the most excellent gift given by
God to men, who, nevertheless, hold human reason at so high a value, exalt it so much, that they very foolishly think that it is to be held equal to religion
itself. Hence, according to the rash opinion of these men, theological studies should be treated in the same manner as philosophical studies [see n. 1708],
although, nevertheless, the former are based on the dogmas of faith, than which nothing is more fixed and certain, while the latter are explained and
illustrated by human reason, than which nothing is more uncertain, inasmuch as they vary according to the variety of natural endowments and are subject
to numberless errors and delusions. Therefore, the authority of the Church being rejected, a very broad field lies open to every difficult and abstract
question, and human reason, trusting too freely in its own weak strength, has fallen headlong into most shameful errors, which there is neither time nor
inclination to mention here; for, they are well known to you and have been examined by you, and they have brought harm, and that very great, to both
religious and civil affairs. Therefore, it is necessary to show to those men who exalt more than is just the strength of human reason that it (their attitude) is
definitely contrary to those true words of the Doctor of the Gentiles: "If any man think himself to be something, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth
himself" [Gal. 6:3]. And so it is necessary to show them how great is their arrogance in examining the mysteries which God in His great goodness has
deigned to reveal to us, and in pretending to understand and to comprehend them by the weakness and narrowness of the human mind, since those
mysteries far exceed the power of our intellect which, in the words of the same Apostle, should be made captive unto the obedience of faith [cf. 2 Cor.
10:5].

1643 And so, such followers, or rather worshipers of human reason, who set up reason as a teacher of certitude, and who promise themselves that all
things will be fortunate under its leadership, have certainly forgotten how grave and terrible a wound was inflicted on human nature from the fault of our
first parent; for darkness has spread over the mind, and the will has been inclined to evil. For this reason, the famous philosophers of ancient times,
although they wrote many things very clearly, have nevertheless contaminated their teachings with most grave errors; hence that constant struggle which
we experience in ourselves, of which the Apostle says: "I see a law in my members fighting against the law of my mind" [Rom. 7 23]

1644 Now, since it is agreed that by the original sin propagated in all the posterity of Adam, the light of reason has been decreased; and since the
human race has most miserably fallen from its pristine state of justice and innocence, who could think that reason is sufficient to attain to truth? Who, lest
he fall and be ruined in the midst of such great dangers and in such great weakness of his powers, would deny that he needs the aid of a divine religion,
and of heavenly grace for salvation? These aids, indeed, God most graciously bestows on those who ask for them by humble prayer, since it is written:
"God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble" [Jas. 4:6]. Therefore, turning toward the Father, Christ our Lord affirmed that the deepest secrets
of truth have not been disclosed "to the wise and prudent of this world," who take pride in their own talents and learning, and refuse to render obedience
to faith, but rather (have been revealed) to humble and simple men who rely and rest on the oracle of divine faith [cf. Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21].

1645 You should inculcate this salutary lesson in the souls of those who exaggerate the strength of human reason to such an extent that they venture
by its help to scrutinize and explain even mysteries, although nothing is more inept, nothing more foolish. Strive to withdraw them from such perversity
of mind by explaining indisputably that nothing more excellent has been given by the providence of God to man than the authority of divine faith; that
this is for us, as it were, a torch in the darkness, a guide which we follow to life; that this is absolutely necessary for salvation; for, "without faith . . . it is
impossible to please God" [Heb. 11:6] and "he that believeth not, shall be condemned" [Mark 16:16].

1646 Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has
taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in
the true Church of Christ [see n. 1717]. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not
submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it
from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and
"judgments of God" which are 'a great deep" [Ps. 35:7] and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your
episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal
opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you
excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who
shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true
religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to
himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?
For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and
beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold
most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

1648 But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be
devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, "for the hand of the Lord is not shortened" [Isa. 9:1] and the gifts of heavenly
grace will not be wanting those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the
faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing
strong for the destruction of souls.

False Traditionalism (against Augustine Bonnetty) *

[From the Decree of the S.C. of the Index, 11, (15) June, 1855]

1649 1 "Although faith is above reason, nevertheless no true dissension, no disagreement can ever be found between them, since both arise from the
one same immutable source of truth, the most excellent and great God, and thus bring mutual help to each other"* [cf. n. 1635 and1799]
1650 2. Reason can prove with certitude the existence of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of man. Faith is posterior to revelation, and
hence it cannot be conveniently alleged to prove the existence of God to an atheist, or to prove the spirituality and the freedom of the rational soul against
a follower of naturalism and fatalism [cf. n. 1622, 1625].

1651 3. The use of reason precedes faith and leads men to it by the help of revelation and of grace [cf. n. 1626].
1652 4. The method which St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure and other scholastics after them used does not lead to rationalism, nor has it been the
reason why philosophy in today's schools is falling into naturalism and pantheism. Therefore, it is not lawful to charge as a reproach against these doctors
and teachers that they made use of this method, especially since the Church approves, or at least keeps silent.*

The Misuse of Magnetism *

[From the Encyclical of the Holy Office, Aug. 4, 1856]

1653 . . Already some responses on this subject have been given by the Holy See to particular cases, in which those experiments are condemned as
illicit which are arranged for a purpose not natural, not honest, and not attained by proper means; therefore, in similar cases it was decreed on Wednesday,
April 21, 1841: "The use of magnetism, as it is explained, is not permitted." Similarly, the Sacred Congregation decreed that certain books stubbornly
disseminating errors of this kind should be condemned. But because, aside from particular cases, the use of magnetism in general had to be considered,
by way of a rule therefore it was so stated on Wednesday, July 28, 1847: "When all error, soothsaying, explicit or implicit invocation of the demon is
removed, the use of magnetism, i.e., the mere act of employing physical media otherwise licit, is not morally forbidden, provided it does not tend to an
illicit end or to one that is in any manner evil. However, the application of principles and purely physical means to things and effects truly supernatural, in
order to explain them physically, is nothing but deception altogether illicit and heretical."

1654 Although by this general decree the lawfulness and unlawfulness in the use or misuse of magnetism were satisfactorily explained, nevertheless
the wickedness of men grew to such an extent that neglecting the legitimate study of the science, pursuing rather the curious, with great loss to souls and
detriment to civil society itself, they boast that they have discovered the principle of foretelling and divining. Thus, girls with the tricks of sleepwalking
and of clear-gazing, as they call it, carried away by delusions and gestures not always modest, proclaim that they see the invisible, and they pretend with
rash boldness to hold talks even about religion, to evoke the souls of the dead, to receive answers, to reveal the unknown and the distant, and to practice
other superstitious things of that sort, intending to acquire great gain for themselves and for their masters through their divining. Therefore, in all these,
whatever art or illusion they employ, since physical media are used for unnatural effects, there is deception altogether illicit and heretical, and a scandal
against honesty of morals.*

The False Doctrine of Anton Guenther *

[From the Brief, "Eximiam tuam" to Cardinal de Geissel. Archbishop of Cologne, June 15, 1857]

1655 Not without sorrow are We especially aware that in these books that erroneous and most dangerous system of rationalism, often condemned by
this Apostolic See, is particularly dominant; and likewise we know that in the same books these items among many others are found, which are not a little
at variance with the Catholic Faith and with the true explanation of the unity of the divine substance in three distinct, eternal Persons. Likewise, we have
found that neither better nor more accurate are the statements made about the mystery of the Incarnate Word, and about the unity of the divine Person of
the Word in two natures, divine and human. We know that in the same books there is harm to the Catholic opinion and teaching concerning man, who is
so composed of body and soul that the soul, and that rational, may of itself be the true and immediate form of the body.* And we are not unaware that in
the same books those teachings are stated and defended which are plainly opposed to the Catholic doctrine about the supreme liberty of God, who l is free
from any necessity whatsoever in creating things.
1656 And also that extremely wicked and condemned doctrine which in Guenther's books rashly attributes the rights of a master both to human
reason and philosophy, whereas they should be wholly handmaids, not masters in religious matters; and therefore all those things are disturbed which
should remain most stable, not only concerning the distinction between science and faith, but also concerning the eternal immutability of faith, which is
always one and the same, while philosophy and human studies are not always consistent, and are not immune to a multiple variety of errors.

1657 In addition, the Holy Fathers are not held in that reverence which the canons of the Councils prescribe, and which these splendid lights of the
Catholic Church so altogether deserve, nor does he refrain from the slurring remarks against Catholic Schools, which Our predecessor of cherished
memory, PIUS VI, solemnly condemned [see n. 1576].
1658 Nor shall we pass over in silence that in Guenther's books "the sound form of speaking" is completely outraged, as if it were lawful to forget the
words of the Apostle Paul [2 Tim. 1:13], or those which Augustine most earnestly advised: "It is right for us to speak according to a fixed rule, lest liberty
with words give birth to an impious opinion, even about the things which are signified by them''* [see n. 1714a].

Errors of the Ontologists *

[From the decree of the Sacred Office, Sept. 18, 1861, "they cannot be safely taught"]

1659 1. Immediate knowledge of God, habitual at least, is essential to the human intellect, so much so that without it the intellect can know nothing,
since indeed it is itself intellectual light.
1660 2. That being which is in all things and without which we understand nothing, is the divine being.

1661 3. Universals considered on the part of the thing are not really distinguished from God.
1662 4. Congenital knowledge of God as being simply involves in an eminent way all other cognition, so that by it we hold as known implicitly all
being, under whatever aspect it is knowable

1663 5. All other ideas do not exist except as modifications of the idea by which God is understood as Being simply.
1664 6. Created things exist in God as a part in the whole, not indeed in the formal whole, but in the infinite whole, the most simple, which puts its
parts, as it were, without any division and diminution of itself outside itself.
1665 7. Creation can be thus explained: God, by that special act by which He knows Himself, and wills Himself as distinct from a determined
creature, man, for example, produces a creature.

The False Freedom of Science (against James Frohschammer) *

[From the epistle, "Gravissimas inter,', to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising,
Dec. 11, 1862]

1666 Amidst the terrible anguish by which we are pressed on all sides in the great restlessness and iniquity of these times, we are sorely grieved to
learn that in various regions of Germany are found some men, even Catholics, who, betraying sacred theology as well as philosophy, do not hesitate to
introduce a certain freedom of teaching and writing hitherto unheard of in the Church, and to profess openly and publicly new and altogether
reprehensible opinions, and to disseminate them among the people.

1667 Hence, We were affected with no light grief, Venerable Brother, when the sad message reached Us that the priest, James Frohschammer, teacher
of philosophy in the Academy at Munich, was displaying, beyond all the rest, freedom of teaching and writing in this manner, and was defending these
most dangerous errors in his works that have been published. Therefore, with no delay We commanded Our Congregation appointed for censuring books
to weigh with great diligence and care the particular volumes which are circulating under the name of the same priest, Frohschammer, and to report all
findings to Us. These volumes written in German have the title: Introductio in Philophiam, De Libertate scientiae, Athenaeum, the first of which was
published in the year 1858, the second in the year 1861, but the third at the turn of this year 1862, by the Munich press. And so the said Congregation . . .
judged that the author in many matters does not think correctly, and that his doctrine is far from Catholic truth.

1668 And this, especially in a twofold direction; the first, indeed, because the author attributes such powers to human reason which are not at all
appropriate to reason itself; and the second, because he grants to the same reason such liberty of judging all things, and of always venturing anything, that
the rights of the Church itself, its office and authority are completely taken away.
1669 For the author teaches especially that philosophy, if a right notion of it is held, cannot only perceive and understand those Christian dogmas
which natural reason has in common with faith (as, for instance, a common object of perception), but also those which particularly and properly affect
Christian religion and faith, namely, the supernatural end of man, and all that is related to it; and also, that the most holy mystery of the Incarnation of the
Lord belongs to the province of human reasoning and philosophy; and that reason, when this object is presented to it, can by its own proper principles,
arrive at those (dogmas) with understanding. But, although the author makes some distinction between these (natural) dogmas and those (Christian), and
assigns these latter with less right to reason, nevertheless, he clearly and openly teaches that these (Christian) dogmas also are contained among those
which constitute the true and proper matter of science or philosophy. Therefore, according to the teaching of the same author, it can and should be
definitely concluded that, even in the deepest mysteries of divine wisdom and goodness, nay, even of Its free will, granted that the object of revelation be
posited, reason can of itself, no longer on the principle of divine authority, but on its own natural principles and strength, reach understanding or certitude.
How "false" and "erroneous" this teaching of the author is, there is no one, even though lightly imbued with the rudiments of Christian doctrine, who does
not see immediately and clearly understand.

1670 For, if these worshipers of philosophy were protecting the true and sole principles and rights of reason and philosophic study, they should
certainly be honored with merited praise. Indeed, true and sound philosophy has its own most noble position, since it is the characteristic of such
philosophy to search diligently into truth, and to cultivate and illustrate rightly and carefully human reason, darkened as it is by the guilt of the first man,
but by no means extinct; and to perceive, to understand well, to advance the object of its cognition and many truths; and to demonstrate, vindicate, and
defend, by arguments sought from its own principles, many of those truths, such as the existence, nature, attributes of God which faith also proposes for
our belief; and, in this way, to build a road to those dogmas more correctly held by faith, and even to those more profound dogmas which can be
perceived by faith alone at first, so that they may in some way be understood by reason. The exacting and most beautiful science of true philosophy
ought, indeed, to do such things and to be occupied with them. If the learned men in the academies of Germany would make efforts to excel in this, in
proportion to that peculiar well-known inclination of that nation to cultivate the more serious and exacting studies, their zeal would be approved and
commended by Us, because they would be turning to the utility and progress of sacred things that which they have learned for their own uses.

1671 But, in truth, We can never tolerate that in so grave a matter as this surely is, that all things be rashly confused,
and that reason should seize upon and disturb those things which pertain also to faith, since the limits beyond which
reason in its own right has never advanced nor can advance, are fixed and well-known to all. To dogmas of this sort
pertain particularly and openly all those which treat of the supernatural elevation of man and his supernatural
intercourse with God, and which are known to have been revealed for this purpose. And surely, since these dogmas
are above nature, the' cannot, therefore, be reached by natural reason and natural principles. For, indeed, reason by
its own natural principles can never be made fit to handle scientifically dogmas of this sort. But, if those men dare to
assert this rashly, let them know that they are withdrawing, not merely from the opinion of a few learned persons,
but from the common and never changing doctrine of the Church.
1672 For, from the divine Scriptures and from the tradition of the Holy Fathers, it is agreed indeed that the existence
of God and many other truths were known [cf. Rom. 1 ] by the natural light of reason, even by those who had not
yet received the faith, but that God alone manifested those more hidden dogmas when He wished to make known
"the mystery, which had been hidden from ages and generations" [ Col. 1:26 ]. And in such a way indeed that, "at
sundry times and in diverse manners He had formerly spoken to the fathers by the prophets, last of all . . . He might
speak to us by His Son, . . . by whom He also made the world" [ Heb. 1:1 f.]. For "no man hath seen God at any
time: the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him" [ John 1:18]. Therefore, the
Apostle who testifies that the gentiles knew God by those things which were made, discoursing about "grace and
truth" which "came by Jesus Christ" [John 1:17 ], says, "We speak of the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom
which is hidden . . . which none of the princes of this world know . . . But to us God hath revealed them by His
Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For, what man knoweth the things of man but
the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God, no man knoweth but the Spirit of God1 Cor.
2:7 f].
1673 Adhering to these and other almost innumerable divine texts, the Holy Fathers, in transmitting the teaching of the
Church, have constantly taken care to distinguish the knowledge of divine things which is common to all by the
power of natural intelligence, from the knowledge of those things which is received on faith through the Holy Spirit;
and they have continuously taught that through this (faith) those mysteries are revealed to us in Christ which
transcend not only human philosophy but even the angelic natural intelligence, and which, although they are known
through divine revelation and have been accepted by faith, nevertheless, remain still covered by the sacred veil of
faith itself, and wrapped in an obscuring mist as long as we are absent from the Lord* in this mortal life. From all
this, it is clear that the proposition of Frohschammer is wholly foreign to the teaching of the Catholic Church, since
he does not hesitate to assert that all the dogmas of the Christian religion without discrimination are the object of
natural science or philosophy, and that human reason, cultivated so much throughout history, provided these
dogmas have been proposed to reason itself as an object, can from its own natural powers and principle, arrive at
the true understanding concerning all, even the more hidden dogmas [see n. 1709 ].
1674 But now, in the said writings of this author another opinion prevails which is plainly opposed to the teaching and
understanding of the Catholic Church. For, he attributes that freedom to philosophy which must be called not the
freedom of science but an utterly reprobate and intolerable license of philosophy. For, having made a certain
distinction between a philosopher and philosophy, he attributes to a "philosopher" the right and duty of submitting
himself to the authority which he himself has approved as true, but he denies both (right and duty) to philosophy, so
that taking no account of revealed doctrine he asserts that it (philosophy) ought never and can never submit itself to
authority. And this might be tolerable and perhaps admissible, if it were said only about the right which philosophy
has to use its own principles or methods, and its own conclusions, as also the other sciences, and if its liberty
consisted in employing this right in such a way that it would admit nothing into itself which had not been acquired by
it under its own conditions, or was foreign to it. But, such true freedom of philosophy must understand and observe
its own limitations. For, it will never be permitted either to a philosopher, or to philosophy, to say anything contrary
to those things which divine revelation and the Church teaches, or to call any of them into doubt because (he or it)
does not understand them, or to refuse the judgment which the authority of the Church decides to bring forward
concerning some conclusion of philosophy which was hitherto free.
It also happens that the same author so bitterly, so rashly fights for the liberty, or rather the unbridled license of
1675
philosophy that he does not at all fear to assert that the Church not only ought never to pay any attention to
philosophy, but should even tolerate the errors of philosophy itself, and leave it to correct itself [1711 ]; from
which it happens that philosophers necessarily share in this libertyphilosophy and so even they are freed from
all law. Who does not see how forcefully an opinion and teaching of this sort of Frohschammer's should be
rejected, reproved, and altogether condemned? For the Church, from her divine institution, has the duty both to
hold most diligently to the deposit of faith, whole and inviolate, and to watch continually with great earnestness over
the salvation of souls, and with the greatest care to remove and eliminate all those things which can be opposed to
faith or can in any way endanger the salvation of souls

1676 Therefore, the Church, by the power entrusted to it by its divine Founder, has not only the right, but particularly
the duty of not tolerating but of proscribing and condemning all errors, if the integrity of faith and the salvation of
souls so demand; and on every philosopher who wishes to be a son of the Church, and also on philosophy, it lays
 this duty--never to say anything against those things which the Church teaches, and to retract those about which the
Church has warned them Moreover, We proclaim and declare that a doctrine which teaches the contrary is entirely
erroneous and especiallyharmful to faith itself, to the Church and its authority.

Indifferentism *

[From the Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur moerore," to the bishops of Italy,

Aug. 10, 1863]

And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in
1677
which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith
and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [see1717 ]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic
teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who,
zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey
God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since
God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His
great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt
of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and
also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently
separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom
"the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,"* cannot obtain eternal salvation.
But, God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined
1678

with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them,
whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should
especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to
Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands
lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and
"being fruitful in every good work" Col. 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.

The Conventions of the Theologians of Germany *

[From the letter, "Tuas libenter," to the Archbishop

of Munich-Freising, Dec. 21, 1863]

. . . Indeed we were aware, Venerable Brother, that some Catholics who devote their time to cultivating the
1679
higher studies, trusting too much in the powers of human ability, have not been frightened by the dangers of errors,
lest, in asserting the false and insincere liberty of science, they be snatched away beyond the limits beyond which the
obedience due to the teaching power of the Church, divinely appointed to preserve the integrity of all revealed truth,
does not permit them to proceed. Therefore, it happens that Catholics of this sort are unhappily deceived, and often
agree with those who decry and protest against the decrees of this Apostolic See and of Our Congregations, that
they (decrees) hinder the free progress of science [see n.1712 ]; and they expose themselves to the danger of
breaking those sacred ties of obedience by which, according to the will of God, they are bound to this same
Apostolic See which has been appointed by God as the teacher and defender of truth.
1680 Nor, are We ignorant that in Germany also there prevailed a false opinion against the old school, and against the
teaching of those supreme doctors [see n. 1713 ], whom the universal Church venerates because of their admirable
wisdom and sanctity of life. By this false opinion the authority of the Church itself is called into danger, especially
since the Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has permitted that theological science be cultivated
according to the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanctioned by the common consent of all
Catholic schools, but it (the Church) also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises, and
strongly recommended it as a very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against its enemies. . . .
Indeed, since all the men of this assembly, as you write, have asserted that the progress of science and its happy
1681
result in avoiding and refuting the errors of our most wretched age depend entirely on a close adherence to revealed
truths which the Catholic Church teaches, they themselves have recognized and professed that truth, which true
Catholics devoted to cultivating and setting forth knowledge, have always held and handed down. And so, relying
on this truth, these wise and truly Catholic men could cultivate these sciences in safety, explain them, and make them
useful and certain. And this could not be achieved if the light of human reason, circumscribed by limits in
investigating those truths also which it can attain by its own powers and faculties, did not venerate above all, as is
just, the infallible and uncreated light of the divine intellect which shines forth wonderfully everywhere in Christian
revelation. For, although those natural disciplines rely on their own proper principles, apprehended by reason,
nevertheless, Catholic students of these disciplines should have divine revelation before their eyes as a guiding star,
by whose light they may guard against the quicksands of errors, when they discover that in their investigations and
interpretations they can be led by them (natural principles)--as often happens---to profess those things which are
more or less opposed to the infallible truth of things which have been revealed by God.
1682 Hence, We do not doubt that the men of this assembly, knowing and professing the truth mentioned above,
 have wished at one and the same time clearly to reject and repudiate that recent and preposterous method of
philosophizing which, even if it admits divine revelation as an historical fact, nevertheless, submits the ineffable truths
made known by divine revelation to the investigations of human reason; just as if those truths had been subject to
reason, or, as if reason, by its own powers and principles, could attain understanding and knowledge of all the
supernal truths and mysteries of our holy faith, which are so far above human reason that it can never be made fit to
understand or demonstrate them by its own powers, and on its own natural principles [see n. 1709 ]. Indeed, We
honor with due praise the men of this same convention because, rejecting, as We think, the false distinction between
philosopher and philosophy, about which We have spoken in our other letter to you [see n. 1674 ], they have
realized and professed that all Catholics in their learned interpretations should in conscience obey the dogmatic
decrees of the infallible Catholic Church.
While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises
1683
from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the
obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth
by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see 1722 ]. And We persuade
Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they
faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter
concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be
limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman
Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely
revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by
universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the
speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account,
then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and
revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions
pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which
are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that
opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve
some theological censure.

The Unity of the Church *

[From the letter of the Sacred Office to the bishops of England, Sept. 16, 1864.]

1685 It has been made known to the Apostolic See that some Catholic laymen and ecclesiastics have enrolled in a
society to "procure" as they say,the unity of Christianity, established at London in the year 1857, and that
already many journalistic articles have been published, which are signed by the names of Catholics approving this
society, or which are shown to be the work of churchmen commending this same society.
But certainly, I need not say what the nature of this society is, and whither it is tending; this is easily understood
from the articles of the newspaper entitled THE UNION REVIEW, and from that very page on which members are
invited and listed. Indeed, formed and directed by Protestants, it is animated by that spirit which expressly avows
for example, that the three Christian communions, Roman Catholic, Greekschismatic, and Anglican, however
separated and divided from one another, nevertheless with equal right claim for themselves the name Catholic.
Admission, therefore, into that society is open to all, wheresoever they may live, Catholics, Greek-schismatics, and
Anglicans, under this condition, however, that no one is permitted to raise a question about the various forms of
doctrine in which they disagree, and that it is right for each individual to follow with tranquil soul what is acceptable
to his own religious creed. Indeed, the society itself indicates to all its members the prayers to be recited, and to the
priests the sacrifices to be celebrated according to its own intention: namely, that the said three Christian
communions, inasmuch as they, as it is alleged, together now constitute the Catholic Church, may at some time or
other unite to form one body. . . .
1686 The foundation on which this society rests is of such a nature that it makes the divine establishment of the
Church of no consequence. For, it is wholly in this: that it supposes the true Church of Jesus Christ to be composed
partly of the Roman Church scattered and propagated throughout the whole world, partly, indeed, of the schism of
Photius, and of the Anglican heresy, to which, as well as to the Roman Church, "there is one Lord, one faith, and
one baptism" [cf. Eph. 4:5]. Surely nothing should be preferable to a Catholic man than that schisms and dissensions
among Christians be torn out by the roots and that all Christians be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace" [ Eph. 4:3]. . . . But, that the faithful of Christ and the clergy should pray for Christian unity under
the leadership of heretics, and, what is worse, according to an intention, polluted and infected as much as possible
with heresy, can in no way be tolerated. The true Church of Jesus Christ was established by divine authority, and is
known by a fourfold mark, which we assert in the Creed must be believed; and each one of these marks so clings to
the others that it cannot be separated from them; hence it happens that that Church which truly is, and is called
Catholic should at the same time shine with the prerogatives of unity, sanctity, and apostolic succession. Therefore,
the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all nations, particularly
in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and "higher principa* of '
blessed PETER, the prince of the Apostles, and of his successors in the Roman Chair. No other Church is Catholic
except the one which, founded on the one PETER, grows into one "body compacted and fitly joined together" [
Eph. 4:16 ] in the unity of faith and charity. . . .
1687 Therefore, the faithful should especially shun this London society, because those sympathizing with it favor
indifferentism and engender scandal.
 Naturalism, Communism, Socialism *
[From the Encyclical, "Quanta cura,'' Dec. 8, 1864]

Moreover, although We have not failed to proscribe and frequently condemn the most important errors of this
1688
sort, nevertheless, the cause of the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and the good
of human society itself, demand that We again arouse your pastoral solicitude to overcome other base opinions
which spring from these same errors as from fountains. These false and perverted errors are to be the more
detested because they have this goal in mind: to impede and remove that salutary force which the Catholic Church,
according to the institution and command of her divine founder, must exercise freely "unto the consummation of the
world" [Matt. 28:20 ], no less toward individual men, than toward nations, peoples, and their highest leaders; and to
remove that mutual alliance of councils between the sacerdotal ministry and the government, and that "happy
concord which has always existed, and is so salutary to sacred and civil affairs*"
1689 For, surely you know, Venerable Brothers, that at this time not a few are found who, applying the impious and
absurd principles ofnaturalism, as they call it, to civil society, dare to teach that "the best plan for public society,
and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as
if it did not exist, or at least, without making distinction between the true and the false religions." And also, contrary
to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, and of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that
"the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of
restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands."
And, from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion,
1690
especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, cal* by Our predecessor of recent memory,
GREGORY XVI, insanity; namely, that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and
should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right to all manner of
liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they
can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they be, by voice, by print, or in any
other way." While, in truth, they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching a "liberty
of perdition,"* and that "if human opinions always have freedom for discussion, there could never be wanting those
who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the eloquence of humaal.mundane) wisdom, when faith and Christian
wisdom know from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ how much it should avoid such harmful vanity." *
1691 And since, when religion has been removed from civil society, and when the teaching and authority of divine
revelation have been repudiated; or the true notion of justice and human right is obscured by darkness and lost; and
when in place of true justice and legitimate right, material force is substituted, then it is clear why some, completely
neglecting and putting aside the certain principles of sound reason, dare to exclaim: "The will of the people,
manifested as they say by public opinion, or in some other way, constitutes the supreme law, freed from all divine
and human right; and, that deeds consummated in the political order, by the very fact that they have been
consummated, have the force of right." But who does not see and plainly understand that a society of men who are
released from the bonds of religion and of true justice can have no other aim, surely, than the goal of amassing and
heaping up wealth, and that it (society) can follow no other law in its actions except an uncontrolled cupidity of soul,
a slave to its own pleasures and advantages ?
Therefore, men of this sort pursue with bitter hatred religious orders, no matter how supremely deserving
1692
because of their Christian, civil, and literary work; and they cry out that these same orders have no legitimate reason
for existing, and in this way approve the falsehoods of heretics. For, as Our predecessor of recent memory, PIUS
VI, very wisely taught, "abolition of the regulars wounds the status of the public profession of the evangelical
counsels; it injures the way of life approved in the Church as suitable to the apostolic teaching; it harms the most
distinguished founders whom we venerate on our altars, who established these orders only when inspired by God.'' *
1693 And they also make the impious pronouncement that from the citizens and the Church must be taken away the
power "by which they can ask for alms openly in the cause of Christian charity," and also that the law should be
repealed "by which on some fixed days, because of the worship of God, servile works are prohibited," pretending
most deceitfully that the said power and law obstruct the principles of the best public economy. And, not content
with removing religion from public society, they wish even to banish religion itself from private families.
1694 For, teaching and professing that most deadly error of communism and socialism, they assert that "domestic
society or the family borrows the whole reason for its existence from the civil law alone; and, hence, all rights of
parents over their children, especially the right of caring for their instruction and education, emanate from and
depend wholly on the civil law."
1695 In these impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men have this particular intention: that the saving
doctrine and power of the Catholic Church be entirely eliminated from the instruction and training of youth, and that
the tender and impressionable minds of youths may be unfortunately infected and ruined by every pernicious error
and vice. For, all who have tried to disturb not only the ecclesiastical but also the public welfare, and to overturn the
just order of society, and to destroy all rights, divine and human, have always formed all their evil plans, studies, and
work to deceive and deprave especially unsuspecting youth, as we have intimated above, and have placed all their
hopes in the corruption of youth. Therefore, they never cease to harass in every unspeakable way both clergy
(secular and regular), from whom, as the genuine documents of history splendidly testify, have flowed so many great
advantages for Christian, civil, and literary society; and they never cease to declare that the clergy "as an enemy to
the true and useful progress of science and government, must be removed from all responsibility and duty of
instructing and training youth."
1696 But, in truth, others, renewing the evil and so-many-times-condemned fabrications of the innovators, dare with
signal impudence to subject the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See, given to it by Christ the
Lord, to the judgment of the civil authority, and to deny all rights of the same Church and See with regard to those
things which pertain to the exterior order.
1697 For, they are not at all ashamed to affirm that "the laws of the Church do not bind in conscience, except when
promulgated by the civil power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs relating to religion and the Church,
need the sanction and approval, or at least the assent, of the civil power; that the Apostolic Constituti* in which
secret societies are condemned, whether an oath of secrecy is demanded in them or not, and their followers and
sympathizers are punished with anathema, have no force in those regions of the world where societies of this sort
are allowed by the civil government; that the excommunication uttered by the Council of Trent and the Roman
Pontiffs against those who invade and usurp the rights and possessions of the Church rests upon a confusion
between the spiritual order and the civil and political order for the attaining of a mundane good only; that the Church
should decree nothing which could bind the consciences of the faithful in relation to the use of temporal goods; that
to the Church does not belong the right to coerce by temporal punishments violators of its laws; that it is
conformable to the principles of sacred theology, and to the principles of public law for the civil government to claim
and defend the ownership of the goods which are possessed by churches, by religious orders, and by other pious
places."
1698 Nor do they blush to profess openly and publicly the axiom and principle of heretics from which so many
perverse opinions and errors arise. For they repeatedly say that "the ecclesiastical power is not by divine right
distinct from and independent of the civil power, and that the distinction and independence of the same could not be
preserved without the essential rights of the civil power being invaded and usurped by the Church." And, we cannot
pass over in silence the boldness of those who "not enduring sound doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:3], contend that "without sin
and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of
the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline,
provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals." There is no one who does not see and understand clearly
and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman
Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.
1699 In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially
solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and
about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again And so all and each evil
opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authoriWe reject, proscribe, and
condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned
by all the sons of the Catholic Church.

"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors *

[Excerpted from various Allocutions, Encyclicals, Epistles of PIUS IX, together with (the above quoted) Bull, "Quanta
cure," edited Dec. 8, 1864]

A. Index of the Acts of Pius IX, from which the Syllabus is excerpted

1700 1. The Encyclical Letter, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 (to this are referred the propositions of the Syllabus

4--7, 16]. 40, 63).

2. The Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," Oct. 4,1847 (Prop. 63).
3. The Allocution, "Ubi primum," Dec. 17, 1847 (Prop. 16].
4. The Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," Apr. 20, 1849 (Prop. 40, 64,76).
5. The Encyclical Letter, "Nostis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849 (Prop.
6. The Allocution, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850 (Prop. 76).
7. The Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850 (Prop. 43, 45).
8. The Condemnation, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851 (Prop. 15, 21,23, 30, 51, 54, 68)9. The Condemnation, "Ad
apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851 (Prop. 24, 25, 34 36, 38, 41, 42, 65 67, 69--75).
10. The Allocution, "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851 (Prop. 45).
11. Letter to the KING of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852 (Prop. 73).
12. The Allocution, "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852 (Prop. 31, 51, 53, 55, 67, 73,74, 78).
13. The Allocution, "Singular) quadam," Dec. 9, 1854 (Prop. 8, 17, 19).
14. The Allocution, "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22,1855 (Prop. 53).
15. The Allocution, "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855 (Prop. 53). 16]
16. The Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855 (Prop. 77).
17. The Encyclical Letter, "Singular) quidem," Mar. 17., 1856 (Prop.4, 16].).
18. The Allocution, "Nunquam fore," Dec. (15), 1856 (Prop. 26, 28, 29, 31, 46, 50, 52, 79).
19. The Letter, "Eximiam tuam," to the Archbishop of Cologne, June 15, 1857 (Prop. 14 NB)
20. The Apostolic Letter, "Cum catholica Ecclesia," Mar. 26,1860 (Prop. 63, 76 NB)
21. The Letter, "Dolore haud mediocri," to the Bishop of Wratislava (Breslau), Apr. 30, 1860 (Prop. 14 NB).
22. The Allocution, "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860 (Prop. 19, 62,76, NB).
23. The Allocution, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17., 1860 (Prop 37, 43,73).
24. The Allocution, "Iamdudum cernimus," Mar. 18, 1861, (Prop. 37, 61,76, NB, 80).
25. The Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861 (Prop. 20).
26. The Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 (Prop. 1--7, (15),19, 27, 39, 44, 49, 56--60, 76, NB)
27. The Letter, "Gravissimas inter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Dec. II, 1862 (Prop. 9--11).
28. The Encyclical Letter, "Quanto conficiamur moerore," Aug. 10, 1863 (Prop. 17., 58).
29. The Encyclical Letter, "Incredibili," Sept. 17., 1863 (Prop. 26).
30. The Letter, "Tuas libenter," to the Archbishop of Munich-Freising,
Dec. 21, 1863 (Prop. 9, 10, 12--14,, 22, 33).
31. The Letter, "Cum non sine," to the Archbishop of Friburg, July14, 1864 (Prop. 47,48).
32. The Letter, "Singularis Nobisque," to the Bishop of Montreal (?), Sept. 29, 1864 (Prop. 32).

B. Syllabus *
Comprising the particular errors of our age, which are noted in
consistorial Allocutions, in Encyclical and other Apostolic
Letters of His Holiness, our Lord Pope Pius IX *

Sec. 1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism

1701 1. No supreme, all wise, and all provident divine Godhead exists, distinct from this world of things, and God is
the same as the nature of things and, therefore, liable to changes; and God comes into being in man and in the
universe, and all things are God and they have the same substance of God; and God is one and the same as the
world, and therefore, also, spirit is one and the same with matter, necessity with liberty, the true with the false, the
good with the evil, and the just with the unjust (2*).
2. All action of God upon men and the world must be denied (26).
1702
1703 3. Human reason, with absolutely no regard to God, is the only judge of the true and the false, the good and the
evil; it is a law unto itself and is, by its own natural powers, suffcient to provide for the good of individuals and of
peoples (26).
4.All truths of religion flow from the natural power of human reason; hence, reason is the chief norm by which
1704
man can and should come to a knowledge of all truths of whatever kind (1, 17., 26).
1705 5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continuous and indefinite progress, which corresponds
to the progress of human reason (1 [cf. n.1636 ] 26).
6. The faith of Christ is opposed to human reason; and divine revelation is not only of no benefit to, but even
1706
harms the perfection of man ( 1 [see n.1635 ] 26).
1707 7. The prophecies and miracles described and related in Sacred Scripture are the inventions of poets; and the
mysteries of the Christian faith are the culmination of philosophical investigations; and in the books of both
Testaments are contained mythical inventions; and Jesus Christ Himself is a mythical fiction (1,26).

Sec. 11. Modified Rationalism

8. Since human reason is equal to religion itself, therefore, theological studies must be conducted just as the
1708
philosophical 13. [see n.1642 ]).
1709 9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion without distinction are the object of natural science or philosophy; and
human reason, cultivated so much throughout history, can by its natural powers and principles arrive at the true
knowledge of all, even the more hidden dogmas, provided these dogmas have been proposed to reason itself as its
object (27, 30 [see n. 1682 ]).
1710 10. Since a philosopher is one thing and philosophy another, the former has the right and the duty to submit
himself to the authority which he himself has proved to be true; but philosophy cannot and should not submit itself to
any authority (27 [see n.1673 ] 30 [see n. 1674 ])
1711 11. The Church should not only never pay attention to philosophy, but should also tolerate the errors of
philosophy, and leave it to correct itself (27 [see1675 ]).
1712 12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Congregations hinder the free progress of science (30
[see n.1679 ]).
1713 13. The method and principles according to which the ancient scholastic doctors treated theology are by no
means suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences (30 [see 1680 ]).
1714 14. Philosophy is to be treated without any regard to supernatural revelation (30).
N.B. To the system of rationalism are closely connected in great part the errors of Anthony Guenther which are
condemned in the Epistle to the Card. Archbishop of Cologne, "Eximiam tuam," Jun. 15, 1857 (19) [see n. 1655
], and in the Epistle to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri," Apr. 30,

Sec. 111. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism

1715 15 Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the
true religion (8, 26).
1716 16. In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal
salvation (1, 3, 17).
1717 17. We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true
Church of Christ 13. [see n. 1646 ] 28 [see n.1677 ]).
1718 18. Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to
 serve God as well as in the Catholic Church (5).

Sec. IV. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-liberal Societies

1718a Evils of this sort have been reproved often and in very severe words in the Encyclical Letter, "Qui Pluribus,"
Nov. 9, 1846 (1); in the Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," Apr. 20,1849 (4); in the Encyclical Epistle, "Nostis et
Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849 (5); in the Allocution, "Singular) quadam," Dec. 9, 1854 13. in the Encyclical Epistle,
"Quanto conficiamur moerore," Aug. IO, 1863 (28).

Sec. V. Errors Concerning the Church and Its Rights

1719 19. The Church is not a true and perfect society absolutely free, nor does it operate by its own fixed and proper
rights conferred on it by its divine founder; but it belongs to the civil power to define which are the rights of the
Church, and the limits within which it may exercise these rights (13, 23, 26).
20. The ecclesiastical power should not exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil
1720
government (25).
1721 21. The Church does not have the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the
only true religion (8).
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters
1722
only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith (30 [see
n. 1683 ]).
1723 23. The Roman Pontiffs and the Ecumenical Councils have trespassed the limits of their powers, have usurped
the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals (8).
1724 24. The Church does not have the power of using force, nor does it have any temporal power, direct or indirect
(9).
1725 25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, there is another temporal power attributed, either expressly or
tacitly granted by the civil government, to be revoked, therefore, at will by the civil government (9).
1726 26. The Church does not have a natural and legitimate right to acquire and to possess (18, 29).
1727 27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff should be entirely excluded from all
administration and dominion over temporal things (26).
28. Without the permission of the government, it is not lawful for bishops to issue even Apostolic Letters 18
1728
1729 29. Favors granted by the Roman Pontiff should be considered void, unless they have been requested through
the government (18).
1730 30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons had its origin in civil law (8).
31, The ecclesiastical court for the temporal cases of clerics, whether civil or criminal, should be absolutely
1731
abolished, even if the Apostolic See was not consulted, and protests 12. 18
1732 32. Without any violation of natural right and equity, the personal immunity by which clerics are exempted from
the obligation of undergoing and practicing military service, can be abolished; in truth, civil progress demands this
abrogation, especially in a society organized on the form of a more liberal government (32)
1733 33. It does not belong exclusively to the ecclesiastical power of jurisdiction, by proper and natural right, to
direct the teaching of theological matters (30).
1734 34. The doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal Church is a
doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages (9).
1735 35. There is nothing to forbid that by the vote of a General Council or by the action of all peoples the Supreme
Pontificate be transferred from the Roman Bishop and THE CITY to another bishopric and another city (9).
1736 36. The definitionof a national council allows no further discussion, and the civil administration can force the
matter to those boundaries (9).
1737 37. National churches can be established which are exempt and completely separated from the authority of the
Roman Pontiff (23, 24).
1738 38. The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the Church into East
and West (9).

Sec. Vl. Errors Concerning Civil Society, Viewed Both in

Themselves and in Their Relations to the Church

1739 39. The state of the commonwealth, inasmuch as it is the origin and source of all rights, exercises a certain right
bound by no limits (26).
1740 40. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is opposed to the good and to the advantages of human society (1 [see
n. 1634 ], 4).
1741 41, To the civil power, even if exercised by an infidel ruler, belongs the indirect negative power over sacred
things; and hence to the same belongs not only the right which is calleexsequatur but also the right, as they call it,
of appeal as from an abuse (9).
42. In a conflict between the laws of both powers, the civil law prevails (9)
1742
1743 43. The lay power has the authority of rescinding, of declaring and making void the solemn agreements
 (commonly, concordats) made with the Apostolic See concerning the use of rights pertaining to ecclesiastical
immunity, without its consent and even against its protests (7, 23).
44. The civil authority can interfere in matters which pertain to religion, morals, and spiritual government. Hence,
1744
it can judge about the instructions which the pastors of the Church, in accordance with their duty, issue as a guide to
consciences; nay even, it can make decrees concerning the administration of the divine sacraments and the
dispositions necessary to receive them (7, 26).
45. The entire government of the public schools in which the youth of any Christian state is instructed, episcopal
1745
seminaries being excepted for some reason, can and should be assigned to the civil authority; and assigned in such a
way, indeed, that for no other authority is the right recognized to interfere in the discipline of the schools, in the
system of studies, in the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of teachers (7, 10).
46, Nay, even in the seminaries themselves for the clergy, the plan of studies to be followed is subject to the
1746
civil authority 18
1747 47. The best state of civil society demands that the peoples' schools which are open to all children of any class
of people, and the public institutions in general which are destined for the teaching of literature and the more exact
studies, and for caring for the education of youth, should be exempted from all authority, control, and power of the
Church; and be subjected to the full authority of the civil and political power, exactly according to the pleasure of
the rulers and the standard of current public opinion (31).
1748 48. Catholic men can approve that method of instructing youth which has been divorced from Catholic Faith
and the power of the Church, and which regards only, or at least primarily, the natural sciences and the purposes of
social life on earth alone 31,
1749 49. Civil authority can hinder bishops and the faithful people from freely and reciprocally communicating with
the Roman Pontiff (26).
50. The lay authority has of itself the right of presenting bishops, and can compel them to enter upon the
1750
administration of their dioceses before they receive from the Holy See their canonical appointment and Apostolic
Letters 18
1751 51. Moreover, secular government has the right of deposing bishops from the exercise of their pastoral ministry,
and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those matters which regard the institution of episcopates and bishops
(8, 12.
1752 52. The government can by its own right change the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of
women as well as of men, and can prescribe for all religious orders that they should not admit anyone to the
pronouncement of solemn vows without its permission ( 18)
1753 53. The laws which pertain to the protection of the status of religious orders and to their rights and duties should
be abrogated; indeed, the civil government can furnish aid to all those who wish to abandon the institute of the
religious life which they once accepted, and to break their solemn vows; and likewise, it can suppress these same
religious orders, as well as collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of the right of patronage, and can
lay claim to, and subject their property and revenues to the administration and will of the civil power 12. 14.
1754 54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but they also are superior to the
Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction (8).
55. The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church 12.
1755
Sec. VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics

56. The laws of morals by no means need divine sanction, and there is not the least need that human laws
1756
conform to the natural law, or receive the power of binding from God (26).
1757 57. The science of philosophy and of morals, likewise the civil laws, can and should ignore divine and
ecclesiastical authority (26).
58. Other powers should not be recognized except those which have their basis in the material (physical side of
1758
man), and all moral discipline and honesty should be employed to accumulate and increase wealth in any way
whatsoever, and to satisfy man's pleasures (26, 28).
1759 59. Right consists in a physical fact; all the duties of men are an empty name, and all human deeds have the
force of right (26).
1760 60. Authority is nothing more than numbers and the sum of material strengths (26).
1761 61. The chance injustice of an act brings no detriment to the sanctity of the right (24).
1762 62. The principle of "nonintervention" must be proclaimed and observed (22).
63. It is lawful to withhold obedience to legitimate rulers, indeed even to rebel (1, 2, 5, 20).
1763
1764 64. The violation of any most sacred oath, and even any criminal and disgraceful action repugnant to eternal
law, not only must by no means be reproved, but is even altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise, when it
is done for love of country (4).

Sec. Vlll. Errors Concerning Christian Marriage

1765 65. In no way can it be asserted that Christ raised matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament (9).
 66. The sacrament of matrimony is nothing but an appendage to the contract and separable from it, and the
1766
sacrament itself consists merely in the nuptial blessing (9).
1767 67. By natural law the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble, and in various cases divorce, properly so-called,
can be sanctioned by civil authority (9, 12. [see n1640 ]).
68. The Church does not have the power to establish impediments nullifying marriage; but that power belongs to
1768
civil authority by which the existing impediments should be removed (8).
1769 69. The Church in later centuries began to introduce diriment impediments, not by its own right, but by making
use of a right which it had borrowed from the civil power (9).
70. The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of anathema on those who have the boldness
1770
to deny to the Church the power of introducing diriment impediments [see n. 973 f.], are either not dogmatic, or are
to be understood in accordance with this borrowed power (9).
1771 71. The formula of the Council of Trent [see n.990 ] does not oblige under penalty of nullity where the civil law
prescribes another formula, and wishes to validate a marriage by the intervention of this new formula (9).
1772 72. Boniface VIII was the first to declare that the vow of chastity taken in ordination renders marriages invalid
(9).
1773 73. A true marriage can exist between Christians by virtue of a purely civil contract; and it is false to assert that
the contract of marriage between Christians is always a sacrament; or, that there is no contract if the sacrament is
excluded (9, II, 12. [see n.1640 ] 23).
1774 74. Matrimonial cases and betrothals by their very nature belong to the civil court (9, 12. [see 1640 ]).
1774a N.B. Two other errors can contribute to this subject: about abolishing the celibacy of the clergy, and concerning
the state of matrimony to be preferred to the state of virginity. The first is thoroughly discussed in the Encyclical
Epistle, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846 (1); the second in the Apostolic Letter "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851 (8).

Sec. IX. Errors Concerning the Civil Power the Roman Pontifl

1775 75. The sons of the Christian and Catholic Church dispute about the compatibility of the temporal power with
the spiritual (9).
1776 76. The abolition of the civil power which the Apostolic See possesses, would be extremely conducive to the
liberty and prosperity of the Church (4, 6).
1776a N.B. Besides these errors explicitly noted, many others are implicitly condemned, by setting forth and declaring
the doctrine which all Catholics should hold firmly regarding the civil power of the Roman Pontiff. Doctrine of this
sort is lucidly set forth in the Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849 (4); in the Allocution, "Si semper
antea,~' May 20, 1850 (6); in the Apostolic Letter, "Cum catholica ecclesia," March 26, 1860 (20); in the
Allocution, "Novos et ante,,, September 28, 1860 (22), in the Allocution, "lamdudum cernimus,'' March 18, 1861,
(24); in the Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 (26).

Sec. X. Errors Which Are Related to Modern Liberalism

1777 77. In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state,
to the exclusion of all i other cults whatsoever 16].
78. Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating
1778
there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own (12).
1779 79. For it is false that the civil liberty of every cult, and likewise, the full power granted to all of manifesting
openly and publicly any kind of opinions and ideas, more easily leads to the corruption of the morals and minds of
the people, and to the spread of the evil of indifferentism (18).
1780 80. The Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile and adapt himself to progress, liberalism, and the modern
civilization (24).

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

The Vatican Council 1869-1870

THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)
Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

1781 But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with us, gathered together in this Ecumenical Council by Our authority in the
Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the Word of God, written and transmitted as We have received it, sacredly guarded and accurately explained by the
Catholic Church, from this chair of PETER, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ, after contrary
errors have been proscribed and condemned by the power transmitted to Us by God.

Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that
there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in
every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and
essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself
[can. 1-4].
1783 [The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation]. This sole true God by His goodness and
"omnipotent power," not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures,
with most free volition, "immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and
mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body" [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]
1784 [The result of creation]. But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, "reaching from end to end mightily and
ordering all things sweetly" [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For "all things are naked and open to His eyes" [Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures
are in the future.

Chap. 2. Revelation

1785 [The fact of positive supernatural revelation]. The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things,
can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; "for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" [Rom 1:20]; nevertheless, it has pleased His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the
eternal decrees of His will to the human race in another and supernatural way, as the Apostle says: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners,
spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son" [Heb.1:1 f; can. 1].
1786 [The necessity of revelation]. Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are not impenetrable
to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of
error.* Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man
for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since "eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him" [1 Cor. 2:9; can. 2 and 3].
1787 [The source of revelation]. Furthermore, this supernatural revelation, according to the faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy
synod of Trent, is contained "in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ
Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves, and have thus come to us" [Council of Trent,
see n. 783]. And, indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same
Council, are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and
canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation
without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed
down to the Church itself (can. 4).
1788 [The interpretation of Sacred Scripture]. But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of
Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its
intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred
Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement
of the Fathers.

Chap. 3. Faith

1789 [The definition of faith]. Since man is wholly dependent on God as his Creator and Lord, and since created reason is completely subject to
uncreated truth, we are bound by faith to give full obedience of intellect and will to God who reveals [can. 1]. But the Catholic Church professes that this
faith, which "is the beginning of human salvation" [cf. n. 801], is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God,
believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but
because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived [can. 2]. For, "faith is," as the Apostle testifies, "the
substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not" [Heb. 11:1].

1790 [That faith is consonant with reason]. However, in order that the "obedience" of our faith should be "consonant with reason" [cf. Rom. 12:1],
God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially
miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine
revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all [can. 3 and 4]. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but especially Christ the Lord Himself,
produced many genuine miracles and prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: "But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working
withal and confirming the word with signs that followed" [Mark 16:20]. And again it is written: "And we have the more firm prophetical word:
whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place" [2 Pet. 1:19].

1791 [That faith in itself is a gift of God]. Moreover, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the intellect, nevertheless, no
one can "assent to the preaching of the Gospel," as he must to attain salvation, "without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to
all a sweetness in consenting to and believing in truth" (Council of Orange, see n. 178 ff.). Wherefore, "faith" itself in itself, even if it "worketh not by
charity" [cf. Gal. 5:6], is a gift of God, and its act is a work pertaining to salvation, by which man offers a free obedience to God Himself by agreeing to,
and cooperating with His grace, which he could resist [cf. n. 797 f: can. 5].

1792 [The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and
in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be
believed as divinely revealed.
1793 [The necessity of embracing faith and retaining it]. But, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" [Heb. 11:6] and to attain to the
fellowship of His sons, hence, no one is justified without it; nor will anyone attain eternal life except "he shall persevere unto the end on it" [Matt. 10:22;
24:13]. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His
only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and
teacher of the revealed word.
1794 [The divine external aid for the fulfillment of the duty of Faith]. For, to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and marvelous things
which have been divinely arranged for the evident credibility of the Christian faith. But, even the Church itself by itself, because of its marvelous
propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great
and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission.

[The divine internal aid to the same]. By this it happens that the Church as "a standard set up unto the nations" [Isa. 11:12], both invites to itself
those who have not yet believed, and makes its sons more certain that the faith, which they profess, rests on a very firm foundation. Indeed, an efficacious
aid to this testimony has come from supernatural virtue. For, the most benign God both excites the erring by His grace and aids them so that they can
"come to a knowledge of the truth" [1 Tim. 2:4], and also confirms in His grace those whom "He has called out of darkness into his marvelous light" [1
Pet. 2:9], so that they may persevere in this same light, not deserting if He be not deserted [see n.804]. Wherefore, not at all equal is the condition of
those, who, through the heavenly gift of faith, have adhered to the Catholic truth, and of those, who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for,
those who have accepted the faith under the teaching power of the Church can never have a just cause of changing or doubting that faith [can. 6]. Since
this is so, "giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light" [Col. 1:12], let us not neglect such
salvation, but "looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith" [Heb. 12:2], "let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering" [Heb. 10:23].

Chap. 4. Faith and reason

1795 [The twofold order of knowledge]. By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge,
distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in
object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they
not been divinely revealed, could not become known [can. 1]. Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God was known to the Gentiles "by the things
that are made" [Rom. 1:20], nevertheless, when discoursing about grace and truth which "was made through Jesus Christ" [cf. John 1:17] proclaims: "We
speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory, which none of the princes of this
world know. . . . But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God" [1 Cor. 2:7,8,10]. And the
Only-begotten Himself "confesses to the Father, because He hath hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hath revealed them to little ones" [cf.
Matt. 11:25]

1796 [The role of reason in teaching supernatural truth]. And, indeed, reason illustrated by faith, when it zealously, piously, and soberly seeks, attains
with the help of God some understanding of the mysteries, and that a most profitable one, not only from the analogy of those things which it knows
naturally, but also from the connection of the mysteries among themselves and with the last end of man; nevertheless, it is never capable of perceiving
those mysteries in the way it does the truths which constitute its own proper object. For, divine mysteries by their nature exceed the created intellect so
much that, even when handed down by revelation and accepted by faith, they nevertheless remain covered by the veil of faith itself, and wrapped in a
certain mist, as it were, as long as in this mortal life, "we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith and not by sight" [2 Cor. 5:6 f.],

1797 [The impossibility of opposition between faith and reason]. But, although faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true
dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover,
God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the
dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations
of reason. Therefore, "every assertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith, we define to be altogether false" [Lateran Council V, see n. 738].

1798 Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from
divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing "knowledge falsely so called" [1 Tim. 6:20], "lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit"
[cf. Col. 2:8; can. 2]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians not only are forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the
teaching of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to
hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.

1799 [The mutual assistance of faith and reason, and the just freedom of science]. And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one
another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the
knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge. Wherefore, the Church is so far
from objecting to the culture of the human arts and sciences, that it aids and promotes this cultivation in many ways. For, it is not ignorant of, nor does it
despise the advantages flowing therefrom into human life; nay, it confesses that, just as they have come forth from "God, the Lord of knowledge" [1
Samuel 2:3], so, if rightly handled, they lead to God by the aid of His grace. And it (the Church) does not forbid disciplines of this kind, each in its own
sphere, to use its own principles and its own method; but, although recognizing this freedom, it continually warns them not to fall into errors by
opposition to divine doctrine, nor, having transgressed their own proper limits, to be busy with and to disturb those matters which belong to faith.

1800 [The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed]. For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a
philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and
infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared;
and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. "Therefore . . . let the understanding,
the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the
centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.''*

Canons (of the Catholic Faith) *

1. God the Creator of all things

1801 T. [Against all errors about the existence of God the Creator]. If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and
invisible things: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1782].
1802 2. [Against materialism]. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that nothing exists except matter: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1783].
1803 3. [Against pantheism]. If anyone shall say that one and the same thing is the substance or essence of God and of all things: let him be anathema
[cf. n. 1782].

1804 4. [Against special forms of pantheism]. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least the spiritual, have
emanated from the divine substance, or, that the divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things, or, finally, that God is
universal or indefinite being, because by determining Himself, He created all things distinct in genera, in species, and in individuals: let him be anathema.

1805 5. [Against pantheists and materialists]. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and
material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing [cf. n. 1783],
[Against the Guentherians], or, shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves
Himself [cf. n. 1783],

[Against the Guentherians and the Hermesians], or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.

2. Revelation

1806 1. [Against those denying natural theology]. If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with
certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema [cf. 1785].
1807 2. [Against the deists]. If anyone shall have said that it is not possible nor expedient that through divine relation man be taught about God and
the worship to be given to Him: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1786].

1808 3. [Against the Progressionists]. If anyone shall have said that man cannot be drawn by divine power to a knowledge and perfection which is
above the natural, but that he of himself can and ought to reach the possession of all truth and good by a continual progress: let him be anathema.
1809 4. If anyone shall not accept the entire books of Sacred Scripture with all their divisions, just as the sacred Synod of Trent has enumerated them
[see n. 783 f.], as canonical and sacred, or denies that they have been inspired by God: let him be anathema.

3. Faith

1810 1. [Against the autonomy of reason]. If anyone shall have said that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it by
God: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1789].
1811 2. [Some things must be held as true, which reason itself does not draw from itself]. If anyone shall have said, that divine faith is not
distinguished from a natural knowledge of God and moral things, and that therefore it is not necessary to divine faith that revealed truth be believed
because of the authority of God Who reveals it: let him be anathema [cf. n 1789]

1812 3. [In faith itself the rights of reason must be preserved]. If anyone shall have said that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external
signs, and for this reason men ought to be moved to faith by the internal experience alone of each one, or by private inspiration: let him be anathema [cf.
n. 1790].
1813 4. [The demonstrability of revelation]. If anyone shall have said that miracles are not possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those
contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or, that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine
origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1790].

1814 5. [The liberty of faith and the necessity of grace: against Hermes (see n. 1618 ff.) ]. If anyone shall have said that the assent of the Christian
faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by proofs from human reasoning; or, that the grace of God is necessary only for that living faith "which
worketh by charity" [Gal. 5:6]: let him be anathema [cf. n 1791]
1815 6. [Against the positive doubt of Hermes (see n. 1619)]. If anyone shall have said that the condition of the faithful and of those who have not
yet come to the true faith is equal, so that Catholics can have a justcause of doubting the faith which they have accepted under the teaching power of the
Church, by withholding assent until they have completed the scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema [cf. n.
1794].

4. Faith and reason

[Against the pseudo-philosophers and the pseudo-theologians, concerning whom see n. 1679 ff.]

1816 1. If anyone shall have said that no true mysteries properly so-called are contained in divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of faith can be
understood and proved from natural principles, through reason properly cultivated: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1795 f.].
1817 2. If anyone shall have said that the human sciences should be treated with such liberty that their assertions, although opposed to revealed
doctrine, can be retained as true, and cannot be proscribed by the Church: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1797-1799].
1818 3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to
the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1800].
1819 And so, fulfilling the obligation of Our supreme pastoral office, by the incarnation of Jesus Christ We beseech all the faithful of Christ, but
especially those who have charge of, or who perform the duty of teaching; and in fact, by the authority of Our same God and Savior, We command that
they bring their zeal and labor to arrest and banish these errors from Holy Church, and to extend the light of a most pure faith.

1820 But, since it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of
the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been
proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See.

SESSION IV (July 18, 1870) *

Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ

1821 [The institution and foundation of the Church]. "The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls" [1 Pet. 2:25], in order to render the saving work of
redemption perennial, willed to build a holy Church, in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be contained by the bond of one
faith and charity. Therefore, before His glory was made manifest, "He asked the Father, not only for the Apostles but also for those who would believe
through their word in Him, that all might be one, just as the Son Himself and the Father are one" [John 17:20 f.]. Thus, then, as He sent the apostles,
whom He had selected from the world for Himself, as He himself had been sent by the Father [John 20:21], so in His Church He wished the pastors and
the doctors to be "even to the consummation of the world" [Matt. 28:20]. But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire
multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing the blessed
Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple
might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith.* And, since the gates of hell, to overthrow
the Church, if this were possible, arise from all sides with ever greater hatred against its divinely established foundation, We judge it to be necessary for
the protection, safety, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approbation of the Council, to set forth the doctrine on the institution, perpetuity, and
nature of the Sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which the strength and solidarity of the whole Church consist, to be believed and held by all the faithful,
according to the ancient and continual faith of the universal Church, and to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, so pernicious to the Lord's flock.

Chap. 1. The Institution of Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter

1822 [Against heretics and schismatics]. So we teach and declare that according to the testimonies of the Gospel the primacy of jurisdiction over the
entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord. For the one Simon, to
whom He had before said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas" [John 1:42], after he had given forth his confession with those words: "Thou art Christ, Son of
the living God" [Matt. 16:16], the Lord spoke with these solemn words: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it
to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it: and I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" [Matt. 16:17ff.]. [against Richerius etc. (see n. 1503)]. And upon Simon
Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: "Feed my lambs," "Feed my
sheep" [John 21:15 ff.]. To this teaching of Sacred Scriptures, so manifest as it has been always understood by the Catholic Church, are opposed openly
the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord; that to Peter alone,
before the other apostles, whether individually or all together, was confided the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by Christ; or, of those who affirm
that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through this Church upon
him as the minister of the Church herself.

1823 [Canon]. If anyone then says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not established by the Lord Christ as the chief of all the apostles, and the visible
head of the whole militant Church, or, that the same received great honor but did not receive from the same our Lord Jesus Christ directly and
immediately the primacy in true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.

Chap. 2. The Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter among the Roman Pontiffs

1824 Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual
salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure
firm until the end of the ages. Surely "no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles
and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the
human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which
was founded by him and consecrated by his blood, [cf. Council of Ephesus, see n. 112]. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to
the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter
persevering in the accepted fortitude of the rock does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received.''* For this reason "it has always
been necessary because of mightier pre-eminence for every church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere," * so
that in this See, from which the laws of "venerable communion" * emanate over all, they as members associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily
structure.
1825 [Canon]. If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual
successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be
anathema.

Chap. 3. The Power and Manner of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1826 [Assertion of primacy]. Therefore, relying on the clear testimonies of Sacred Scripture, and adhering to the
eloquent and manifest decisions not only of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, but also of the general Councils,
We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ most believe "that
the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is
the successor of the blessed Peter, thechief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole
Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord
Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the
ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons" [see n. 694 ].
[Consequences denied by innovators]. Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the
1827
disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction
on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the
faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of
hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those
which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which is] spread over the whole world, so that the
Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the
profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from
which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.
1828 [The jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and of the bishops]. This power of the Supreme Pontiff is so far from
interfering with that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops, who, "placed by
the Holy Spirit" [cfActs 20:28 ], have succeeded to the places of the apostles, as true shepherds individually feed
and rule the individual flocks assigned to them, that the same (power) is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by the
supreme and universal shepherd, according to the statement of Gregory the Great: "My honor is the universal honor
of the Church. My honor is the solid vigor of my brothers. Then am I truly honored, when the honor due to each
and everyone is not denied.'*
[Free communication with all the faithful]. Furthermore, it follows that from that supreme power of the Roman
1829
Pontiff of ruling the universal Church, the same has the right in the exercise of this duty of his office of communicating
freely with the pastors and flocks of the whole Church, so that the same can be taught and guided by him in the way
of salvation. Therefore, We condemn and disapprove the opinions of those who say that this communication of the
supreme head with pastors and flocks can lawfully be checked, or who make this so submissive to secular power
that they contend that whatever is established by the Apostolic See or its authority for the government of the Church
has no force or value unless confirmed by an order of the secular power [Placitum regium, see n. 1847 ].
1830 [Recourse to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge]. And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the
universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of
the faithful [cf.1500 ], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his
judgment [cf. n.466 ]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be
disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [cf. n. 330 ff.]. Therefore, they
stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman
Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.
1831 [Canon]. If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the
full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals,
but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that
he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power
of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the
faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.

Chap. 4. The Infallible "Magisterium" of the Roman Pontiff

1832 [Arguments from public documents]. Moreover, that by the very apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as
the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the
magisterium is also comprehended, this Holy See has always held, the whole experience of the Church approves,
and the ecumenical Councils themselves, especially those in which the Last convened with the West in a union of
faith and charity, have declared.
For the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, adhering to the ways of the former ones, published this
1833
solemn profession: "Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith [. . .]. And since the sentiment of our Lord
Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church' [Matt.
16:18 ], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic
religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated. Desiring, then, least of all to be
separated from the faith and teaching of this [Apostolic See], We hope that We may deserve to be in the one
communion which the Apostolic See proclaims,in which the solidarity of the Christian religion is whole and true"*
1834 [cf. n171 f.]. Moreover, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks have professed, "that
the Holy Roman Church holds the highest and the full primacy and pre-eminence over the universal Catholic
 Church, which it truthfully and humbly professes it has received with plenitude of power from the Lord Himself in
blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor; and, just as it is
bound above others to defend the truth of
faith, so, too, if any questions arise about faith, they should be defined by its judgment" [466 ]. Finally, the
1835
Council of Florence has defined: "That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church
and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to it in the blessed Peter has been handed down by the Lord Jesus
Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the universal Church" [see694 ].
[Argument from the assent of the Church]. To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless
1836
attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they
watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole
world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the
ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there
especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failur* The Roman Pontiffs,
moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or
by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by
employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with
God's help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit
was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His
help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might
faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox
Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by
any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: "I have prayed
for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethrLuke 22:32 ].
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair,
1837
that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them
from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion
of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against
the gates of hell.
1838 [Definition of infallibility]. But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the apostolic duty is
especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority, We deem it most necessary to assert solemnly
the prerogative which the Only-begotten Son of God deigned to enjoin with the highest pastoral office.
And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of
1839
God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation
of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he
speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his
supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the
divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman
Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.
[Canon]. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be
1840
anathema.

Twofold Power on Earth *

[From the Encyclical, "Etsi multa luctuosa," Nov. 2, 1873]

1841 Faith (however) teaches and human reason demonstrates that a two- fold order of things exists, and that at the
same time two powers are to be distinguished on earth, one naturally which looks out for the tranquillity of human
society and secular affairs, but the other, whose origin is above nature, which presides over the city of God, namely,
the Church of Christ, divinely established for the peace and the eternal salvation of souls. Moreover, these duties of
the twofold power have been very wisely ordained, that "the things that are God's may be rendered to God," and,
on account of God, "to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" [Matt. 22:21 ], who "is great on this account, because
he is less than heaven; for he himself belongs to Him to whom belong heaven and every creature.''* And from him,
surely by divine mandate, the Church has never turned aside, which always and everywhere strives to nurture
obedience in the souls of her faithful; and they should inviolably keep, (this obedience) to the supreme princes and
their laws insofar as they are secular; and, with the Apostle it has taught that princes "are not a terror to the good
work, but to the evil," ordering the faithful "to be subject not only for wrath," because the prince "beareth not the
sword as an avenger to execute wrath upon him that cloth evil, but also for conscience' sake," because in his office
"he is God's minister" Rom. 13:3 ff.]. Moreover, it itself has restricted this fear of princes to evil works, plainly
excluding the same from the observance of the divine law, mindful of that which blessed Peter taught the faithful:
"But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things. But if as a
Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name"1 Pet.4:15f ]

The Liberty of the Church *

 [From the Encyclical, "Quod nunquam," to the bishops of Prussia, February 5, 1875]

1842 We intend to fulfill parts of Our duty through this letter, announcing to all to whom this matter pertains, and to
the whole Catholic world, that those laws are invalid, namely, which are utterly opposed to the constitution of the
divine Church. For, the Lord of holy things did not place the powerful of this world over the bishops in these
matters which pertain to the holy ministry, but blessed Peter to whom he commended not only His lambs but also
His sheep to be fed [cf.John 21:16, 17 ]; and so by no worldly power, however elevated, can they be deprived of
their episcopal office "whom the Holy Ghost hath placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" [cf. Acts 20:28 ].
Moreover, let those who are hostile to you know that in refusing to pay to Caesar what belongs to God, you are not
going to bring any injury to royal authority, nor to detract anything from it; for it is written: "We ought to obey God,
rather than men" [Acts 5:29 ]; and at the same time let them know that everyone of you is prepared to give tribute
and obedience to Caesar, not for wrath, but for conscience [cf. Rom. 13:5 f.] in those matters which are under civil
authority and power.

Explanation of Transubstantiation *
[From the Decree of the Holy Office, July 7, 1875]

Reply to the question: "Whether the explanation of transubstantiation in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist
can be tolerated, which is comprehended by the following propositions:

1843 1. Just as the formal reason for hypostasis is "to be through itself," or, "to subsist through itself," so the formal
reason for substance is "to be in itself" and "actually not to be sustained in another as the first subject"; for, rightly
are those two to be distinguished: "to be through itself" (which is the formal reason for hypostasis), and "to be in
itself" (which is the formal reason for substance).
1844 2. Therefore, just as human nature in Christ is not hypostasis, because it does not subsist through itself but is
assumed from a superior divine hypostasis, so finite substance, for example, the substance of bread, ceases to be
substance by this alone and without any change of itself, because it is sustained supernaturally in another, so that it is
not already in itself, but in another as in a first subject.
1845 3. Thus, transubstantiation, or the conversion of the entire substance of bread into the substance of the body of
Christ our Lord, can be explained in this way, that the body of Christ, while it becomes substantially present in the
Eucharist, sustains the nature of bread, which by this very fact and without any change in itself ceases to be
substance, because it is not now in itself, but in another sustaining; and, indeed, the nature of bread remains, but in it
the formal reason for substance ceases; and so there are not two substances, but one only, that, of course, of the
body of Christ.
1846 4. Therefore, in the Eucharist the matter and form of the elements of bread remain; but now, existing
supernaturally in another, they do not have the nature of substance, but they have the nature of supernatural
they are sustained by the body of Christ in the manner in which it has been said."
The reply is that "the doctrine of transubstantiation, as it is set forth here, cannot be tolerated."

Royal Assent *

[From the Allocution, "Luctuosis exagitati," March 12, 1877]

1847 . . . Very recently We have been forced to declare that the following can be tolerated: that the acts of the
canonical institution of certain bishops be shown to a secular power, so that, as far as We could, We might avert
certain baneful consequences, in which there was no longer question of the possession of temporal goods, but of the
consciences of the faithful, their peace, the care and salvation of souls, which i supreme law for us, and which
were called into open risk. But in this which We have done in order to avoid most serious dangers, We wish it to be
known publicly and again that We entirely disapprove and abominate that unjust law which is called "royal assent,"
declaring openly that by it the divine authority of the Church is harmed and its liberty violated. . . . 1829 ].

Chap. 3. The Power and Manner of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Leo XIII 1878-1903

LEO XIII 1878-1903

The Reception of Converted Heretics *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, Nov. 20, 1878]

1848 To the question: "Whether baptism should be conferred conditionally on heretics who are converted to the Catholic religion, from whatever
locality they come, and to whatever sect they pertain?" The reply is: "In the negative. But in the conversion of heretics, from whatever place or from
whatever sect they come, inquiry should be made regarding the validity of the baptism in the heresy which was adopted. Then after the examination has
been established in individual cases, if it is found either that none was conferred, or it was conferred without effect, they shall have to be baptized
absolutely. But if according to circumstances and by reason of the localities, after the investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered in favor
either of validity or invalidity, or, probable doubt still exists regarding the validity of the baptism, then let them be baptized conditionally, in secret.
Finally, if it shall be established that it was valid, they will have to be received only for the profession of faith."
Socialism *
[From the Encyclical, "Quod Apostolici muneris," Dec. 28, 1878]

1849 From the records of the Gospels the equality of men consists in this, that all have received the same nature, and are called to the same highest
dignity of the sons of God; and at the same time that, since the same end is established for all, each is to be judged individually according to the same law,
to obtain punishments or rewards according to merit. An inequality of right and power, however, emanates from the very author of nature, "from whom
all paternity in heaven and earth is named" [Eph. 3:15]. But the souls of princes and subjects, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, are so bound
by mutual duties and rights that both the passion for ruling is tempered and the way of obedience is made easy, steadfast, and most noble. . . .

1850 If, however, it should ever happen that public power is exercised by princes rashly and beyond measure, the doctrine of the Catholic Church
does not permit rising up against them on one's own terms, lest quiet and order be more and more disturbed, or lest society receive greater harm
therefrom. Whenever matters have come to such a pass that no other hope of a solution is evident, it teaches that a remedy is to be hastened through the
merits of Christian patience, and by urgent prayers to God. But if the decisions of legislators and princes should sanction or order something that is
contrary to divine and natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name and the opinion of the apostles urge that "we ought to obey God, rather than
men" [Acts 5:29].

1851 But also, Catholic wisdom most skillfully provides for public and domestic tranquillity, supported by the precepts of divine law, through what it
holds and teaches concerning the right of ownership and the distribution of goods which have been obtained for the necessities and uses of life. For when
Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man, and, seeking to establish community of goods,
think that poverty is by no means to be endured with equanimity; and that the possessions and rights of the rich can be violated with impunity, the
Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and of mind; also in the
possession of goods, and it orders that right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself, be for everyone intact and inviolate; for it
knows that theft and raping have been forbidden by God, the author and vindicator of every right, in such a way that one may not even look attentively
upon (al.: covet) the property of another, and "that thieves and robbers, no less than adulterers and idolators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven"
[cf. 1 Cor. 6:9f.].

1852 And yet she does not on this account neglect the care of the poor, or, as a devoted mother, fail to take thought for their necessities; but rather,
embracing them with maternal affection, and realizing well that they represent the person of Christ Himself, who considers as done to Himself whatever
benefit is conferred by anyone on the least of the poor, holds them in great honor; she relieves them by every resource possible; she has erected
everywhere in the world homes and hospices to receive them, and to nourish and to care for them, and she takes these institutions under her loving care.
By most urgent precept she commands the rich to distribute their superfluous possessions among the poor, and terrifies them by the divine judgment,
whereby, unless they go to the aid of the needy poor, they are to be tormented by everlasting punishments. Finally, she especially refreshes and consoles
the souls of the poor either by presenting the example of Christ who, "although he was rich, became poor for our sakes" [cf. 2 Cor. 8:9], or by recalling
the words, by which He addressed the poor as "blessed" [cf. Matt. 5:3], and bade them hope for the rewards of eternal blessedness.

Christian Marriage *
[From the Encyclical, "Arcanum divinae sapientiae," February l0, 1880]

1853 To the apostles as masters are to be referred the accepted matters which our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the Universal Church have always
taught [see n. 970], namely, that Christ our Lord raised matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament, and at the same time brought it about that the spouses
strengthened and fortified by heavenly grace which His merits procured, obtain sanctity in the marriage; and that in it, marvelously conformed to the
model of the mystical marriage of Himself with the Church, He perfected a love which is befitting to nature [Cone. Trid. sess. 24, C. I de reform. matr.;
cf. n. 969], and He cemented the union of man and woman, indivisible by its own nature, more strongly by the bond of divine love. . . .

1854 And the distinction put forward especially by royal legists must not disturb anyone, in which they separate the nuptial contract from the
sacrament, with, of course, this purpose, that, while reserving the conditions of the sacrament to the Church, they may hand over the contract to the power
and will of the chiefs of the State. For such a distinction or, more truly, a severance, cannot be approved, since it has been proved that in Christian
marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament; and so it cannot be a true and legitimate contract without being a sacrament, for this very reason.
For, Christ our Lord honored marriage with the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, provided it is lawfully made. In addition,
marriage is a sacrament for this reason, because it is a holy sign, both giving grace and conveying an image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the
Church. Moreover, the form and figure of these nuptials are expressed by the very bond of the supreme union in which man and woman are bound
together, and which is nothing other than marriage itself. And thus it is evident that every just union between Christians is in itself and by itself a
sacrament; and that nothing is more inconsistent with truth than the belief that the sacrament is a kind of added ornament, or an external property which
can be disengaged and separated from the contract according to man's pleasure.

The Political Principality *

[From the Encyclical, "Diuturnum illud," June 29, 1881]

1855 Although man incited by a kind of arrogance and contumacy often strives to cast off the reins of government, yet he has never been able to
succeed in obeying anyone. In every association and community of men, necessity demands that some be in charge. . . . But it is of interest to note at this
point that those who are to be in charge of the state can in certain cases be elected by the will and judgment of the multitude, and Catholic doctrine makes
no opposition nor resistance. By this election by which the prince is designated, the rights of principality are not conferred, nor is the power committed,
but it is determined by whom it is to be carried on. There is no question here of the kinds of states; for there is no reason why the principality of one
person or of several should be approved by the Church, provided it be just and intent upon the common good. Therefore, as long as justice is preserved,
peoples are not prohibited from establishing that kind of state for themselves which more aptly befits either their genius or the institutions and customs of
their ancestors.

1856 But the Church teaches that what pertains to political power comes from God. . . . It is a great error not to see what is manifest, that, although
men are not solitaries, it is not by congenital free will that they are impelled to a natural community life; and moreover the pact which they proclaim is
patently feigned and fictitious, and cannot bestow as much force, dignity, and strength to the political power as the protection of the state and the common
welfare of the citizens require. But the principality is to possess these universal glories and aids, only if it is understood that they come from God, the
august and most holy source.

1857 That is the one reason for men not obeying, if something is demanded of them which is openly at odds with natural and divine law; for it is
equally wrong to order and to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, then, it ever happens to anyone to be forced to
choose one or the other, namely, to ignore the orders either of God or of princes, obedience must be rendered to Jesus Christ who orders, "the things that
are Caesar's, to Caesar; the things that are God's to God" [cf. Matt. 22:21], and according to the example of the apostles the reply should be made
courageously: "We ought to obey God, rather than man" [Acts 5:29]. . . . To be unwilling to refer the right of ordering to God, the author, is nothing else
than to wish the most beautiful splendor of political power destroyed, and its nerves cut. . . .

In fact, sudden tumults and most daring rebellions, especially in Germany, have followed that so-called Reformation, whose supporters and
leaders have utterly opposed sacred and civil power with new doctrines.
. . . From that heresy a falsely called philosophy took its origin in an earlier time, and a right, which they call "new," and a popular power, and
an ignorant license which many people consider only liberty. From these we have come to the ultimate plagues, namely, to communism, to socialism, to
nihilism, most loathsome monsters and almost destroyers of man's civil society.

1858 Surely the Church of Christ cannot be mistrusted by the princes nor hated by the people. Indeed, she advises the princes to follow justice and in
nothing to err from duty; and at the same time she strengthens and aids their authority in many ways. Whatever takes place in the field of civil affairs, she
recognizes and declares to be in their power and supreme control; in those matters whose judgment, although for different reasons, pertains to sacred and
civil power, she wishes that there exist concord between both, by benefit of which lamentable contentions are avoided for both.

Secret Societies *
[From the Encyclical, "Humanum genus,', April 20, 1884]

1859 Let no one think that for any reason whatsoever he is permitted to join the Masonic sect, if his profession of Catholicism and his salvation is
worth as much to him as it ought to be. Let no pretended probity deceive one; for it can seem to some that the Freemasons demand nothing which is
openly contrary to the sanctity of religion and morals, but since the entire reasoning and aim of the sect itself rest in viciousness and shame, it is not
proper to permit association with them, or to assist them in any way.

[From the Instruction of the Holy Office, May 10, 1884]

1860 (3) Lest there be any place for error when decision will have to be made as to what the opinions of these pernicious sects are, which are under
such prohibition, it is especially certain that Freemasonry and other sects of this kind which plot against the Church and lawful powers, whether they do
this secretly or openly, whether or not they exact from their followers an oath to preserve secrecy, are condemned by automatic excommunication.
1861 (4) Besides these there are also other sects which are prohibited and must be avoided under pain of grave sin, among which are to be reckoned
especially all those which bind their followers under oath to a secret to be divulged to no one, and exact absolute obedience to be offered to secret leaders.
It is to be noted, furthermore, that there are some societies which, although it cannot be determined with certainty whether or not they belong to these
which we have mentioned, are nevertheless doubtful and full of danger not only because of the doctrines which they profess, but also because of the
philosophy of action which those follow under whose leadership they have developed and are governed.

Assistance of a Physician or of a Confessor at a Duel *

[From the Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Poitiers, May 31, 1884]

To the question:
1862 I. Can a physician when invited by duelists assist at a duel with the intention of bringing an end to the fight more quickly, or simply to bind and
cure wounds, without incurring the excommunication reserved simply to the Highest Pontiff?
II. Can he at least, without being present at the duel, stay at a neighboring house or in a place nearby, ready to offer his service, if the duelists
have need of it.
III. What about a confessor under the same conditions?

The answers are:

To I, he cannot, and excommunication is incurred.
To II and III, that, insofar as it takes place as described, he cannot, and likewise excommunication is incurred.
Cremation of Corpses *
[From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 19 and Dec. 15, 1886]

1863 To the question:

I. Whether it is permitted to join societies whose purpose is to promote the practice of burning the corpses of men?
II. Whether it is permitted to command that one's own or the corpses of others be burned?
The answer on the 19th day of May, 1886, is:

To I. In the negative, and if it is a matter concerned with societies affiliated with the Masonic sect, the penalties passed against this sect are
incurred.

To II. In the negative.*

Then, on the 15th day of December, 1886:

1864 Insofar as it is a question of those whose bodies are subjected to cremation not by their own will but by that of another, the rites and
prayers of the Church can be employed not only at home but also in the church, not, however, at the place of cremation, scandal being avoided. Indeed,
scandal can also be avoided if it be known that crema- tion was not elected by the deceased's own will. But when it is a question of those who elect
cremation by their own will, and have persevered in this will definitely and notoriously even until death, with due attention to the decree of Wednesday,
May 19 1886 [given above], action must be taken in such cases according to the norms of the Roman Ritual, Tit. Quibus non licet dare ecclesiasticam
sepulturam (To whom it is not permitted to give burial in the church). But in particular cases where doubt or difficulty arises, the ordinary will have to be
consulted.

Civil Divorce *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 27, 1886]

1865 The following questions were raised by some Bishops of France to the inquisition S.R. et U.: "In the letter S.R. et U. 1. of June 25th 1885, to all
the ordinaries in the territory of France on the law of civil divorce it is decreed thus: "Considering very serious matters, in addition to times and places, it
can be tolerated that those who hold magistracies, and lawyers who conduct matrimonial cases in France, without being bound to cede to the office," and
it added conditions, of which the second is this: "Provided they are so prepared in mind not only regarding the dignity and nullity of marriage, but also
regarding the separation of bodies, about which cases they are obliged to judge, as never to offer an opinion or to defend one to be offered, or to provoke
or to incite to that opinion which is at odds with divine and ecclesiastical law."

It is asked:
I. Whether the interpretation is right which is widespread throughout France and even put in print, according to which the judge satisfies the
above mentioned condition, who, although a certain marriage is valid in the sight of the Church, ignores that true and unbroken marriage, and applying
civil law pronounces that there is ground for divorce, provided he intends in his mind to break only the civil effects and only the civil contract, and
provided the terms of the opinion offered consider these alone? In other words, whether an opinion so offered can be said not to be at odds with the divine
and ecclesiastical law?

II. After the judge has pronounced that there is ground for divorce, whether the syndic (in French: le maire), intent also upon only the civil
effects and the civil contract, as is explained above, can pronounce a divorce, although the marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church.
III. After the divorce has been pronounced, whether the same syndic can again join a spouse who strives to enter into other nuptials in a civil
ceremony, although the previous marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church and the other party is living?

The answer is:

In the negative to the first, the second,* and the third.

The Christian Constitution of States *

[From the Encyclical "Immortale Dei," November 1, 1885]

1866 And so God has partitioned the care of the human race between two powers, namely, ecclesiastical and civil, the one, to be sure, placed over
divine, the other over human affairs. Each is highest in its own order; each has certain limits within which it is contained, which are defined by the nature
of each and the immediate purpose; and therefore an orbit, as it were, is circumscribed, within which the action of each takes place by its own right.* . . .
Whatever, then, in human things is in every way sacred, whatever pertains to the salvation of souls or the worship of God, whether it is such by its own
nature or again is understood as such because of the purpose to which it is referred, this is entirely in the power and judgment of the Church; but other
matters, which the civil and political order embraces, are rightly subject to civil authority, since Jesus Christ has ordered: "The things that are Caesar's,
render to Caesar; the things that are God's to God" [cf. Matt. 22:21]. But occasions sometimes arise, when another method of concord is also efficacious
for peace and liberty, namely, if rulers of public affairs and the Roman Pontiff agree on the same decision in some special matter. On these occasions the
Church gives outstanding proof of her motherly devotion, when, as is her wont she shows all possible affability and indulgence. . . .
1867 To wish also that the Church be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duties is surely a great injustice (to her), and great rashness. By
this deed order is disturbed, because the things that are of nature are put over those that are above nature; the frequency of the blessings with which the
Church would fill everyday life, if she were not hampered by anything, is destroyed or certainly greatly diminished; and besides a way is prepared for
enmities and contentions; and, what great destruction they bring to both powers, the issue of events has demonstrated beyond measure. Such doctrines,
which are not approved by human reason and are of great importance for civil discipline, the Roman Pontiffs, Our predecessors, since they understood
well what the Apostolic office demanded of them, did by no means allow to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI by the encyclical letter beginning,
"Mirari vos," on the fifteenth day of August, 1832 [see note 1613 ff.], with great seriousness of purpose struck at those teachings which even then were
being preached, that in divine worship no preference should be shown; that individuals are free to form their judgments about religion as they prefer; that
one's conscience alone is his guide; and furthermore that it is lawful for everyone to publish what he thinks, and likewise to stir up revolution within the
state. On questions of the separation of Church and state the same Pontiff writes thus: "We could not predict happier results both for religion and for the
civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the state, and that the mutual concord between the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities be broken off. For, it is manifest that devotees of unhampered freedom fear that concord which has always been beneficial and
salutary for both sacred and civil interests."--In a not dissimilar manner Pius IX, as opportunity presented itself, noted many of the false opinions which
began to prevail, and afterwards ordered the same to be gathered together so that in, as it were, so great a sea of error, Catholics might have something to
follow without mishap.*

1868 Moreover, from these precepts of the Pontiffs the following must be thoroughly understood; that the origin of public power should be sought
from God Himself, not from the multitude; that free license for sedition is at odds with reason; that it is unlawful for private individuals, unlawful for
states to disregard the duties of religion or to be affected in the same way by the different kinds (of religion); that the unrestricted power of thinking and
publicly expressing one's opinions is not among the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be placed among matters worthy of favor and support.

1869 Similarly, it should be understood that the Church is a society no less than the state itself, perfect in its kind and in its right; and those who hold
the highest power should not act so as to force the Church to serve and to be under them, or so as not to permit her to be free to transact her own affairs,
or so as to take from her any of the other rights which have been conferred upon her by Jesus Christ.
1870 However, in matters of mixed jurisdiction, it is wholly in accord with nature, and likewise in accord with the plans of God, that there be no
separation of one power from the other, but plainly that there be concord, and this in a manner befitting the closely allied purposes which have given rise
to both societies.

1871 This, then, is what is taught by the Church on the establishment and government of states.--However, by these statements and decrees, if one
desire to judge rightly, no one of the various forms of the state is condemned in itself, inasmuch as they contain nothing which is offensive to Catholic
doctrine, and they can, if they are wisely and justly applied, preserve the state in its best condition.
1872 Neither by any means is this condemned in itself, that the people participate more or less in the state; this very thing at certain times and under
certain laws can not only be of use to the citizens, but can even be of obligation.

1873 Furthermore, neither does there appear any just cause for anyone charging the Church with being lenient and more than rightly restricted by
affability, or with being hostile to that liberty which is proper and lawful.
1874 Indeed, if the Church judges that certain forms of divine worship should not be on the same footing as the true religion, yet she does not
therefore condemn governors of states, who, to obtain some great blessing or to prevent an evil,

1875 patiently tolerate custom and usage so that individually they each have a place in the state. And this also the Church especially guards against,
that anyone against his will be forced to embrace the Catholic faith, for, as St. Augustine wisely advises: "Man cannot believe except of his free will." *
1876 In a like manner the Church cannot approve that liberty which begets an aversion for the most sacred laws of God and casts aside the obedience
due lawful authority. For this is more truly license than liberty. And very rightly is it called "the liberty of ruin" * by Augustine, and "a cloak of malice"
by the Apostle Peter [1 Pet. 2:16]; rather, since it is beyond reason, it is true slavery, for "whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin" [John 8:34]. On
the other hand, that liberty is genuine and to be sought after, which, from the point of view of the individual, does not permit man to be a slave of errors
and passions, most abominable masters, if it guides its citizens in public office wisely, ministers generously to the opportunity for increasing means of
well-being, and

1877 protects the state from foreign influence.--This liberty, honorable and worthy of man, the Church approves most of all, and never ceases to
strive and struggle for its preservation sound and strong among the nations.--In fact, whatever is of the greatest value in the state for the common welfare;
whatever has been usefully established to curb the license of rulers who do not consult the people's good; whatever prevents highest authority from
improperly invading municipal and family affairs; whatever is of value for preserving the dignity, the person of man, and the quality of rights among
individual citizens, of all such things the records of past ages testify that Catholic Church has always been either the discoverer, or the promoter, or the
protector. Therefore, always consistent with herself, if on the one hand she rejects immoderate liberty, which for individuals and states falls into license or
slavery, on the other hand she willingly and gladly embraces the better things which the day brings forth, if they truly contain prosperity for this life,
which is, as it were,

1878 a kind of course to that other life which is to remain forever. Therefore, when people say that the Church is envious of the more recent political
systems, and indiscriminately repudiates whatever the genius of these times has produced, it is an empty and groundless calumny. Indeed, she does
repudiate wild opinions; she does disapprove nefarious zeal for seditions, and expressly that habit of mind in which the beginnings of a voluntary
departure from God are seen; but since all that is true must come from God, she recognizes whatever has to do with the attaining of truth as a kind of
trace of the divine intelligence. And, since there is nothing of truth in the natural order which abrogates faith in teachings divinely transmitted, but many
things which confirm it; and since every discovery of truth can lend force to the knowledge and praise of God, accordingly whatever contributes to the
extension of the boundaries of knowledge will always do so to the pleasure and joy of the Church; and just as is her custom in the case of other branches
of knowledge, so will she also favor and promote those which are concerned with the investigation of nature.

1879 In these studies the Church is not in opposition if the mind discovers something new; she does not object to further investigations being made
for the refinements and comforts of life; rather, as an enemy of indolence and sloth she wishes especially that the talents of man bear rich fruits by
exercise and cultivation; she furnishes incentives to all kinds of arts and works; and by directing through her influence all zeal for such things towards
virtue and salvation, she struggles to prevent man from being turned away from God and heavenly blessings by his intelligence and industry. . . .
1880 And so in such a difficult course of events, if Catholics give heed to us, as they ought, they will easily see what are the duties of each one in
matters of opinion as well as of action. And, indeed, in forming opinion, it is necessary to comprehend and hold with a firm judgment whatever the
Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down, and to profess each publicly as often as occasion demands. And specifically regarding the so-
called liberties so sought after in recent times, it is necessary for everyone to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to have the same opinion as
that held by it. One should not be deceived by the honorable appearance of these liberties; one should consider from what sources they are derived, and
by what efforts they are everywhere sustained and promoted. It is well known from experience what results such liberties have achieved in the state; for
everywhere they have borne fruits which good and wise man rightly deplore. If such a state really exists anywhere or is imagined in our thoughts, which
shamelessly and tyrannically persecutes the name of Christian, and that modern kind of state be compared with it, of which we are speaking, the latter
may well seem the more tolerable. Yet the principles upon which it relies are certainly of such a kind, as we have said before, that in themselves they
should be approved by no one.

1881 However, action may be concerned with private and domestic affairs or public affairs.--Certainly in private matters the first duty is to conform
life and conduct most diligently to the precepts of the Gospel, and not to refuse to do so when Christian virtue exacts something more than ordinarily
difficult to bear and endure. Furthermore, all should love the Church as their common mother; keep her laws obediently; promote her honor, and preserve
her rights; and they should try to have her cherished and loved with equal devotion by those over whom they have any authority.

1882
strive especially to effect that consideration be given publicly to the formation of youth in religion and in good
conduct, in that manner which is right for Christians. On these things especially does the safety of the individual
states depend.
1883 Likewise, it is, in general, beneficial and proper for Catholics to extend their attention further, beyond this, as it
were, rather restricted field, and to take in the national government itself. We say "in general," because these
precepts of Ours apply to all nations. But it can happen in some places that it is by no means expedient for weighty
and just reasons to take part in national politics and to become active in political affairs. But, in general, as we have
said, to be willing to take no part in public affairs would be as much at fault as to have no interest and to do nothing
for the common good, and even more, because Catholics by the admonition of the very doctrine which they profess
are impelled to carry on their affairs with integrity and trust. On the other hand, if they remain indifferent, those
whose opinions carry very little hope for the safety of the state will easily seize the reins of government. And this
also would be fraught with injury to the Christian religion, because those who were evilly disposed toward the
Church would have the greatest power, and those well disposed the least.
1884 Therefore, it is very clear that the reason for Catholics entering public affairs is just, for they do not enter them
nor ought they to do so for this reason, so as to approve that which at the moment is not honorable in the methods
of public affairs, but to transfer these methods insofar as it can be done, to the genuine and true public good, having
in mind the purpose of introducing into all the veins of the state, as a most healthful sap and blood, the wisdom and
virtue of the Christian religion. . . .
1885 Lest the union of souls be broken by rash charges, let all understand the following: That the integrity of the
Catholic faith can by no means exist along with opinions which border on naturalism and rationalism, the sum total of
which is to tear Christian institutions from their foundations and to establish man's leadership in society, relegating
God to second place.--Likewise, that it is not lawful to follow one form of duty in private life, and another in public;
for example, so that the authority of the Church is observed in private life, and cast aside in public. For this would
be to combine the honorable and the shameful, and to place man in conflict with himself, when on the other hand he
should always be in accord with himself, and never in anything or in any manner of life abandon Christian virtue.
1886 But if there is question merely of methods in politics, about the best kind of state, about ordering government in
one way or another, surely, in these matters there can be an honorable difference of opinion. Therefore, a dissenting
opinion in the matters which we have mentioned on the part of those men whose piety is otherwise known, and
whose minds are ready to accept obediently the decrees of the Apostolic See, cannot in justice be considered a sin
on their part; and a muck greater injury takes place, if they are faced with the charge of having violated or
mistrusted the Catholic Faith, which we are sorry to say has taken place more than once.
Let all who are accustomed to express their opinions in writing, and especially writers for newspapers, bear this
1887
precept in mind. In this struggle over most important matters, there can be no place for internal controversies or for
party rivalries; and all should strive to preserve religion and the state, which is the common purpose of all. If,
therefore, there have been any dissensions before, they should be obliterated by a kind voluntary oblivion; if hitherto
there have been rash and injurious actions, those who are in any way to blame for this should make amends with
mutual charity, and a kind of special submission should be made on the part of all to the Apostolic See.
1888 In this way Catholics will obtain two very excellent results: one, that of establishing themselves as helpers of the
Church in preserving and propagating Christian wisdom; the other, that of bestowing upon civil society the greatest
blessing, the preservation of which is imperiled by evil doctrines, and passions.

Craniotomy and Abortion *

[From the Response of the Holy Office the Archbishop of Lyons, May 31st, 1899 (May 28th 1884)]

1889 To the question: Whether it can be safely taught in Catholic schools that the surgical operation which is called
craniotomy is licit, when, of course, if it does not take place, the mother and child will perish; while on the other
hand if it does take place, the mother is to be saved, while the child perishes?"
The reply is: "It cannot be safely taught."

[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of

Cambresis, August 19 1889]
1890 The reply is similar with the following addition: ". . . and every surgical operation that directly kills the fetus
or the pregnant mother."

[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambresis, July 24, 25, 1895] *

1890a When the doctor, Titius, was called to a pregnant woman who was seriously sick, he gradually realized that the
cause of the deadly sickness was nothing else than pregnancy, that is, the presence of the fetus in the womb.
Therefore, to save the mother from certain and imminent death one way presented itself to him, that of procuring an
abortion, or ejection of the fetus. In the customary manner he adopted this way, but the means and operations
applied did not tend to the killing of the fetus in the mother's womb, but only to its being brought forth to light alive,
if it could possibly be done, although it would die soon, inasmuch as it was not mature.
Yet, despite what the Holy See wrote on August 19th 1889, in answer to the Archbishop of Cambresis, that it
could not be taught safely that any operation causing the death of the fetus directly, even if this were necessary to
save the mother, was licit, the doubting Titius clung to the licitness of surgical operations by which he not rarely
procured the abortion, and thus saved pregnant women who were seriously sick.
Therefore, to put his conscience at rest Titius suppliantly asks: Whether he can safely repeat the above
mentioned operations under the reoccurring circumstances.
The reply is:
In the negative, according to other decrees, namely, of the 28th day of May, 1884, and of 19th day of August,
1889.
But on the following Thursday, on the 25th day of July . . . our most holy Lord approved a resolution of the
Most Eminent Fathers, as reported to him.

[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Sinaboa, May 4, 6, 1898] *

1890b I.Will the acceleration of the birth be licit, when because of the woman's structure the delivery of the fetus
would be impossible at its own natural time?
II. And, if the structure of the woman is such that not even a premature birth is considered possible, will it be
permitted to cause an abortion, or to perform a Caesarean operation in its time?
III. Is a laparotomy licit, when it is a matter of an extrauterine pregnancy, or of ectopic conceptions?
The reply is:
To I. That the acceleration of the birth per se is not illicit, provided it is performed for good reasons at that time,
and according to the method by which under ordinary conditions consideration is given to the lives of the mother
and the fetus.
To II. With respect to the first part, in the negative, according to the decree (issued) on Wednesday, the 24th of
July, 1895, on the illicitness of abortion.--As to what pertains to the second part, nothing prevents the woman, who
is concerned, from submitting to a Caesarean operation in due time.
To III.That when necessity presses, a laparotomy is licit for extracting ectopic conceptions from the womb of
the mother, provided, insofar as it can be done, care is taken seriously and fittingly of the life of the fetus and that of
the mother.
On the following Friday, the sixth day of the same month and year, His Supreme Holiness approved the
responses of the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers.
[From the reply of the Holy Office to the Dean of the faculty of theology of the university of Marienburg, the 5th of March,
1902] *
1890 c To the question: "Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses
still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not passed?"
The reply is:
"In the negative, according to the decree of Wednesday, the 4th of May, 1898, by the force of which care must
be taken seriously and fittingly, insofar as it can be done, for the life of the fetus and that of the mother; moreover,
with respect to time, according to the same decree, the orator is reminded that no acceleration of the birth is licit,
unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of
the mother and that of the fetus are considered."

Errors of Antonius de Rosmini-Serbati *

[Condemned in a Decree of the Holy Office, 14th of Dec., 1887]

1891 1. In the order of created things there is immediately manifested to the human intellect something of the divine in
its very self, namely, such as pertains to divine nature.
2. When we speak of the divine in nature, we do not use that word divine to signify a nondivine effect of a
1892
divine cause; nor, is it our mind to speak of a certain thing as divine because it is such through participation.
1893 3. In the nature of the universe then, that is in the intelligences that are in it, there is something to which the term
of divine not in a figurative but in a real sense is fitting.--The actuality is not distinct from the rest of divine actuali
4. Indeterminate being, which without doubt is known to all intelligences, is that divine thing which is manifest to
1894

man in nature.
1895 5. Being, which man observes, must be something of the necessary and eternal being, the creating cause, the

determining and final cause of all contingent beings; and this is God.

6. In the being which prescinds from creatures and from God, which is indeterminate being, and in God, not
1896

indeterminate but absolute being, the essence is the same.

1897 7. The indeterminate being of intuition, initial being, is something of the Word, which the mind of the Father

distinguishes, not really, but according to reason from the Word.

8. Finite beings, of which the world is composed, result from two elements, that is, from the real finite terminus
1898

and from the initial being' which contributes the form of being to the same terminus.

1899 9. Being, the object of intuition, is the initial act of all beings. Initial being is the beginning both of the knowable

and the subsisting; it is likewise the beginning of God, according as He is conceived by us, and of creatures.

10. Virtual and limitless being is the first and most simple of all entities, so that any other entity is composite, and
1900

among its components is always and necessarily virtual being.--It is the essential part of absolutely all entities,

according as they are divided by reason.

1901 11. The quiddity (that which a thing is) of a finite being does not consist of that which it has of the positive, but

of its limits. The quiddity of an infinite being consists of its entity, and is positive; but the quiddity of a finite being

consists of the limits of its entity, and is negative.

1902 12. There is no finite reality, but God causes it to exist by adding limitation to infinite reality.--Initial being

becomes the essence of every real being.--Being which actuates finite natures, and is joined with them, is cut off by

God.

1903 13. The difference between absolute being and relative being is not that which intervenes between substance

and substance, but something much greater; for one is being absolutely, the other nonbeing absolutely, and this other

is being relatively. But when relative being is posited, being absolutely is not multiplied; hence, absolute and relative
(being) absolutely are not one substance, but one being; and in this sense no diversity is being, rather oneness is held

as being.
1904 14. By divine abstraction initial being is produced, the first element of finite beings; but by divine imagination the

finite real (being) or realities are produced, of which the world consists.

15. The third operation of absolute being creating the world is divine synthesis, that is the union of two elements,
1905

which are initial being, the common beginning of all finite beings, and finite reality, or rather different finite realities

the different ends of the same initial being. By this union finite beings are created.
1906 16. Initial being through divine synthesis referred by intelligence, not as an intelligible but merely as essence, to

the real finite ends, causes the finite beings to exist subjectively and really.

1907 17. This alone God effects by creating, that He posits the entire act wholly as the being of creatures; this act

then is properly not made but posited.

1908 18. The love, by which God loves Himself even in creatures, and which is the reason why He determines

Himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity, which in the most perfect being always induces the effect; for such
 necessity in many imperfect beings only leaves the whole freedom bilateral.
1909 19 The Word is that unseen material, from which, as it is said in Wisdom 11:18, all things of the universe were

created.

20. It is not inconsistent that the human soul, in order that it may be multiplied by human generation, may thus be
1910

conceived, proceed from the imperfect, namely from the sensitive grade, to the perfect, namely to the intellectual

grade.
1911 21. When being is capable of being intued by the sensitive principle, by this influence alone, by this union with

itself, only sensing this first, but now, at the same time understanding, it is brought to a more noble state, it changes

its nature, and becomes understanding, subsisting, and immortal.

1912 22. It is not impossible to think that it can become a divine power, so that the intellectual soul is separated from

the animate body, and it itself (being) still remains soulful; surely there would remain in it, as the basis of the purely

soulful, the soulful principle, which before was in it as an appendage.

1913 23. The soul of the deceased exists in a natural state, as if it did not exist; since it cannot exercise any reflection

upon itself, or have any consciousness of itself, its condition can be said to be like the state of the perpetual shades

and eternal sleep.

24. The substantial form of the body is rather the effect of the soul and the interior terminus of the operation
1914

itself; therefore, the substantial form of the body is not the soul itself.--The union of the soul and the body properly

consists in immanent perception, by which the subject viewing the idea, affirms the sensible, after it has viewed its
essence in this (idea).
25. When the mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity has been revealed, its existence can be demonstrated by
1915

merely speculative arguments, negative indeed, and indirect; yet such that through them the truth is brought to

philosophic studies, and the proposition becomes scientific like the rest; for if it were denied, the theosophic
doctrine of pure reason would not only remain incomplete, but would also be annihilated, teeming with absurdities
on every side.

1916 26. If the three highest forms of being, namely, subjectivity, objec- tivity, sanctity; or, reality, ideality, and

morality, are transferred to absolute being, they cannot be conceived otherwise than as subsisting and living

persons.--The Word, insofar as it is the loved object, and insofar as it is the Word, that is the object subsisting in
itself, known by itself, is the person of the Holy Spirit.

1917 27. In the humanity of Christ the human will was so taken up by the Holy Spirit in order to cling to objective

Being, that is to the Word, that it (the will) gave over the rule of man wholly to Him, and assumed the Word

personally, thus uniting with itself human nature. Hence, the human will ceased to be personal in man, and, although
person is in other men, it remained nature in Christ.

1918 28. In Christian doctrine, the Word, the sign and configuration of God, is impressed on the souls of those who

receive the baptism of Christ with faith.--The Word, that is the sign, impressed on the soul in Christian doctrine, is

real Being (infinite) manifest by itself, which we thereupon recognize to be the second person of the Most Blessed
Trinity.

1919 29. We think that the following conjecture is by no means at variance with Catholic doctrine, which alone is

truth: In the Eucharistic sacrament the substance of bread and wine becomes the true flesh and true blood of Christ,
 when Christ makes it the terminus of His sentient principle, and vivifies it with His life; almost in that way by which
bread and wine truly are transubstantiated into our flesh and blood, because they become the terminus of our

sentient principle.
1920 30. When transubstantiation has been accomplished, it can be understood that to the glorious body of Christ

some part is added, incorporated in it, undivided, and equally glorious.

31. In the sacrament of the Eucharist by the power of words the body and blood of Christ are present only in
1921

that measure which corresponds (a quel tanto) to the substance of the bread and wine, which are transubstantiated;

the rest of the body of Christ is there through concomitance.

1922 32. Since he who does not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink of His blood, does not have life in him [cf.

John 6:54 ], and nevertheless those who die with the baptism of water, of blood, or of desire, certainly attain eternal

life, it must be said that these who have not eaten of the body and blood of Christ, are administered this heavenly
food in the future life, at the very moment of death.--Hence, also to the saints of the Old Testament Christ was able
by descending into hell to communicate Himself under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to make them
ready for the vision of God.

1923 33. Since the demons possessed the fruit, they thought that they would enter into man, if he should eat of it; for,

when the food was turned into the animated body of man, they themselves were able freely to enter the animality,

i.e., into the subjective life of this being, and so to dispose of it as they had proposed.
34. To preserve the Blessed Virgin Mary from the taint of origin, it was enough for the slightest seed in man to
1924

remain uncorrupted, neglected perchance by the demon himself, from which uncorrupted seed transfused from

generation to generation the Virgin Mary might arise in her time.

1925 35. The more the order of justification in man is considered, the more appropriate appears the Scriptural way of

saying that God covers and does not reckon certain sins.--According to the Psalmist [cf. Ps. 31:1] there is a

difference between iniquities which are forgiven, and sins which arc covered; the former, as it seems, are actual and
willing faults; but the latter are willing sins on the part of those who pertain to the people of God; to whom on this
account they bring no harm.
36. The supernatural order is established by the manifestation of being in the fullness of its real form; the effect
1926

of this communication or manifestation is a deiform sense, which begun in this life establishes the light of faith and of

grace; completed in the other life establishes the light of glory.

1927 37. The first light rendering the soul intelligent is ideal being; the other first light is also being, not merely ideal

but subsisting and living; that concealing its personality shows only its objectivity; but he who sees the other (which

is the Word), even through a reflection or in enigma, sees God.

1928 38. God is the object of the beatific vision, insofar as He is the author of works outwardly.

1929 39. The traces of wisdom and goodness which shine out in creatures are necessary for possessors (of God); for

they are collected in the eternal exemplar as that part of Him which can be seen by them (creatures), and they

furnish material for the praises which the Blessed sing forever to God.
1930 40. Since God cannot, not even by the light of glory, communicate Himself wholly to finite beings, He was not

able to reveal and communicate His essence to possessors (of God), except in that way which is accommodated to

finite intelligences; that is, God manifests Himself to them, insofar as He has relations with them, as their creator,
 provider, redeemer, sanctifier.
1930a The judgment: The Holy Office "has decided that these propositions, in the author's own sense, are to be

disproved and proscribed, according as it does disprove, condemn, and proscribe by this general decree. . . . His

Holiness has approved, confirmed, and ordered that the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers be observed by all."

Bounds of Liberty, and Human Action *

[From the Encyclical, "Libertas, praestantissimum," 20th of June, 1888]

1931 [Finally] many do not approve the separation of Church and state but yet think that the Church ought to yield to

the times, and adapt and accommodate herself to what the prudence of the day in administering governments

demands. The opinion of these is good, if this is understood of some equitable plan which can be consistent with
truth and justice, namely, such that the Church, exploring the hope of some great good, would show herself

indulgent and bestow upon the times that which she can, while preserving the sanctity of her office.--But this is not
so in matters and doctrines which a change of morals and a fallacious judgment have unlawfully introduced . . .
1932 And so from what has been said it follows that it is by no means lawful to demand, to defend, and to grant

indiscriminate freedom of thought, writing, teaching, and likewise of belief, as if so many rights which nature has

given to man. For if nature had truly given these, it would be right to reject God's power, and human liberty could
be restrained by no law.--Similarly it follows that these kinds of freedom can indeed be tolerated, if there are just
reasons, yet with definite moderation, lest they degenerate into caprice and indulgence.
Whenever domination presses or impends such as to hold the state in subjection by an unjust force, or to force
1933

the Church to lack due freedom, it is right to seek some tempering of the government in which it is permitted to act

with freedom; for in this case that immoderate and vicious freedom is not demanded, but some relief is sought for
the good of all, and this only is a concern, that, where license for evil deeds is granted, there opportunity for doing
right be not impeded.

1934 And furthermore it is not of itself contrary to one's duty to prefer a form of government regulated by the popular

class, provided Catholic doctrine as to the origin and administration of public power be maintained. Of the various

kinds of government, the Church indeed rejects none, provided they are suited of themselves to care for the welfare
of citizens; but she wishes, what nature clearly demands likewise, that each be constituted without injury to anyone,

and especially with the preservation of the rights of the Church.

1935 To engage in the affairs of public administration is honorable, unless somewhere because of a special condition

of circumstances and the times it be deemed best otherwise; the Church by all means approves of every one

contributing his services to the common interest, and, insofar as everyone can, guarding, preserving, and advancing

the state.
1936 Nor does the Church condemn this: to seek to free one's people from serving a foreign or despotic power,
 provided it can be done while preserving justice. Finally she does not censure those who wish to have their

government live according to its own laws; and their fellow citizens enjoy all possible means for increasing

prosperity. The Church has always been a supporter of civic liberties without intemperance, and to this the Italian
states especially attest; witness the prosperity, wealth, and glory of their name obtained by municipal law, at a time
when the salutary power of the Church had spread to all parts of the state without any opposition.

Love for Church and Fatherland *

[From the Encyclical, "Sapientiae christianae," January 10, 1890]

It cannot be doubted that in daily life the duties of Catholics are more numerous and more serious than those of
1936a

such as are either little aware of the Catholic faith or entirely inexperienced in it. . . . The man who has embraced

the Christian faith as he ought, by that very fact is subject to the Church as if born of her, and becomes a participant
in her worldwide and most holy society, which it is the proper duty of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme
power, under the invisible head, Jesus Christ.--Now indeed, if we are bidden by the law of nature especially to love

and protect the land in which we were brought forth and raised into this light, so that the good citizen does not
hesitate even to encounter death for the fatherland, it is a far greater duty for Christians ever to be affected in similar
wise toward the Church. For the Church is the holy land of the living God, born of God himself, and established by
the same Author, who indeed is on a pilgrimage in the land; calling men, and training and leading them to eternal

happiness in heaven. Therefore, the fatherland must be loved, from which we receive the enjoyment of mortal life;
but we must love the Church more to whom we owe the love of the soul which will last forever, because it is right to
hold the blessings of the spirit above the blessings of the body, and the duties toward God are much more sacred
than those toward man.

1936b But, if we wish to judge rightly, the supernatural love of the Church and the natural love of the fatherland are

twin loves coming from the same eternal principle, since God himself is the author and the cause of both; therefore,

it follows that one duty cannot be in conflict with the other. . . . Nevertheless, the order of these duties, either
because of the troubles of the times or the more perverse will of men, is sometimes destroyed. Instances, to be sure,

occur when the state seems to demand one thing from men as citizens, and religion another from men as Christians;
and this, clearly, for no other reason than that the rulers of the state either hold the sacred power of the Church as of
no account, or wish it to be subject to them. . . . If the laws of the state are openly at variance with divine right, if
they impose any injury upon the Church, or oppose those duties which are of religion, or violate the authority of

Jesus Christ in the Supreme Pontiff, then indeed to resist is a duty, to obey a crime; and this is bound with injury to
the state itself, since whatever is an offense in religion is a sin against the state.

The Apostolate of the Laity *

[From the same Encyclical]

1936c And there is no reason for anyone to object that Jesus Christ, the guardian and champion of the Church, by no

means needs the help of men. For, not because of any lack of strength, but because of the magnitude of His
 goodness does He wish that some effort be contributed by us toward obtaining and acquiring the fruits of the
salvation which He Himself has procured.
The most important features of this duty are: to profess Catholic doctrine openly and firmly, and to propagate it
as much as each one can. . . . Surely the duty of preaching, that is of teaching, belongs by divine right to the masters

whom "the Holy Ghost hath placed as bishops to rule the Church of God" [cf. Acts 20:28 ], and especially to the
Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, placed with supreme power over the whole Church, the master of all that is to
be believed and to be practiced. Nevertheless, let no one think that private persons are prohibited from taking any
active part in teaching, especially those to whom God has granted the ability of mind with a zeal for meritorious

service. These, as often as circumstances demand, can well take upon themselves the role not indeed of teacher, but
they can impart to others what they themselves have received, resounding like an echo with the voice of their
masters. Indeed, this work of the private person has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council to be so
opportune and fruitful that they have decided furthermore to invite it: "Let all the faithful of Christ contribute their

efforts" [See n.1819 ].--Moreover, let everyone remember that he can and ought to sow the Catholic faith by the
authority of his example, and to preach it by continual profession.--In the duties, then, that bind us to God and to
the Church, this especially-should be numbered, that the industry of everyone should be exercised, insofar as
possible, in propagating Christian truth and in repelling errors.

The Material of the Eucharist (Wine) *

[From the Response of the Holy Office, May 8th, 1887; and July 30, 1890]

1937 Two remedies are proposed by the Bishop of Carcassum to guard against the danger of the spoiling of wine:

1. Let a small quantity of eau de vie be added to the natural wine.

2. Let the wine be boiled to the extent of sixty-five degrees.

To the question whether these remedies are lawful in the case of wine: for the sacrifice of the Mass, and which is

to be preferred,
The answer is:
The wine is to be preferred as is set forth in the second place.
The Bishop of Marseilles explains and asks:
1938

In many parts of France, especially in those located toward the south, the white wine which does service at the

bloodless sacrifice of the Mass is so weak and impotent that it cannot be kept for long, unless a quantity of the spirit
of wine (spirits of alcohol) is mixed with the same.
1. Is a mixture of this kind lawful?

2. And if so, what quantity of such extraneous matter may be added to the wine?
3. In case of an affirmative answer, is it required to extract the spirit of wine from pure wine or from the fruit of
the vine?
The answer is:

Provided that the spirit (alcohol) has been extracted from the fruit of the vine, and the quantity of alcohol added
to that which the wine in question naturally contains does not exceed a proportion of twelve percent, and the
mixture is made when the wine is very new, there is no objection to this wine being used in the sacrifice of the Mass.
*

The Right of Private Property, Just Reward for Labor,and the Right of Entering Private Unions *
[From the Encyclical, "Rerum novarum," May 15, 1891]

1938a The right to possess private property as one's own is granted man by nature. . . . Nor is there any reason why

the providence of the state should be introduced; for man is older than the state, and therefore he should have had

by nature, before any state had come into existence, the right to care for life and body. . . . For those things which
are required to preserve life, and especially to make life complete, the earth, to be sure, pours forth in great

abundance; but it could not pour it from itself with out its cultivation and care by man. Now, when a man applies the
activity of his mind and the strength of his body to procuring the goods of nature, by this very act he attaches to
himself that part of corporeal nature which he has cultivated, on which he leaves impressed a kind of form as it
were, of his personality; so that it should by all means be right for him to possess this part as his own; and by no

means should anyone be permitted to violate this right of his.--So obvious is the force of these arguments that it
 seems amazing that certain ones who would restore obsolete opinions should disagree with them; these, to be sure,
concede to the private person the use of the soil and the various fruits of estates, but they deny openly that it is right
that either the soil on which he has built, or the estate which he has cultivated be owned by him. . . .

Indeed, rights of this kind which belong to men individually are understood to be much stronger, if they are
looked upon as appropriate to and connected with his duties in domestic and social life. . . . This right of property,
then, which we have demonstrated to have been assigned to an individual person by nature, through which he is the
head of the family, ought to be transferred to man; rather, that right is so much the stronger, as the human person

embraces more responsibilities in domestic and social society. The most holy law of nature is that the father of a
family provide with training and livelihood all whom he has begotten; and, likewise, it is deduced from nature herself
that he seek to acquire and prepare for his children, who bear and continue in a way the father's personality, that by
which they can honorably protect themselves from a wretched fate in this uncertain course of life. But this he cannot

effect in any way other than by the possession of lucrative property to transmit by inheritance to his children. . . . To
wish, therefore, that the civil government at its own option penetrate even to the intimate affairs of the home is a
great and pernicious error. . . . The power of the father is s that it can neither be destroyed nor absorbed by the
state. . . . Therefore, when the alleviation of the masses is sought, let this be enduring, that it must be held as

fundamental that private property is to be inviolable.

1938b The just possession of money is distinguished from the just use of money. To possess goods privately, as we

have seen above, is a natural right of man; and to exercise this right, especially in the society of life, is not only lawfu

but clearly necessary. . . . But, if indeed this is asked, of what nature must the use of goods be, the Church answers

without hesitation: As far as this is concerned, man ought not to hold his exterior possessions as his own, but as
common, so that one may easily share them in the need of others. Therefore, the Apostle says: "Charge the rich of
this world . . . to give easily, to communicate1 Tim. 6:17 f.]* No one, certainly, is ordered to give assistance to
others from that which pertains to his own use and that of the members of his family; nor also to give over to others

what he himself needs to preserve what befits his person, and what is proper. . . . But when sufficient care has been
given to necessity and decorum, it is a duty to assist the indigent from what remains: "That which remaineth, give
alms," [Luke 11:41 ]. These are not duties of justice, except in extreme cases, but of Christian charity, which of
course it is not right to seek by legal action. But the law and judgment of Christ are above the laws and judgments

of men, and He in many ways urges the practice of almsgiving . . . and He will judge a kindness conferred upon or
denied to the poor as conferred upon or denied to Himself [cf. Matt. 25:34 f.].
1938c Labor by nature has, as it were, placed two marks upon man, namely, that it is personal, because the driving

force inheres in the person and is entirely his own by whom it is exercised, and comes into being for his advantage;

then, that it is necessary, for this reason, because the fruit of labor is needed by man to guard life; moreover, the
nature of things bids (us) to guard life, and especially must we obey nature. Now, if labor is considered only from
this viewpoint, that it is personal, there is no doubt but that it is sound for the worker to prescribe a smaller rate of
pay; for just as he offers his services of his free will, so, too, of his free will he can be content with a slight pay for

his services, or even no pay at all. But the case is to be judged much differently, if with the reason of personality is
joined the reason of necessity, separable from the former, to be sure, in theory, not in fact. Actually to continue in
life is the common duty of every individual, for whom to lack this persistence is a crime. Therefore, the right to
discover that by which life is sustained is born of necessity, and the means to obtain this is supplied to all the poor

only by the pay for his labor which is in demand. So, granted that the workman and employer freely agree on the
contract, as well as specifically on the rate of pay, yet there is always underlying this something from natural justice,
and this greater and more ancient than the will of those who make the contract, namely, that the pay must by no
means be inadequate to support the worker, who indeed is frugal and of good character. But if the worker, forced

by necessity, or moved by fear of a worse evil, accepts the harder condition, which, even if he does not wish it,
must be accepted because it is imposed by the employer or the contractor, this certainly is to submit to force,
against which justice cries out. . . . If the worker obtains sufficient pay, so as by it to be able to sustain himself,
wife, and children comfortably, he will without difficulty apply himself to thrift, if he is wise, and he will bring it abou

as nature herself seems to urge, that, after expenses are deducted, some be left over whereby he may attain a
moderate estate. For we have seen that the case which is being discussed cannot be solved by effective reasoning
except by this assumption and principle: that the right to private property must be held sacred. . . Nevertheless,
these benefits cannot be attained except by the enormity of contributions and taxes. For, since the right to possess

private property is granted not by the laws of man but by nature, the authority of the state cannot abolish it, but only
temper its practice, and order it to the common good. Therefore, it would act unjustly and inhumanely, if it should
 detract from private property more than is just, under the name of taxes. . . .
It is comforting to observe that societies of this kind are being formed generally, either composed entirely of
1938d

workers, or from both classes; moreover, it is to be desired that they grow in number and in effective influence. . . .

For, it is permitted man by the right of nature to enter private societies; moreover, the state is established for the
protection of natural right, not for its destruction; and so, if it forbids the formation of associations of citizens, it
clearly acts at odds with itself, since it itself, as well as private associations, come into existence from a single

principle, that men are by nature social.--Occasions sometimes arise when it is just for laws to forbid such societies,
namely, if they deliberately aim at something which is clearly at variance with probity, justice, and the welfare of the
state.*

The Duel *

From the Letter, 'Pastoralis Officii," to the Bishops of Germany and Austria, Sept. 12, 1891]

1939 The two divine laws, that which is promulgated by the light of natural reason, and that by letters written under
divine inspiration, strictly forbid the killing or wounding of anyone outside a public cause, unless forced by necessity
to defend his own safety. But those who provoke to a private struggle, or accept a challenge do this; they lend their
minds and their strength to this, although bound by no necessity, to take the life, or at least to inflict a wound on an
adversary. Furthermore, the two divine laws forbid anyone rashly casting aside his own life, subjecting it to grave
and manifest danger, when no reason of duty, or of magnanimous charity urges it; but this blind rashness, contemner
of life, is clearly in the nature of a duel. Therefore, it can be obscure and doubtful to no one that upon those who
engage in individual combat privately, fall both crimes, that of another's destruction, and of voluntarily endangering
his own life. Finally, there is scarcely any affliction which is more at variance with the good order of civil life, than th
license permitted a citizen to be his own individual defender of the law by private force, and the avenger of honor
which he thinks has been violated.
Nor do those who accept combat when it is offered have fear as a just excuse, because they dread to be held
1940

cowards in public if they decline battle. For, if the duties of men were to be measured by the false opinions of the

public, there would be no natural and true distinction according to an eternal norm of right and justice between
honest actions and shameful deeds. Even the pagan philosophers knew and taught that the false judgments of the
public are to be spurned by a strong and stable man. Rather is the fear just and sacred, which turns a man away

from unjust slaughter, and makes him sollicitous of his own safety and that of his brothers. Surely, he who spurns the
valid judgments of the public, who prefers to undergo the scourges of contumely than to abandon duty in any
matter, this man, surely, is of a far greater and higher mind than he who when annoyed by an injury rushes to arms.
Yes, indeed, if there is a desire for right judgment, he is the one in whom stout fortitude shines, that fortitude, I say,

which is truly called a virtue and whose companion is glory, not counterfeited and not false. For virtue consists in a
good in accord with reason, and all glory is foolish except that which depends on the judgment of God who
approves.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of Graces *

[The Encyclical, "Octobri mense," on the Rosary, Sept. 22, 1891]

a The eternal Son of God, when He wished to assume the nature of man for the redemption and glory of man,
1940
and for this reason was about to enter upon a kind of mystic marriage with the entire human race, did not do this
before He received the wholly free consent of His designated mother, who, in a way, played the part of the human
race itself, according to that famous and truthful opinion of Aquinas: "Through the Annunciation the Virgin's consent
was looked for in place of all human nature."* Therefore, no less truly and properly may it be affirmed that nothing
at all of the very great treasure of every grace, which the Lord confers, since "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"
[John 1:17 ], nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, God so willing; so, just as no one can approach the
highest Father except through the Son, so no one can approach Christ except through His Mother.

[From the Encyclical, "Fidentem," on the Rosary, Sept. 20, 1896] *

For, surely, no one person can be conceived who has ever made, or at any time will make an equal contribution
as Mary to the reconciliation of men with God. Surely, she it was who brought the Savior to man as he was rushing

into eternal destruction, at that very time when, with wonderful assent, she received "in place of all human natu*
the message of the peace making sacrament brought to earth by the Angel; she it is "of whom was born Jesus" [
Matt. 1:16 ], namely, His true Mother, and for this reason she is worthy and quite acceptable as the mediatrix to the
Mediator.
 The Study of Holy Scripture *
[From the Encyclical, "Providentissimus Deus," Nov., 1893]

1941 Since there is need of a definite method of carrying on interpretation profitably, let the prudent teacher avoid
either of two mistakes, that of those who give a cursory glance to each book, and that of those who delay too long
over a certain part of one. . . . [The teacher] in this [work] will take as his text the Vulgate version, which the
Council of Trent decreed [see n. 785 ] should be considered as authentic in public lectures, disputations, sermons,
and expositions, and which the daily custom of the Church commends. Yet account will have to be taken of the
remaining versions which Christian antiquity has commended and used, especially of the very ancient manuscripts.
For although, as far as the heart of the matter is concerned, the meaning of the Hebrew and the Greek is well
elucidated in the expressions of the Vulgate, yet if anything is set forth therein with ambiguity, or if without accuracy
"an examination of the preceding language" will be profitable, as Augustine advises*
1942 . . . The Synod of the Vatican adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on
the interpretation of the divine Word, it declared this to be mind, that in matters of faith and morals, which pertain
to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church
has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and, therefore,
it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scripture against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement
of the Fathers [see n.786 ,1788 ]. By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the
investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress. For, to

every private teacher a large field is open in which along safe paths, by his industry in interpretation, he may labor
efficaciously and profitably for the Church. Indeed, in those passages of divine Scripture which still lack certain and
definite exposition, it can be so effected by the kindly counsel of a provident God, that by a prepared study the
judgment of the Church may be expedited; but in passages which have been explained the private teacher can be of

equal help, if he sets these forth very clearly among the masses of the people, and more skillfully among the learned,
or defends them more eminently against adversaries. . . .
1943 In the other passages the analogy of faith must be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as received on the authority

of the Church, must be employed as the highest norm. . . . Wherefore, it is clear that that interpretation must be

rejected as senseless and false, which either makes inspired authors in some manner quarrel among themselves, or
opposes the teaching of the Church. . . .
1944 Now, the authority of the Fathers, by whom after the apostles, the growing Church was disseminated, watered,

built, protected, and nurtured* is the highest authority, as often as they all in one and the same way interpret a

Biblical text, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals.

1945 The authority of the other Catholic interpreters is, indeed, less; yet, since Biblical studies have had a certain

continuous progress in the Church, their own honor must likewise be allotted to their commentaries, and much can

be sought opportunely from these to refute contrary opinion and to solve the more difficult problems. But, it is

entirely unfitting that anyone should ignore and look down upon the works which our own have left in abundance,
and prefer the books of the heterodox; and to the immediate danger to sound doctrine and not rarely to the damage
of faith seek from these, explanations of passages to which Catholics have long and very successfully directed their
geniuses and labors.

1946 . . . The first [aid to interpretation] is in the study of the ancient Oriental languages, and in the science which is

called criticis*. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers of Sacred Scripture and proper for theologians to have

learned those languages in which the canonical books were originally written by the sacred writers. . . . These,
moreover, for the same reason should be more learned and skilled in the field of the true science of criticism; for to

the detriment of religion there has falsely been introduced an artifice, dignified by the name of higher criticism, by
which from internal evidence alone, as they say, the origin, integrity, and authority of any book emerge as settled.
On the other hand it is very clear that in historical questions, such as the origin and preservation of books, the
evidences of history are of more value than the rest, and should be gathered and investigated very carefully;

moreover, that the methods of internal criticism are not of such value that they can be applied to a case except for a
kind of confirmation. . . . This same method of higher criticism, which is extolled, will finally result in everyone
following his own enthusiasm and prejudiced opinion when interpreting.
Knowledge of the natural sciences will be of great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture, by which he can
1947

more easily discover and refute fallacious arguments of this kind drawn up against the Sacred Books.-- Indeed
 there should be no real disagreement between the theologian and the physicist, provided that each confines himself
within his own territory, watching out for this, according to St. Augustin*' warning, "not to make rash assertions,
and to declare the unknown as known." But, if they should disagree, a summary rule as to how a theologian should

conduct himself is offered by the same author.* "Whatever," he says, "they can demonstrate by genuine proofs
regarding the nature of things, let us show that it is not contrary to our Scriptures; but whatever they set forth in their
volumes contrary to our Scriptures, that is to Catholic faith, let us show by some means, or let us believe without
any hesitation to be most false." As to the equity of this rule let us consider, first, that the sacred writers or more

truly "the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these things (namely, the innermost
constitution of the visible universe) as being of no profit to salvat* that, therefore, they do not carry an
explanation of nature scientifically, but rather sometimes describe and treat the facts themselves, either in a figurative
manner, or in the common language of their times, as today in many matters of daily life is true among most learned

men themselves. Moreover, when these things which fall under the senses, are set forth first and properly, the
sacred writer (and the Angelic Doctor also advised it) "describes what is obvious to the senses,"* or what God
Himself, when addressing men, signified in a human way, according to their capacity.
Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual
1948

Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in

interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the
age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved.
Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected

with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for "in those matters which are not under the obligation
of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we a* according to the opinion of St. Thomas. In
another passage he most prudently holds: "It seems to me to be safer that such opinions as the philosophers have
expressed in common and are not repugnant to our faith should not be asserted as dogmas of the faith, even if they

are introduced some times under the names of philosophers, nor should they thus be denied as contrary to faith, lest
an opportunity be afforded to the philosophers of this world to belittle the teachings of the fa*th."
Of course, although the interpreter should show that what scientists have affirmed by certain arguments to be
now certain in no way opposes * the Scriptures rightly explained, let it not escape his notice that it sometimes has

happened that what they have given out as certain has later been brought into uncertainty and repudiated. But, if
writers on physics transgressing the boundaries of their science, invade the province of the philosophers with
perverse opinions, let the theological interpreter hand these opinions over to the philosophers for refutation.
Then these very principles will with profit be transferred to related sciences, especially to history. For, it must
1949

regretfully be stated that there are many who examine and publish the monuments of antiquity, the customs and

institutions of peoples, and evidences of similar things, but more often with this purpose, that they may detect lapses
of error in the sacred books, as the result of which their authority may even be shaken and totter. And some do this
with a very hostile mind, and with no truly just judgment; for they have such confidence in the pagan works and the

documents of the ancient past as to believe not even a suspicion of error is present in them; but to the books of
Holy Scripture, for only a presumed appearance of error, without proper discussion, they deny even a little faith.
1950 It can happen, indeed, that transcribers in copying manuscripts do so incorrectly. This is to be considered

carefully and is not to be admitted readily, except in those passages where it has been properly demonstrated; it can
also happen that the true sense of some passage remains ambiguous; the best rules of interpretation will contribute
much toward the solution of this problem; but it would be entirely wrong either to confine inspiration only to some
parts of Sacred Scripture, or to concede that the sacred author himself has erred. For the method of those is not to
be tolerated, who extricated themselves from these difficulties by readily granting that divine inspiration pertains to
matters of faith and morals, and nothing more.
1951 The books, all and entire, which the Church accepts as sacred and canonical, with all their parts, have been
written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; so far is it from the possibility of any error being present to divine
inspiration, that it itself of itself not only excludes all error, but excludes it and rejects it as necessarily as it is
necessary that God, the highest Truth, be the author of no error whatsoever.
1952 This is the ancient and uniform faith of the Church, defined also by solemn opinion at the Councils of Florence
[see n.706 ] and of Trent [see n.783 ff.], finally confirmed and more expressly declared at the Vatican Council, by
which it was absolutely declared: "The books of the Old and New Testament . . . have God as their author" [see n.
1787 ]. Therefore, it matters not at all that the Holy Spirit took men as instruments for the writing, as if anything false
might have slipped, not indeed from the first Author, but from the inspired writers. For, by supernatural power He
so roused and moved them to write, He stood so near them, that they rightly grasped in mind all those things, and
those only, which He Himself ordered, and willed faithfully to write them down, and expressed them properly with
 infallible truth; otherwise, He Himself would not be the author of all Sacred Scripture. . . . And so utterly convinced
were all the Fathers and Doctors that the holy works, which were published by the hagiographers, are free of every
error, that they were very eager, no less skillfully than reverently, to arrange and reconcile those not infrequent
passages which seemed to offer something contrary and at variance (they are almost the very passages which are

now thrown up to us under the name of the new science); and they professed unanimously that these books, both in
whole and in part, were equally of divine inspiration, and that God Himself, speaking through the sacred authors,
could have set down nothing at all at variance with the truth.
Let what the same Augustine wrote to Jerome sum this up: ". . . If I shall meet anything in these works which

seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to believe anything other than that the text is false, or that the translator
did not understand what was said, or that I did not in the least understand.*
1953 . . . For many objections from every kind of teaching have for long been persistently hurled against Scripture,
which now, quite dead, have fallen into disuse; likewise, at times not a few interpretations have been placed on
certain passages of Scripture (not properly pertinent to the rule of faith and morals) in which a more careful
investigation has seen the meaning more accurately. For, surely, time destroys the falsities of opinions, but "truth
remaineth and groweth stronger forever and ever." *

The Unity of the Church *

[From the Encyclical, "Satis cognitum," June A, 1896]

Surely, it is so well established among all according to clear and manifold testimony that the true Church of
1954
Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian dare contradict it. But in judging and establishing the nature of this unity various
errors have led off the true way. Indeed, not only the rise of the Church, but its entire establishment pertain to that
class of things effected by free choice. Therefore, the entire judgment must be called back to that which was actually
done, and we must not of course examine how the Church can be one, but how He who founded it wished it to be
one.
1955 Now, if we look at what was done, Jesus Christ did not arrange and organize such a Church as would embrace
several communities similar in kind, but distinct, and not bound together by those bonds that make the Church
indivisible and unique after that manner clearly in which we profess in the symbol of faithbelieve in one
Church." . . . Now, Jesus Christ when He was speaking of such a mystical edifice, spoke only of one Church
which He called His own: "I will build my Church" [Matt. 16:18 ]. Whatever other church is under consideration than
this one, since it was not founded by Jesus Christ, cannot be the true Church of Christ. . . . And so the Church is
bound to spread among all men the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, and all the blessings that proceed

therefrom, and to propagate them through the ages. Therefore, according to the will of its Author the Church must
be alone in all lands in the perpetuity of time. . . . The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and perpetual; whoever go
apart (from it) wander away from the will and prescription of Christ the Lord and, leaving the way of salvation,
digress to destruction.

1956 But He who founded the only Church, likewise founded it as one; namely, in such a way that whoever are to be

in it, would be held bound together by the closest bonds, so much so that they form one people, one kingdom, one

body: "One body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling" Eph. 4:4 ]. . . . Agreement and union
of minds are the necessary foundation of so great and so absolute a concord among men, from which a concurrence

of wills and a similarity of action naturally arise. . . . Therefore, to unite the minds of men, and to effect and preserve
the union of their minds, granted the existence of Holy Writ, there was great need of a certain other principle. . . .
1957 Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church a living, authentic, and likewise permanemagisterium, which

He strengthened by His own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth, and confirmed by miracles. The precepts of its

doctrines He willed and most seriously commanded to be accepted equally with His own. . . . This, then, is without
any doubt the office of the Church, to watch over Christian doctrine and to propagate it soundly and without
corruption. . . .
But, just as heavenly doctrine was never left to the judgment and mind of individuals, but in the beginning was
1958

handed down by Jesus, then committed separately to that magisterium which has been mentioned, so, also, was

the faculty of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the power of ruling and governing
divinely, granted not to individuals [generally] of the Christian people but to certain of the elect. . . .
Therefore, Jesus Christ called upon all mortals, as many as were, and as many as were to be, to follow Him as
1959

their leader, and likewise their Savior, not only separately one by one, but also associated and united alike in fact
 and in mind; one in faith, end, and the means proper to that end, and subject to one and the same power. . . .
Therefore, the Church is a society divine in origin, supernatural in its end, and in the means which bring us closest to
that end; but inasmuch as it unites with men, it is a human community.

1960 When the divine Founder decreed that the Church be one in faith, and in government, and in communion, He

chose Peter and his successors in whom should be the principle and as it were the center of unity. . . . But, order of

bishops, as Christ commanded, is to be regarded as joined with Peter, if it be subject to Peter and obey him;
otherwise it necessarily descends into a confused and disorderly crowd. For the proper preservation of faith and the

unity of mutual participation, it is not enough to hold higher offices for the sake of honor, nor to have general
supervision, but there is absolute need of true authority and a supreme authority which the entire community should
obey. . . . Hence those special expressions of the ancients regarding St. Peter, which brilliantly proclaim him as
placed in the highest degree of dignity and authority. They everywhere called himprince of the assembly of

disciples, prince of the holy apostles, leader of that choir, mouthpiece of all the apostles, head of that family,
superintendent of the whole world, first among the apostles, pillar of the Church. . . .
1961 But it is far from the truth and openly opposed to the divine constitution, to hold that it is right for individual

bishops to be subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs, but not for all taken together. . . . Now this

power, about which we speak, over the college of bishops, which Holy Writ clearly discloses, the Church has at no
time ceased to acknowledge and attest. . . . For these reasons in the decree of the Vatican Council [see n1826
ff.], regarding the power and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no new opinion is introduced, but the
old and uniform faith of all ages is asserted. Nor, indeed, does the fact that the same (bishops) are subordinate to a

twofold power cause any confusion in administration. In the first place, we are prohibited from suspecting any such
thing by God's wisdom, by whose counsel that very form of government was established. Secondly, we should note
that the order of things and their mutual relations are confused, if there are two magistrates of the same rank among
the people, neither of them responsible to the other. But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and

definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to
themselves. . . .
1962 But Roman Pontiffs, mindful of their office, wish most of all that whatever is divinely instituted in the Church be

preserved; therefore, as they watch with all proper care and vigilance their own power, so they have always seen to

it that their authority be preserved for the bishops. Rather, whatever honor is paid the bishops, whatever obedience,
all this they attribute as paid themselves.

Anglican Orders *

[From the Letter, "Apostolicae curae," Sept. 13, 1896]

1963 In the rite of conferring and administering any sacrament one rightly distinguishes between the ceremonial part
and the essential part, which is customarily callthe matter and form. And all know that the sacraments of the

New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and
effect the grace which they signify [see 695 , 849 ]. Although this signification should be found in the whole

essential rite, namely, in matter and form, yet it pertains especially to form, since the matter is the part not
determined by itself, but determined by form. And this appears more clearly in the sacrament of orders, for the
conferring of which the matter, insofar as it presents itself for consideration in this case, is the imposition of hands.

This, of course, by itself signifies nothing, and is employed for certain

1964 orders, and for confirmation. Now, the words which until recent times were everywhere held by the Anglicans

as the proper form of priestly ordination, namely, "Receive the Holy Spirit," certainly do not in the least signify

definitely the order of priesthood, or its grace and power, which is especially the power "of consecrating and of

offering the true body and blood of the Lord," in that sacrifice which is no "nude commemoration of the sacrifice
offered on the Cross" [see n.950 ]. Such a form was indeed afterwards lengthened by these words, "for the office
and work of a priest"; but this rather convinces one that the Anglicans themselves saw that this first form was
defective, and not appropriate to the matter. But the same addition, if perchance indeed it could have placed
 legitimate significance on the form, was introduced too late, since a century had elapsed after the adoption of the
Edwardine Ordinal; since, moreover, with the extinction of the hierarchy, there was now no power for ordaining.
1965 The same is true in regard to episcopal consecration. For to the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost" were not

only added later the words "for the office and work of a bishop," but also, as regards these very words, as we shall

soon see, a different sense is to be understood than in the Catholic rite. Nor is it any advantage in the matter to bring
up the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God," since this likewise has been stripped of the words which bespeak the
summum sacerdotium. It is, of course, not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate is a complement of the
priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether when conferred, as they sayper saltum, that is, on a man who

is not a priest, it has its effect or not. But the episcopate without doubt, from institution of Christ, most truly pertains
to the sacrament of orders, and is a priesthood of a pre-eminent grade, that which in the words of the Fathers and in
the custom of our ritual is, of course, called "summum sacerdotium," "sacri ministerii summa." Therefore, it happens
that since the sacrament of orders and the truesacerdo~ium of Christ have been utterly thrust out of the Anglican

rite, and so in the consecration of a bishop of this same rite sacerdotium is by no means conferred; likewise, by
no means can the episcopacy be truly and validly conferred; and this is all the more true because among the first
duties of the episcopacy is this, namely, of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and the sacrifice. . . .
So with this inherentdefect of form is joined thedefect of intention, which it must have with equal necessity
1966

that it be a sacrament. . . . And so, assenting entirely to the decrees of all the departed Pontiffs in this case, and

confirming them most fully and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own inspiration and certain
knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been
and are invalid and entirely void. . . .

The Faith and Intention Required for Baptism *

[Response of the Holy Of lice, March 30th, 1898]

1966a Whether a missionary can confer baptism on an adult Mohammedan at the point of death, who in his errors is
supposed to be in good faith:
1. If he still has his full faculties, only by exhorting him to sorrow and confidence, not by speaking about our
mysteries, for fear that he will not believe them.
2. Whatever of his faculties he has, by saying nothing to him, since on the one hand, he is not supposed to be
wanting in contrition, and on the other, it is supposed to be imprudent to speak with him about our mysteries.
3. If now he has lost his faculties, by saying nothing further to him.
Reply to I and 2: in the negative, i.e., it is not permitted to administer baptism absolutely or conditionally to such
Mohammedans; and these decrees of the Holy Office were given to the Bishop of Quebec on the 25th of January,
and the 10th of May, 1703 [see n. 1349 a f.].
To 3: regarding Mohammedans who are dying and already deprived of their senses, we must rely as in the
decree of the Holy Office, Sept. 18, 1850, to the Bishop of Pertois, that is: "If they have formerly given indications
that they wish to be baptized, or in their present state either by a nod or any other manner have shown the same
disposition, they can be baptized conditionally; but where the missionary after examining all collateral circumstances
so judges it wise," . . . His Holiness approved.

Americanism *

[From the Letter, "Testem benevolentiae," to Cardinal Gibbons, January 22, 1899]

1967 The basis of the new opinions which we have mentioned is established as essentially this: In order that those
who dissent may more easily be brought over to Catholic wisdom, the Church should come closer to the civilization
of this advanced age, and relaxing its old severity show indulgence to those opinions and theories of the people
which have recently been introduced. Moreover, many think that this should be understood not only with regard to
the standard of living, but even with regard to the doctrines in which tdeposit of faithis contained. For, they
contend that it is opportune to win over those who are in disagreement, if certain topics of doctrine are passed over
as of lesser importance, or are so softened that they do not retain the same sense as the Church has always
held.--Now there is no need of a long discussion to show with what a reprehensible purpose this has been thought

out, if only the character and origin of the teaching which the Church hands down are considered. On this subject
the Vatican Synod says: "For there is to be no receding. . . . " [see1800 ].
1968 Now the history of all past ages is witness that this Apostolic See, to which not only the office of teaching, but

also the supreme government of the whole Church were assigned, has indeed continually adhered "to the same

doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same mind" [Cone. Vatic., see n.1800 ]; that it has always been accustomed
 to modify the rule of life so as never to overlook the manners and customs of the various peoples which it embraces,
while keeping the divine law unimpaired. If the safety of souls demands this, who will doubt that it will do so now?--
This, however, is not to be determined by the decision of private individuals

1969 who are quite deceived by the appearance of right; but it should be the judgment of the Church. . . . But in the

case about which we are speaking, Our Beloved Son, more danger is involved, and that advice is more inimical to

Catholic doctrine and discipline, according to which the followers of new ideas think that a certain liberty should be
introduced into the Church so that, in a way checking the force of its power and vigilance, the faithful may indulge

somewhat more freely each one his own mind and actual capacity.
1970 The entire external teaching office is rejected by those who wish to strive for the acquisition of Christian

perfection, as superfluous, nay even as useless; they say that the Holy Spirit now pours forth into the souls of the

faithful more and richer gifts than in times past, and, with no intermediary, by a kind of hidden instinct teaches and

moves them. . . .
1971 Yet, to one who examines the matter very thoroughly, when any external guide is removed, it is not apparent in

the thinking of the innovators to what end that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit should tend, which they extol

so much.--Surely, it is especially in the cultivation of virtues that there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy

Spirit; but those who are eager to pursue new things extol the natural virtues beyond measure, as if they correspond
better with the way of life and needs of the present day, and as if it were advantageous to be endowed with these,
since they make a man better prepared and more strenuous for action.--It is indeed difficult to believe that those
who are imbued with Christian knowledge can hold the natural above the supernatural virtues, and attribute to them

greater efficacy and fruitfulness. . . .

1972 With this opinion about the natural virtues another is closely connected, according to which all Christian virtues

are divided into two kinds, as it werepassive as they say, andactive; and they add that the former were better

suited for times past, that the latter are more in keeping with the present. . . . Moreover, he who would wish that

the Christian virtues be accommodated some to one time and some to another, has not retained the words of the
Apostle: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son" [ Rom. 8: 29 ].
The master and exemplar of all sanctity is Christ, to whose rule all, as many as wish to be admitted to the seats of
the blessed, must conform. Surely, Christ by no means changes as the ages go on, but is "yesterday, and today; and

the same forever" [Heb. 13:8 ]. Therefore, to the men of all ages does the following apply: "Learn of me, because I
am meek, and humble of heart" [ Matt. 11:23 ]; and at all times Christ shows himself to us "becoming obedient unto
death" [Phil. 2:]; and in every age the judgment of the Apostle holds: "And they that are Christ's have crucified their
flesh with the vices and concupiscences" Gal. 5:24 ].

1973 From this contempt, as it were, of the evangelical virtues, which are wrongly called passive, it easily followed

that their minds were gradually imbued with a contempt even for the religious life. And that this is common among

the advocates of the new opinions we conclude from certain opinions of theirs about the vows which religious
orders pronounce. For, they say that these vows are at very great variance with the spirit of our age, and that they

are suited to weak rather than to strong minds; and that they are quite without value for Christian perfection and the
good of human society, but rather obstruct and interfere with both.--But it is clearly evident how false these
statements are from the practice and teaching of the Church, by which the religious way of life has always been
especially approved. . . . Moreover, as for what they add, that the religious way of life is of no or of little help to the

Church, besides being odious to religious orders, will surely be believed by no one who has studied the annals of the
Church. . . .
1974 Finally, not to delay too long, the way and the plan which Catholics have thus far employed to bring back those

who disagree with them are proclaimed to be abandoned and to be replaced by another for the future. --But if of

the different ways of preaching the word of God that seems to be preferred sometimes by which those who dissent
from us are addressed not in temples, but in any private and honorable place, not in disputation but in a friendly
conference, the matter lacks any cause for adverse criticism, provided, however, that those are assigned to this duty
by the authority of the bishops, who have beforehand given proof to the bishops of their knowledge and integrity. . .
 1975 Therefore, from what We have said thus far it is clear, Our Beloved Son, that those opinions cannot be
approved by us, the sum total of which some indicate by the name of Americanism. . . . For it raises a suspicion
that there are those among you who envision and desire a Church in America other than that which is in all the rest
of the world.
1976 One in unity of doctrine as in unity of government and this Catholic, such is the Church; and since God has
established that its center and foundation be in the Chair of Peter, it is rightly called Roman; for "where Peter is,
there is the Church."* Therefore, whoever wishes to be called by the name of Catholic, ought truly to heed the
words of Jerome to Pope Damasus: "I who follow no one as first except Christ, associate myself in communion with
your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that Rock, I know the Church is builMatt. 16:18 ]; . . .
whoever gathereth not with thee scattereth" * Matt. 12:30 ].

The Matter of Baptism *

[From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901]

The Archbishop of Utrecht * relates:

1977 "Many medical doctors in hospitals and elsewhere in cases of necessity are accustomed to baptize infants in
their mother's wombs with water mixed with hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosives (in French:chloride de mercure )
.This water is compounded approximately of a solution of one part of this chloretus hydrargicus in a thousand
parts of water, and with this solution of water the potion is poisonous. Now the reason why they use this mixture is
that the womb of the mother may not be infected with disease."
Therefore the questions:
I. Is a baptism administered with such water certainly or dubiously valid ?
II. Is it permitted to avoid all danger of disease to administer the sacrament of baptism with such water?
III. Is it permitted also to use this water when pure water can be applied without any danger of disease?
The answers are (with the approbation of Leo Xlll ):
To I. This will be answered in. II
To II. It is permitted when real danger of disease is present.

To III. No.

The Use of the Most Blessed Eucharist *

[From the Encyclical, "Mirae caritatis," May 28, 1902]

1978 Away then with that widespread and most pernicious error on the part of those who express the opinion that the
reception of the Eucharist is for the most part assigned to those who, free of cares and narroin mind, decide to
rest at ease in some kind of a more religious life. For this sacrament (and there is none certainly more excellent or
more conducive to salvation than this) pertains to absolutely all, of whatever office or pre-eminence they are, as
many as wish (and no one ought not to wish this) to foster within themselves that life of divine grace, whose final end
is the attainment of the blessed life with God.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius X 1903-1914
PIUS X 1903-1914

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of Graces *

[From the Encyclical, "Ad diem," February 2, 1904]

1978a As the result of this participation between Mary and Christ in the sorrows and the will, she deserved most worthily to be made the restorer of
the lost world," * and so the dispenser of all the gifts which Jesus procured for us by His death and blood. . . . Since she excels all in sanctity, and by her
union with Christ and by her adoption by Christ for the work of man's salvation, she merited for us de congruo, as they say, what Christ merited de
condigno, and is the first minister of the graces to be bestowed.

"Implicit Citations" in Holy Scripture *

[From the Response of the Biblical Commission, February 13, 1905]

The question:
1979 Whether to solve difficulties that occur in some texts of Holy Scripture, which seem to present historical facts, it is permitted the Catholic
exegete to state that it is a matter in these texts of the tacit or implicit citation of a document written by an author who was not inspired, all the assertions
of which the inspired author does not at all intend to approve or to make his own, and which therefore cannot be held to be immune from errors?
The answer (with the approbation of Pius X):
In the negative, except in the case where, preserving the sense and judgment of the Church, it is proved by strong arguments: I) that the sacred
writer really is citing the words or documents of another, and 2) that he does not approve the same nor make them his own, so that it is rightly decided
that he is not speaking in his own name.

The Historical Nature of Sacred Scripture *

[From the reply of the Biblical Commission, June 23, 1905]
 The question:
1980 Whether the opinion can be admitted as a principle of sound exegesis, which holds that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be
historical, either in whole or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and truly objective, but present an appearance of history only, to
signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words?
The answer (with the approbation of Pius X):
In the negative, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and
preserving its judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly socalled, but
to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance
of the words.

The Daily Partaking of the Most Holy Eucharist *

[From the Decree of the Congregation of the Holy Council, approved by Pius X December 20th, 1905]

1981 The desire (indeed) of Jesus Christ and of the Church, that all the faithful of Christ approach the sacred banquet daily, is especially important in
this, that the faithful of Christ being joined with God through the sacrament may receive strength from it to restrain wantonness, to wash away the little
faults that occur daily, and to guard against more grievous sins to which human frailty is subject; but not principally that consideration be given to the
honor and veneration of God, nor that this be for those who partake of it a reward or recompense for their virtues. Therefore, the Sacred Council of Trent
calls the Eucharist, "an antidote, by which we are freed from daily faults and are preserved from mortal sins" [see n. 875]
1982 Because of the plague of Jansenism, which raged on all sides, disputes began to arise regarding the dispositions with which frequent and daily
communion should be approached, and some more than others demanded greater and more difficult dispositions as necessary. Such discussions brought it
about that very few were held worthy to partake daily of the most blessed Eucharist, and to draw the fuller effects from so saving a sacrament, the rest
being content to be renewed either once a year or every month, or at most once a week. Such a point of severity was reached that entire groups were
excluded from frequenting the heavenly table, for example, merchants, or those who had been joined in matrimony.
1983 In these matters the Holy See was not remiss in its proper duty [see n. 1147 ff. and 1313]. . . . Nevertheless, the poison of Jansenism, which had
infected even the souls of the good, under the appearance of honor and veneration due to the Eucharist, has by no means entirely disappeared. The
question about the dispositions for frequenting communion rightly and lawfully has survived the declarations of the Holy See, as a result of which it has
happened that some theologians even of good name rarely, and after laying down many conditions, have decided that daily communion can be permitted
the faithful.
1984 . . . But His Holiness, since it is especially dear to him that the Christian people be invited to the sacred banquet very frequently and even daily,
and so gain possession of its most ample fruits, has committed the aforesaid question to this sacred Order to be examined and defined.

[Hence the Congregation of the Holy Council on the 16th day of December, 1905] made the following decisions and declarations:

1985 I. Let frequent and daily communion . . . be available to all Christians of every order or condition, so that no one, who is in the state of grace
and approaches the sacred table with a right and pious mind, may be prevented from this.
1986 2. Moreover, right mind is in this, that he who approaches the sacred table, indulges not through habit, or vanity, or human reasonings, but
wishes to satisfy the pleasure of God, to be joined with Him more closely in charity and to oppose his infirmities and defects with that divine remedy.
1987 3. Although it is especially expedient that those who practice frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least those completely
deliberate, and of their effect, it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they will never sin in the future. . . .
1988 4. . . Care must be taken that careful preparation for Holy Communion precede, and that actions befitting the graces follow thereafter according
to the strength, condition, and duties of each one.
1989 5. . . Let the counsel of the confessor intercede. Yet let confessors beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily communion, who is
found in the state of grace and approaches (it) with a right mind. . . .
1990 9. . . Finally, after the promulgation of this decree, let all ecclesiastical writers abstain from any contentious disputation about dispositions for
frequent and daily communion.

The Tridentine Law of Clandestinity *

[From the Decree of Pius X, "Provide sapientique," Jan. 18, 1906]

1991 1. In the entire German Empire today let the chapter, Tametsi, of the Council of Trent [see n. 990 ff.], although in many places it has not yet
been definitely promulgated and introduced by manifest publication or by lawful observance, nevertheless henceforth from the feast day of Easter (i.e.,
from the 15th day of April) of this year 1906, bind all Catholics, even those up to now immune from observing the Tridentine form, so that they cannot
celebrate a valid marriage between one another except in the presence of the parish priest and two or three witnesses [cf. n. 2066 ff.].
1992 2. Mixed marriages, which are contracted by Catholics with heretics or schismatics, are and remain firmly prohibited, unless, when a just and
weighty canonical reason is added, and lawful cautions have been given on both sides, honestly and formally, a dispensation has been duly obtained from
the impediment of the mixed religion by the Catholic party. These marriages, to be sure, although a dispensation has been procured, are by all means to be
celebrated in the sight of the Church, in the presence of a priest and two or three witnesses, so much so that they sin gravely who contract them in the
presence of a non-Catholic minister, or in the presence of only a civil magistrate, or in any clandestine manner. Moreover, if any Catholics in celebrating
these marriages seek and accept the service of a non-Catholic minister, they commit another sin and are subject to canonical censures.
1993 Nevertheless, mixed marriages in certain provinces and localities of the German Empire, even in those which according to the decisions of the
Roman Congregations have thus far been subject to the definitely invalidating force of the chapter Tametsi, already contracted without preserving the
Tridentine form or (and, may God forbid this) to be contracted in the future, provided no other canonical impediment stands in the way, and no decision
of nullity because of the impediment of clan destinity has been lawfully passed before the feast day of Easter of this year, and the mutual consent of the
spouses has persevered up to the said day, these mixed marriages we wish to be upheld as entirely valid, and We declare, define, and decree this
expressly.
1994 3. Moreover, that a safe norm may be at hand for ecclesiastical judges, We declare, decide, and decree this same (pronouncement), and under
the same conditions and restrictions, with regard to non-Catholic marriages, whether of heretics or of schismatics, thus far contracted between themselves
in the same regions without preserving the Tridentine formula, or hereafter to be contracted; so that, if one or both of the non Catholic spouses should be
converted to the Catholic faith, or controversy should occur in an ecclesiastical court regarding the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics, which is
bound up with the question of the validity of the marriage contracted or to be contracted by some Catholic, these same marriages, all other things being
equal, are similarly to be held as entirely valid.

The Separation of Church and State *

[From the Encyclical, "Vehementer nos.,, to the clergy and people of France, February 11, 1906]

1995 We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state
from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the
beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship; because it violates the natural law, international law, and public trust in treaties; because it is
contrary to the divine constitution of the Church and to her essential rights and liberty; because it overturns justice, by suppressing the right of ownership
lawfully acquired by manifold titles and by the Concordat itself; because it gravely offends the dignity of the Apostolic See and Our own person, the
ranks of bishops, the clergy, and the Catholics of France. Consequently, We protest most vehemently against the proposal of the law, its passage, and
promulgation; and We attest that there is nothing at all of importance in it to weaken the laws of the Church, which cannot be changed by the force and
rashness of men.*

The Shortest Form of Extreme Unction *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, April 25, 1906]

1996 It has been decreed that in the case of true necessity this form suffices: "By this holy unction may the Lord forgive you whatever you have
sinned. Amen."

The Mosaic Authenticity of the Pentateuch *

[From the Response of the Commission on Biblical Studies, June 27, 1906]

1997 Question 1. Whether the arguments accumulated by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the
name of Pentateuch, are of such weight that, in spite of the very many indications of both Testaments taken together, the continuous conviction of the
Jewish people, also the unbroken tradition of the Church in addition to the internal evidences drawn from the text itself, they justify affirming that these
books were not written by Moses, but were composed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses? Reply: No.

1998 Question 2. Whether the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch necessarily demands such a redaction of the whole work that it must be held
absolutely that Moses wrote all and each book with his own hand, or dictated them to copyists; or, whether also the hypothesis can be permitted of those
who think that the work was conceived by him under the influence of divine inspiration, and was committed to another or several to be put into writing,
but in such manner that they rendered his thought faithfully, wrote nothing contrary to his wish, omitted nothing; and, finally, when the work was
composed in this way, approved by Moses as its chief and inspired author, it was published under his name. Reply: No, for the first part; yes, for the
second.

1999 Question 3. Whether without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch it can be granted that Moses for the composition of the
work made use of sources, namely written documents or oral tradition, from which, according to the peculiar goal set before him, and under -the
influence of divine inspiration, he made some borrowings, and these, arranged for word according to sense or amplified, he inserted into the work itself?
Reply: Yes.
2000 Question 4. Whether, safeguarding substantially the Mosaic authenticity and the integrity of the Pentateuch, it can be admitted that in such a
long course of ages it underwent some modifications, for example: additions made after the death of Moses, or by an inspired author, or glosses and
explanations inserted in the texts, certain words and forms of the antiquated language translated into more modern language; finally false readings to be
ascribed to the errors of copyists, which should be examined and passed upon according to the norms of textual criticism. Reply: Yes, the judgment of the
Church being maintained.

The Errors of Modernists, on the Church, Revelation, Christ, the Sacraments *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, "Lamentabili" July 3, 1907]

2001 1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books dealing with the Divine Scriptures be submitted to a previous censorship does not extend
to critical scholars, or to scholars of the scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testaments.
2002 2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is not indeed to be spurned, but it is subject to the more accurate judgment and the
correction of exegetes.
2003 3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more learned exegesis, it can be gathered that the faith proposed by
the Church contradicts history, and that Catholic teachings cannot in fact be reconciled with the truer origins of the Christian religion.

2004 4. The magisterium of the Church, even by dogmatic definitions, cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
2005 5. Since in the deposit of faith only revealed truths are contained, in no respect does it pertain to the Church to pass judgment on the assertions
of human disciplines.
2006 6. In defining truths the learning Church and the teaching Church so collaborate that there is nothing left for the teaching Church but to sanction
the common opinions of the learning Church.
2007 7. When the Church proscribes errors, she cannot exact any internal assent of the faithful, by which the judgments published by her are
embraced.
2008 8. They are to be considered free of all blame who consider of no account the reprobations published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index,
or by other Sacred Roman Congregations.
2009 9 They display excessive simplicity or ignorance, who believe that God is truly the author of the Sacred Scripture.

2010 10 The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this; that the Israelite writers have handed down religious doctrines under a
peculiar aspect which is little known, or not known at all to the Gentiles.
2011 11. Divine inspiration does not so extend to all Sacred Scripture that it fortifies each and every part of it against all error.
2012 12. The exegete, if he wishes to apply himself advantageously to Biblical studies, should divest himself especially of any preconceived opinion
about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture, and should interpret it just as he would other merely human documents.

2013 13. The Evangelists themselves and the Christians of the second and third generation have artificially distributed the parables of the Gospels,
and thus have given a reason for the small fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.
2014 14, In many narratives the Evangelists related not so much what is true, as what they thought to be more profitable for the reader, although
false.
2015 15. The Gospels up to the time of the defining and establishment of the canon have been augmented continually by additions and corrections;
hence, there has remained in them only a slight and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.

2016 16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but the mystical contemplation of the Gospel; the discourses contained in his Gospel are
theological meditations on the mystery of salvation, devoid of historical truth.
2017 17. The Fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles, not only that the extraordinary might stand out more, but also that they might become more
suitable for signifying the work and glory of the Word Incarnate.
2018 18, John, indeed, claims for himself the character of a witness concerning Christ; but in reality he is nothing but a distinguished witness of the
Christian life, or of the life of the Christian Church at the end of the first century.

2019 19. Heterodox exegetes have more faithfully expressed the true sense of Scripture than Catholic exegetes.
2020 20. Revelation could have been nothing other than the consciousness acquired by man of his relation to God.
2021 21. Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.
2022 22. The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts,
which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.

2023 23. Opposition can and actually does exist between facts which are narrated in Sacred Scripture, and the dogmas of the Church based on these,
so that a critic can reject as false, facts which the Church believes to be most certain.
2024 24. An exegete is not to be reproved who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or dubious, provided he
does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.
2025 25. The assent of faith ultimately depends on an accumulation of probabilities.

2026 26. The dogmas of faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing
2027 27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels; but is a dogma which the Christian conscience has deduced from the notion of
the Messias.
2028 28. When Jesus was exercising His ministry, He did not speak with this purpose, to teach that He was the Messias, nor did His miracles have as
their purpose to demonstrate this.

2029 29. It may be conceded that the Christ whom history presents, is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of faith.
2030 30. In all the evangelical texts the name, Son of God, is equivalent to the name of Messias; but it does not at all signify that Christ is the true
and natural Son of God.
2031 31. The doctrine about Christ, which Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon hand down, is not that which Jesus taught,
but which the Christian conscience conceived about Jesus.

2032 32. The natural sense of the evangelical texts cannot be reconciled with that which our theologians teach about the consciousness and the
infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
2033 33. It is evident to everyone, who is not influenced by preconceived opinions, that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate
coming of the Messias, or the greater part of the doctrine contained in the Synoptic Gospels is void of authenticity.
2034 34. The critic cannot ascribe to Christ knowledge circumscribed by no limit, except on the supposition which can by no means be conceived
historically, and which is repugnant to the moral sense, namely, that Christ as man had the knowledge of God, and nevertheless was unwilling to share the
knowledge of so many things with His disciples and posterity.

2035 35. Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
2036 36. The resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order, neither demonstrated
nor demonstrable, and which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other sources.
2037 37. Faith in the resurrection of Christ was from the beginning not so much of the fact of the resurrection itself, as of the immortal life of Christ
with God.

2038 38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is not evangelical but only Pauline.
2039 39. The opinions about the origin of the sacraments with which the Fathers of Trent were imbued, and which certainly had an influence on their
dogmatic canons, are far different from those which now rightly obtain among historical investigators of Christianity.
2040 40. The sacraments had their origin in this, that the apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted
some idea and intention of Christ.
2041 41. The sacraments have this one end, to call to man's mind the ever beneficent presence of the Creator.
2042 42. The Christian community has introduced the necessity of baptism, adopting it as a necessary rite, and adding to it the obligation of
professing Christianity.
2043 43. The practice of conferring baptism on infants was a disciplinary evolution, which was one reason for resolving the sacrament into two,
baptism and penance.
2044 44. There is no proof that the rite of the sacrament of confirmation was practiced by the apostles; but the formal distinction between the two
sacraments, namely, baptism and confirmation, by no means goes back to the history of primitive Christianity.

2045 45. Not all that Paul says about the institution of the Eucharist [1 Cor. 11:23-25] is to be taken historically.
2046 46. There was no conception in the primitive Church of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church, but the Church only very
gradually became accustomed to such a conception. Indeed, even after penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the
name, sacrament, for the reason that it would have been held as a shameful sacrament.

2047 47. The words of the Lord: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye shall retain they
are retained" [John 20:22, 23], do not refer at all to the sacrament of penance, whatever the Fathers of Trent were pleased to say.
2048 48. James in his Epistle [Jas. 5:14 f.] does not intend to promulgate some sacrament of Christ, but to commend a certain pious custom, and if in
this custom by chance he perceives some means of grace, he does not accept this with that strictness with which the theologians have accepted it, who
have established the notion and the number of the sacraments.

2049 49. As the Christian Supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action, those who were accustomed to preside at the Supper acquired
the sacerdotal character.
2050 50. The elders who fulfilled the function of watching over gatherings of Christians were instituted by the apostles as presbyters or bishops to
provide for the necessary arrangement of the increasing communities, not properly for perpetuating the apostolic mission and power.
2051 51. Matrimony could not have emerged as a sacrament of the New Law in the Church, since in order that matrimony might be held to be a
sacrament, it was necessary that a full theological development of the doctrine on grace and the sacraments take place first.

2052 52. It was foreign to the mind of Christ to establish a Church as a society upon earth to endure for a long course of centuries; rather, in the mind
of Christ the Kingdom of Heaven together with the end of the world was to come presently.
2053 53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable; but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.
2054 54. The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the
evolution of the Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.

2055 55. Simon Peter never even suspected that the primacy of the Church was entrusted to him by Christ.
2056 56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches not by the ordinances of divine Providence, but purely by political factors.
2057 57. The Church shows herself to be hostile to the advances of the natural and theological sciences.
2058 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it is evolved with him, in him, and through him.

2059 59. Christ did not teach a defined body of doctrine applicable to all times and to all men, but rather began a religious movement adapted, or to
be adapted to different times and places.
2060 60. Christian doctrine in its beginnings was-Judaic, but through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Johannine, and finally
Hellenic and universal.
2061 61. It can be said without paradox that no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, contains doctrine entirely
identical with that which the Church hands down on the same subject, and so no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic as for the
theologian.

2062 62. The principal articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the
Christians of our time.
2063 63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines
which cannot be reconciled with present day advances.
2064 64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate
Word, the redemption, be recast.

2065 65. Present day Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true science, unless it be transformed into a kind of nondogmatic Christianity, that is,
into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
2065a Censure of the Holy Pontiff: "His Holiness has approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and has ordered that all and
every proposition enumerated above be held as condemned and proscribed" [See also n. 2114].

Betrothal and Marriage *

[From the Decree Ne temere of the Holy Council, August 2, 1907]

2066 Betrothal.--I. Those betrothals alone are held valid and carry canonical effects, which have been contracted in writing signed by the parties, and
either by the pastor or ordinary of the place, or at least by two witnesses.
2067 Marriage.III. The above marriages are valid, which are contracted in the presence of the pastor or ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by
either of the two, and at least two witnesses. . . .

2068 VII. If the danger of death is imminent, when the pastor or ordinary of the place, or a priest delegated by either of the two cannot be had, out of
consideration for the conscience (of the betrothed) and (if occasion warrants) for legitimizing offspring, marriage can be validly and licitly contracted in
the presence of any priest and two witnesses.
2069 Vlll. If it happens that in some region the pastor or ordinary of the place or priest delegated by them, in the presence of whom marriage can be
celebrated, cannot be had, and this condition of things has lasted now for a month, the marriage can be validly and licitly entered upon after a formal
consent has been given by the betrothed in the presence of two witnesses.

2070 Xl. Sec. I. All who have been baptized in the Catholic Church and have been converted to her from heresy or schism, even if one or the other
has afterwards apostasized, as often as they enter upon mutual betrothal or marriage, are bound by the laws above established.
Sec. 2. They also hold for the same Catholics mentioned above, if they contract betrothal or marriage with non-Catholics, whether baptized or
not baptized, even after having obtained dispensation from the impediment of mixed marriage, or of difference of worship, unless it has otherwise been
established by the Holy See for some particular place or region.

Sec. 3. Non-Catholics, whether baptized or not baptized, if they make contracts between themselves, are nowhere bound to keep the Catholic
form of betrothal or of marriage.
Let the present decree lawfully published and promulgated be kept by its transmission to the ordinaries of places; and let what has been
disposed in it begin to have the force of law everywhere, from the solemn day of the Pasch of the Resurrection D.N.I.C. [April 19] of next year, 1908.

The False Doctrines of the Modernists *

[From the Encyclical, "Pascendi dominici gregis," Sept. 8, 1907]

Since it is a very clever artifice on the part of the modernists (for they are rightly so-called in general) not to set
2071
forth their doctrines arranged in orderly fashion and collected together, but as if scattered, and separated from one
another, so that they seem very vague and, as it were, rambling, although on the contrary they are strong and
constant, it is well, Venerable Brothers, first to present these same doctrines here in one view, and to show the
nexus by which they coalesce with one another, that we may then examine the causes of the errors and may
prescribe the remedies to remove the calamity. . . . But, that we may proceed in orderly fashion in a rather abstruse
subject, this must be noted first of all, that every modernist plays several roles, and, as it were, mingles in himself,
(1) the philosopher of course, (11) the believer, (111) the theologian, (IV) the historian, (V) the critic, (Vl) the
apologist, (VII) the reformer. All these roles he must distinguish one by one, who wishes to understand their system
rightly, and to discern the antecedents and the consequences of their doctrines.
2072 [I] Now, to begin with the philosopher, the modernists place the foundation of their religious philosophy in that
doctrine which is commonly called agnosticism. Perforce, then, human reason is entirely restricted tphenomena,
namely, things that appear, and that appearance by which they appear; it has neither the right nor the power to
transgress the limits of the same. Therefore, it cannot raise itself to God nor recognize His existence, even through
things that are seen. Hence, it is inferred that God can by no means be directly an object of science; yet, as far as
pertains to history, that He is not to be considered an historical subject.--Moreover, granting all this, everyone will
easily see what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, ofexternal revelation. These, of
course, the modernists completely spurn, and relegate to intellectualism, an absurd system, they say, and long since
dead. Nor does the fact that the Church has very openly condemned such portentous errors restrain them, for the
Vatican Synod so decreed: "If anyone, etc.," [see n. 1806 f.1812 ].
But in what way do the Modernists pass from agnosticism, which consists only in nescience, to scientific and
2073
historicatheism, which on the other hand is entirely posited in denial; so, by what law of reasoning is the step taken
from that state of ignorance as to whether or not God intervened in the history of the human race, to the explanation
of the same history, leaving God out altogether, as if He had not really intervened, he who can well knows. Yet, this
is fixed and established in their minds, that science as well as history should be atheistic, in whose limits there can be
place only for phenomena, God and whatever is divine being utterly thrust aside.--As a result of this most absurd
teaching we shall soon see clearly what is to be held regarding the most sacred person of Christ, the mysteries of
His life and death, and likewise about His resurrection and ascension into heaven.
Yet this agnosticism is to be considered only as the negative part of the system of the modernists; the positive
2074
consists, as they say, ivital immanence. Naturally, they thus proceed from one to the other of these
parts.--Religion, whether this be natural or supernatural, must, just as any fact, admit of some explanation. But the
explanation, with natural theology destroyed and the approach to revelation barred by the rejection of the arguments
of credibility, with even any external revelation utterly removed, is sought in vain outside man. It is, then, to be

sought within man himself; and, since religion is a form of life, it is to be found entirely within the life of man. From
this is asserted the principle of religious Immanence. Moreover, of every vital phenomenon, to which it has just been
said religion belongs, the first actuation, as it were, is to be sought in a certain need or impulsion; but, if we speak
more specifically of life, the beginnings are to be posited in a kind of motion of the heart, which is calsense.

Therefore, since God is the object of religion, it must be concluded absolutely that faith, which is the beginning and
the foundation of any religion, must be located in some innermost sense, which has its beginning in a need for the
divine. Moreover, this need for the divine, since it is felt only in certain special surroundings, cannot of itself pertain
to the realm of consciousness, but it remains hidden at first beneath consciousness, or, as they say with a word

borrowed from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where, too, its root remains hidden and
undetected.--Someone perhaps will ask in what way does this need of the divine, which man himself perceives
within himself, finally evolve into religion? To this the modernists reply: "Science and history are included within a
twofold boundary: one external, that is the visible world; the other internal, which is consciousness. When they have
 reached one or the other, they are unable to proceed further, for beyond these boundaries is the unknowable. In
the presence of this unknowable, whether this be outside man and beyond the perceptible world of nature, or lies
concealed within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul prone to religion, according to the tenets of
fideism, with no judgment of the mind anticipating, excites a certain peculiasense; but this sense has the divine

reality itself, not only as its object but also as its intrinsic cause implicated within itself, and somehow unites man
with God." This sense, moreover, is what the modernists call by the name of faith, and is for them the beginning of
religion.
But this is not the end of their philosophizing, or more correctly of their raving. For in such a sense the

2075

modernists find not only faith, but together with faith and in faith itself, as they understand it, they affirm that there i
place for revelation. For will anyone ask whether anything more is needed for revelation? Shall we not call that
religious sense that appears in the conscience "revelation," or at least the beginning of revelation; why not God
himself, although rather confusedly, manifesting Himself to souls in the same religious sense? But they add: Since

God is alike both object and cause of faith, that revelation is equally of God and from God, that is, it has God as the
Revealer as well as the Revealed. From this, moreover, Venerable Brothers, comes that absurd affirmation of the
modernists, according to which any religion according to its various aspects is to be called natural and also
supernatural. From this, consciousness and revelation have interchangeable meanings. From this is the law according

to which religious consciousness is handed down as a universal rule, to be equated completely with revelation, to
which all must submit, even the supreme power in the Church, whether this teaches or legislates on sacred matters
or discipline.
Yet in all this process, from which according to the modernists, faith and revelation come forth, one thing is

2076

especially to be noted, indeed of no small moment because of the historico-critical sequences which they pry from
it. For theunknowable, of which they speak, does not present itself to faith as something simple or alone, but on
the contrary adhering closely to some phenomenon, which, although it pertains to the fields of science and history,
yet in some way passes beyond stem, whether this phenomenon be a fact of nature containing some secret within

itself, or be any man whose character, actions, and words do not seem possible of being reconciled with the
ordinary laws of history. Then faith, attracted by the unknowable which is united with the phenomenon, embraces
the whole phenomenon itself and in a manner permeates it with its own life. Now from this two things follow: first, a
kind of transfiguration of the phenomenon by elation, that is, above its true conditions, by which its matter

becomes more suitable to clothe itself with the form of the divine, which faith is to introduce; second, some sort of
disfiguration, (we may call it such) of the same phenomenon, arising from the fact that faith attributes to it, when
divested of all adjuncts of place and time, what in fact it does not possess; and this takes place especially when
phenomena of times past are concerned, and the more fully as they are the older. From this twofold source the

modernists again derive two canons, which, when added to another already borrowed from agnosticism, constitute
the foundations of historical criticism. The subject will be illustrated by an example, and let us take that example
from the person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing except the
human. Therefore, by virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism whatever is redolent of the divine must be

deleted from His history. Furthermore, by virtue of the second canon the historical person of Christ was
transfigured by faith; therefore, whatever raises it above historical conditions must be removed from it. Finally, by
virtue of the third canon the same person of Christ is disfigured by faith; therefore, words and deeds must be
removed from it, whatever, in a word, does not in the least correspond with His character, state, and education, and

with the place and time in which He lived. A wonderful method of reasoning indeed! But this is the criticism of the
modernists.
2077 Therefore, the religious sense, which through vitalimmanence comes forth from the hiding places of the

subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation likewise of everything which has been or is to be in

any religion. Such asense, crude in the beginning and almost unformed, gradually and under the influence of that
mysterious principle, whence it had its origin, matured with the progress of human life, of which, as we have said, it
is a kind of form. So, we have the origin of any religion, even if supernatural; they are, of course, mere
developments of the religious sense. And let no one think that the Catholic religion is excepted; rather, it is entirely

like the rest; for it was born in the consciousness of Christ, a man of the choicest nature, whose like no one has ever
been or will be, by the process ofvital immanence. . . . [adduced by can. 3 of the Vatican Council on revelation;
see n. 1808 ].
 Yet up to this point, Venerable Brethren, we have discovered no place given to the intellect. But it, too,

2078

according to the doctrine of the modernists, has its part in the act of faith. It is well to notice next in what way. In
that sense, they say, which we have mentioned rather often, since it isense, not knowledge, God presents himself
to man, but so confusedly and disorderly that He is distinguished with difficulty, or not at all, by the subject believer.
It is necessary, therefore, that this sense be illuminated by some light, so that God may completely stand out and be

separated from it. Now, this pertains to the intellect, whose function it is to ponder and to institute analysis, by which
man first brings to light the vital phenomena arising within him, and then makes them known by words. Hence the
common expression of the modernists, that the religious man must think his faith.--The mind then, encountering this
sense, reflects upon it and works on it, as a painter who brightens up the faded outline of a picture to bring it out

more clearly, for essentially thus does one of the teachers of the modernists explain the matter. Moreover, in such a
work the mind operates in a twofold way: first, by a natural and spontaneous act it presents the matter in a simple
and popular judgment; but then after reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, byelaborating the
thought, it speaks forth its thoughts secondary judgmeets, derived, to be sure, from the simple first, but more

precise and distinct. Thesesecondary judgments, if they are finally sanctioned by the suprememagisterium of the
Church, will constitutedogma.
2079 Thus, then, in the doctrine of the modernists we have come to an outstanding chapter, namely, the origin of

dogma and the inner nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive simple formulae, which

in a certain respect are necessary for faith; for revelation, to actually be such, requires a clear knowledge of God in
consciousness. Yet the dogma itself, they seem to affirm, is properly contained in thsecondary
formulae.--Furthermore, to ascertain its nature we must inquire above all what revelation intervenes between the
religious formulae and the religioussense of the soul. But this he will easily understand, who holds that such

formulae have no other purpose than to supply the means by which he (the believer) may give himself an account of
his faith. Therefore, they are midway between the believer and his faith; but as far as faith is concerned, they are
inadequate signs of its object, usually callsymbolae; in their relationship to the believer, they are mere
instruments. --So by no means can it be maintained that they absolutely contain the truth; for, insofar as they are

symbols, they are images of the truth, and so are to be accommodated to the religious sense, according as this
refers to man; and as instruments they are the vehicles of truth, and so they are in turn to be adapted to man,
insofar as there is reference to the religious sense. But the objectthe religious sense, inasmuch as it is contained
in theabsolute, has infinite aspects of which now one, now another can appear. Likewise, the man who believes

can make use of varying conditions. Accordingly, also, the formulae which we call dogma should be subject to the
same vicissitudes, and so be liable to change. Thus, then, the way is open to thintrinsic evolution of
dogma.--Surely an infinite piling up of sophisms, which ruin and destroy all religion.
Yet that dogma not only can but ought to be evolved and changed, even the modernists themselves in

2080

fragmentary fashion affirm, and this clearly follows from their principles. For among the chief points of doctrine they
hold this, which they deduce from the principle ofvital immanence, that religious formulae, to be really religious
and not only intellectual speculations, should be alive, and should live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be
understood thus, as if these formulae, especially if merely imaginative, were invented for the religious sense; for their

origin is of no concern, nor is their number or quality, but as follows: that the religious sense, applying some
modification, if necessary, should join them to itsevitally.Of course, in other words, it is necessary that the
primitive formula be accepted by the heart and sanctioned by it; likewise that the labor by which the secondary
formulae are brought forth be under the guidance of the heart. Hence it happens that these formulae, to be vital,

should be and should remain adapted alike to the faith and to the believer. Therefore, if for any cause such an
adaptation should cease, they lose the original notions and need to be changed.--Furthermore, since this power and
the fortune of the dogmatic formulae are so unstable, it is no wonder that they are such an object of ridicule and
contempt to modernists, who say nothing to the contrary and extol nothing but the religious sense and religious life.

And so they most boldly attack the Church as moving on a path of error, because she does not in the least
distinguish the religious and moral force from the superficial significance of the formulae, and by clinging with vain
labor and most tenaciously to formulae devoid of meaning, permits religion itself to collapse.-- Surely, "blind and
leaders of the blind" Matt. 15:14 ] are they who, puffed up by the proud name of science, reach such a point in their

raving that they pervert the eternal concept of truth, and the true sense of religion by introducing a new system, "in
which from an exaggerated and unbridled desire for novelty, truth is not sought where it certainly exists, and
 neglecting the holy and apostolic traditions, other doctrines empty, futile, uncertain, and unapproved by the Church
are adopted, on which men in their extreme vanity think that truth itself is based and maintaine*. So much,

Venerable Brothers, for the modernist as a philosopher.

2081 [11] Now if, on advancing to the believer, one wishes to know how he is distinguished from the philosopher

among the modernists, this must be observed that, although the philosopher admits the reality of the divine as the

object of faith, yet this reality is not found by him anywhere except in the heart of the believer, since it is the object

of sense and of affirmation, and so does not exceed the confines of phenomena; furthermore, whether that reality
exists in itself outside that sense and affirmation, the philosopher passes over and neglects. On the other hand for the
modernist believer it is established and certain that the reality of the divine definitely exists in itself, and certainly d
not depend on the believer. But if you ask on what then the assertion of the believer rests, they will reply: In the

personal experience of every man.--In this affirmation, while they break with the rationalists, to be sure, yet they fall
in with the opinion of Protestants and pseudomystics [cf. n.1273 ]. For they explain the subject as follows: that in
the religious sense a kind of intuition of the heart is to be recognized, by which man directly attainreality of
God, and draws from it such conviction of the existence of God and of the action of God both within and without

man, that it surpasses by far all conviction that can be sought from science. They establish, then, a true experience
and one superior to any rational experience. If anyone, such as the rationalists, deny this, they say that this arises
from the fact that he is unwilling to establish himself in the moral state which is required to produce the experience.
Furthermore,

2082 this experience, when anyone has attained it, properly and truly makes a believer.--How far we are here from

Catholic teachings. We have already seen [cf. n. 2072 ] such fabrications condemned by the Vatican Council. When

these errors have once been admitted, together with others already mentioned, we shall express below how open
the way is to atheism. It will be well to note at once that from this doctrine of experience joined with another of

symbolism, any religion, not even excepting paganism, must be held as true. For why should not experiences of this
kind not occur in any religion? In fact, more than one asserts that they have occurred. By what right will modernists
deny the truth of an experience which an Islamite affirms, and claim true experiences for Catholics alone? In fact,
modernists do not deny this; on the contrary some rather obscurely, others very openly contend that all religions are

true. But it is manifest that they cannot think otherwise. For on what basis, then, should falsity have been attributed
to any religion according to their precepts? Surely it would be either because of the falsity of the religious sense or
because a false formula was set forth by the intellect. Now the religious sense is always one and the same, although
sometimes it is more imperfect; but that the intellectual formula be true, it is enough that it respond to the religious

sense and to the human believer, whatever may be the character of the perspicacity of the latter. In the conflict of
different religions the modernists might be able to contend for one thing at most, that the Catholic religion, inasmuch
as it is the mor vivid, has more truth; and likewise that it is more worthy of the name of Christian, inasmuch as it
corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity.

2083 There is something else besides in this part of their doctrine, which is absolutely inimical to Catholic truth. For

the precept regarding experience is applied also totradition, which the Church has hitherto asserted, and utterly

destroys it. For the modernists understand tradition thus: that it is a kind of communication with others of an
original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, therefore, besides, as

they say, representative force, they ascribe a kind osuggestive power, not only to excite in him who believes the
religious sense, which perchance is becoming sluggish, and to restore the experience once acquired, but also to give
birth in them who do not yet believe, to a religious sense for the first time, and to produce the experience. Thus,
moreover, religious experience is spread widely among the people; and not only among those who are now in

existence, but also among posterity, both by books and by oral transmission from one to another.--But this
communication of experience sometimes takes root and flourishes; sometimes it grows old suddenly, and dies.
Moreover, to flourish is to the modernists an argument for truth; for they hold truth and life to be the same.
Therefore, we may infer again: that all religions, as many as exist, are true; for otherwise they would not be alive.

2084 Now with our discussion brought to this point, Venerable Brethren, we have enough and more to consider

accurately what relationship the modernists establish between faith and science; furthermore, history, also, is classed

by them under this name of science.--And in the first place, indeed, it is to be held that the object-matter of the one
is entirely extraneous to the object-matter of the other and separated from it. For faith looks only to that which
 science professes to be unknowable to itself. Hence to each is a different duty: science is concerned with
phenomena where there is no place for faith; faith, on the other hand, is concerned with the divine, of which science
is totally ignorant. Thus, finally, it is settled that there can never be dissension between faith and science; for if each
holds its own place, they will never be able to meet each other, and so contradict each other. If any persons by

chance object to this, on the ground that certain things occur in visible nature which pertain also to faith, as, for
example, the human life of Christ, the modernists will deny it. For, although these things are classified with
phenomena, yet, insofar as they are imbued with the life of faith, and in the manner already mentioned have been
transfigured and disfigured by faith [cf. 2076 ], they have been snatched away from the sensible world and

transferred into material for the divine. Therefore, to him who asks further whether Christ performed true miracles
and really divined the future; whether He truly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, agnostic science will
give a denial, faith an affirma- tion; yet as a result of this there will be no conflict between the two. For one,
addressing philosophers as a philosopher, namely, contemplating Christ only according to historical reality, will

deny; the other, speaking as a believer with believers, viewing the life of Christ as it is lived again by the faith and in
the faith, will affirm.
2085 A great mistake, however, is made as a result of this by anyone who thinks that he can believe that faith and

science are subject to each other in no way at all. For, as regards science he does indeed think rightly and truly; but

it is otherwise with faith, which must be said to be subject to science not only on one, but on three grounds. For,
first, we must observe that in any religious fact, afterdivine reality has been taken away, and whatever
experience he who believes has of it, all other things, especially religious formulae, do not pass beyond the confines
of phenomena, and so fall under science. By all means let it be permitted the believer, if he wills, to go out of the

world, yet as long as he remains in it, whether he likes it or not, he will never escape the laws, the observations, the
judgments of science and history.--Furthermore, although it is said that God is the object of faith alone, this is to be
granted with regard to the divine reality,but not with regard to theidea of God. For this is subject to science,
which, while it philosophizes in the logical order, as they say, attains also what is absolute and ideal. Therefore,

philosophy or science has the right to learn about the idea of God, and to direct it in its evolution, and, if anything
extraneous enters it, to correct it. Hence the axiom of the modernists: Religious evolution should be reconciled with
the moral and the intellectual, that is, as one teaches whom they follow as a master, it should be subject to
them.--Finally it happens that God does not suffer duality within Himself, and so the believer is urged on by an

innermost force so to harmonize faith with science that it never disagrees with the general idea which science sets
forth about the entire universe. Thus, then, is it effected that science is entirely freed from faith, that faith on the oth
hand, however much it is proclaimed to be extraneous to science, is subject to it.--All this, Venerable Brethren, is
contrary to what Pius IX, Our predecessor, handed down teaching: "It is the duty of philosophy, in those matters

which pertain to religion, not to dominate but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what
is to be believed with reasonable obedience, and not to examine the depths of the mysteries of God, but to revere
them piously and humbly. * The modernists completely invert the matter; so what Our predecessor, Gregory IX,
similarly wrote about certain theologians of his age can be applied to these: "Some among you, distended like

bladders by the spirit of vanity, strive by novelty to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers; twisting the meaning
of the sacred text . . . to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, to make a show of science, not for any benefit
to their hearers. . . . These men, lead astray by various strange doctrines, reduce the head to the tail, and force the
queen to serve the handmaid.'' *

2086 This, surely, will be quite clear to one who observes how the modernists act quite in conformity with what they

teach. For much seems to have been written and spoken by them in contrary fashion so that one might easily think

them doubtful and uncertain. But this takes place deliberately and advisedly, namely, in accord with the opinion
which they hold on the mutual exclusion of faith and science. Thus in their books we find certain things which a

Catholic entirely approves, yet on turning the page certain things which one could think were dictated by a
rationalist. So, when writing history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when preaching in the
churches they profess it most strongly. Likewise, when discussing history they have no place for the Councils and
the Fathers, but when teaching catechism, they refer to the former and the latter with respect. Thus, too, they

separate theological and pastoral exegesis from the scientific and the historical. Similarly, on the principle that
science in- no wise depends on faith, when they are treating of philosophy, history, and criticism, with no special
horror about following in the tracks of Luther [cf. 769 ], they display in every way a contempt for Catholic
precepts, the Holy Fathers, the Ecumenical Synods, and the ecclesiastical magisterium; and if they are criticized
 for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their freedom. Finally, professing that faith must be made
subject to science, they rebuke the Church generally and openly, because she refuses most resolutely to subject and
accommodate her teachings to the opinions of philosophy; but they, repudiating the old theology for this purpose,
endeavor to bring in the new, which follows the ravings of the philosophers.

2087 [III] Here now, Venerable Brethren, we approach the study of the modernists in the theological arena, a rough

task indeed, but to be disposed of briefly. It is a question, indeed, of conciliating faith with science, and this in no

other way than by subjecting one to the other. In this field the modernist theologian makes use of the same principles
that we saw employed by the philosopher, and he adapts them to the believer; we mean the principles of

immanence and symbolism. Thus, moreover, he accomplishes the task most easily. It is held as certain by the
philosopher that the principle of faith is immanent; it is added by the believer thathis principle is God; and he
himself (the theologian) concludes:God, then, isimmanent in man. From this comes theological immanence.
Again, to the philosopher it is certain ththe representations of the object of faith are only symbolical; to the

believer, likewise, it is certain the object of faith is God in Himself; so the theologian gathers thatthe
representations of the divine reality are symbolical. From this comes theological symbolism.-- Surely the
greatest errors, and how pernicious each is will be clear from an examination of the consequences.--For to speak at
once about symbolism, since such symbols are symbols with regard to their object, but with regard to the believer

are instruments, the believer must first of all be on his guard, they say, lest he cling too much to the formula, as
formula, but he must make use of it only that he may fasten upon the absolute truth, which the formula at the same
time uncovers and covers, and struggles to express without ever attaining it. Besides, they add, such formulae are to
be applied by the believer insofar as they help him; for they are given as a help, not as a hindrance, with full esteem

indeed, which out of social respect is due the formulae which the publicmagisterium has judged suitable for
expressing the common consciousness, as long, of course, as the same magisterium shall not declare otherwise.
But regarding immanence what the modernists mean really, is difficult to show, for they do not all have the same
opinion. There are some who hold on this subject, that God working in man is more intimately present in him than

man is even in himself; which, if rightly understood, bears no reproach. Others on this matter lay down that the
action of God is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with that of the second cause,
which really destroys the supernatural order. Finally, others so explain it in a way that causes a suspicion of a
pantheistic meaning; yet this fittingly coincides with the rest of their doctrines.

2088 Now to this axiom of immanence is added another which we can call divine permanence; these two differ from

each other in about the same way as private experience does from experience transmitted by tradition. An example

will illustrate the point, and let us take it from the Church and the sacraments. The Church, they say, and the
sacraments are by no means to be believed as having been instituted by Christ Himself. Agnosticism stipulates this,

which recognizes nothing but the human in Christ, whose religious conscience, like that of the rest of men, was
formed gradually; the law of immanence stipulates this, which rejects external applications, to use their terms;
likewise the law of evolution stipulates this, which demands time and a certain series of circumstances joined with it,
that the germs may be evolved; finally, history stipulates this, which shows that such in fact has been the course of

the thing. Yet it is to be held that the Church and the sacraments have beenmediately established by the Christ. But
how? All Christian consciences, they affirm, were in a way virtually included in the conscience of Christ, as the plant
in the seed. Moreover, since the germs live the life of the seed, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ.
But the life of Christ according to faith is divine; thus, also, is the life of Christians. If, then, this life in the cours

the ages gave origin to the Church and the sacraments, quite rightly will such an origin be said to be from Christ, and
be divine. Thus they effect completely that the Sacred Scriptures also are divine, and that dogmas are divine.--With
this, then, the theology of the modernists is essentially completed. Surely a brief provision, but very abundant for him
who professes that science must always be obeyed, whatever it orders. Everyone will easily see for himself the

application of these principles to the other matters which we shall mention.

2089 Up to this point we have touched upon the origin of faith and its nature. But since faith has many outgrowths,

chiefly the Church, dogma, worship, and devotions, the Books which we call "sacred," we should inquire what the

modernists teach about these also. To take dogma as a beginning, it has already been shown above what its origin

and nature are [n. 2079 f.]. It arises from a kind of impulse or necessity, by virtue of which he who believes
elaborates his own thoughts so that his own conscience and that of others may be the more clarified. This labor
consists entirely in investigating and in refining the primitive formula of the mind, not indeed in itself, according to the
logical explanation, but according to circumstances, orvitally,as they say, in a manner less easily understood.
 Hence it happens that around that formula certain secondary formulae, as We have already indicated, gradually
come into being [cf. n.2078 ]; these afterwards brought together into one body, or into one edifice of faith, as
responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. From this the dissertations of the theologians are to be
well distinguished, which, although they do not live the life of dogma, are not at all useless, not only for harmonizing

religion with science and for removing disagreements between them, but also for illumining and protecting religion
from without, even perchance as a means for preparing material for some new future dogma.--It would by no
means have been necessary to discuss worship at length, did not the sacraments also come under this term, on
which the errors of the modernists are most serious. They say that worship arises from a twofold impulse or

necessity; for, as we have seen, all things in their system are said to come into existence by innermost impulses or
necessities. The first need is to attribute something sensible to religion; the second is to express it, which surely
cannot be done without a sensible form, or consecrating acts which we call sacraments. But for the modernists
sacraments are mere symbols or signs, although not lacking efficacy. To point out this efficacy, they make use of the

example of certain words which are popularly said to have caught on, since they have conceived the power of
propagating certain ideas which are vigorous and especially shake the mind. Just as these words are ordered in
relation to ideas, so are the sacraments to the religious sense, nothing more. Surely they would speak more clearly if
they affirm that the sacraments were instituted solely to nourish faith. But this the Synod of Trent has condemned: "If

any one says that these sacraments were instituted solely to nourish the faith, let him be anathema" [848 ].
2090 We have already touched somewhat on the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles

of the modernists one could well describe them as a collection ofexperiences, not such as come in general to

everyone, but extraordinary and distinguished, which have been had in every religion.--Precisely thus do the

modernists teach about our books of both the Old and the New Testament. Yet, in accord with their own opinions
they note very shrewdly that, although experience belongs to the present, yet one can assume it equally of the past
and of the future, inasmuch as naturally he who believes either, lives the past by recollection in the manner of the
present, or the future by anticipation. Moreover, this explains how the historical and apocalyptic books can be

classified among the Sacred Books. Thus, then, in these Books God certainly speaks through the believer, but as
the theology of the modernists puts it, only bimmanence and vital permanence.--We shall ask, what then about
inspiration? This, they reply, is by no means distinguished from that impulse, unless perhaps in vehemence, by which
the believer is stimulated to reveal his faith by word or writing. What we have in poetic inspiration is similar;

wherefore a certain one said: "God is in us, when he stirs we are inflamed.* In this way God should be called the
beginning of the inspiration of the Sacred Books.--Furthermore, regarding this inspiration, the modernists add that
there is nothing at all in the Sacred Books that lacks such inspiration. When they affirm this one would be inclined to
believe them more orthodox than some in more recent times who restrict inspiration somewhat as, for example,

when they introduce so-called tacit citations.But this is mere words and pretense on their part. For, if we judge
the Bible according to the precepts of agnosticism, namely, as a human work written by men for men, although the
theologian is granted the right of calling it divine by immanence, just how can inspiration be forced into it? Now, the
modernist assuredly asserts a general inspiration of the Sacred Books, but admits no inspiration in the Catholic

sense.
2091 What the school of modernists imagines about the Church offers a richer field for discussion.--They lay down in

the beginning that the Church arose from a twofold necessity: one in any believer, especially in him who has found

an original and special experience, to communicate his faith to others; the other, after faith has communicated among

many, in collectivity to coalesce into a society and to watch over, increase, and propagate the common good. What,
then, is the Church? It is the fruit of collective conscience, or of the association of individual consciences which,
by virtue ofvital permanence, depends on some first believer, that is, for Catholics, on Christ. Moreover, any
society needs a directing authority, whose duty it is to direct all associates toward the common end, to foster

prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are fulfilled by doctrine and worship. Hence, the
triple authority in the Catholic Churchdisciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical.--Now the nature of the authority is to be
gathered from its origin; from its nature, indeed, its rights and duties are to be sought. In past ages a common error
was that authority came to the Church from without, namely, immediately from God; therefore it was rightly held to

be autocratic. But this conception has now grown obsolete. Just as the Church is said to have emanated from the
collectivity of consciences, so in like manner authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. Authority, then, just as
the Church, originates from religious conscience, and so is subject to the same; and if it spurns this subordination, it
veers towards tyranny. Moreover, we are now living at a time when the sense of liberty has grown to its highest
 point. In the civil state public conscience has introduced popular government. But conscience in man, just as life, is
only one. Unless, then, ecclesiastical authority wishes to excite and foment an intestine war in the conscience of men,
it has an obligation to use democratic forms (of procedure), the more for this reason, because unless it does so,
destruction threatens. For, surely, he is mad who thinks that with the sense of liberty as it now flourishes any

recession can ever take place. If it were restricted and checked by force, it would break forth the stronger, with the
destruction alike of the Church and religion. All this do the modernists think, who as a result are quite occupied with
devising ways to reconcile the authority of the Church with the liberty of believers.
But the Church has not only within the walls of its own household those with whom she should exist on friendly

2092

terms, but she has them outside. For the Church does not occupy the world all by herself; other societies occupy it
equally, with which communications and contacts necessarily take place. These rights, then, which are the duties of
the Church in relation to civil societies, must be determined, and must not be determined otherwise than according
to the nature of the Church herself, as the modernists have indeed described to us.--In this, moreover, they clearly

use the same rules as were introduced above for science and faith. There discussion centered on objects, here on
ends. So, just as by reason of the object we see faith and science extraneous to each other, so the state and Church
are extraneous to each other because of the ends which they pursue; the former pursuing a temporal, the latter a

spiritual end. Of course it was once permitted to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual; it was permitted to

interject discussion onmixed questions, in which the Church was held as mistress and queen, since the Church, of
course, was declared to have been instituted by God without intermediary, inasmuch as He is the author of the
supernatural order. But all this is repudiated by philosophers and historians. The state, then, must be disassociated
from the Church, just as even the Catholic from the citizen. Therefore, any Catholic, since he is also a citizen, has

the right and the duty, disregarding the authority of the Church, pushing aside her wishes, counsels, and precepts,
yes, spurning her rebukes, of pursuing what he thinks is conducive to the good of the state. To prescribe a way of
action for a citizen on any pretext is an abuse of ecclesiastical power, to be rejected by every means.--Of course,
Venerable Brothers, the source from which all this flows is indeed the very source which Pius Vl, Our predecessor,

solemnly condemned [cf. n. 1502 f.] in the Apostolic ConstitutioAuctorem fidei.

2093 But it is not enough for the school of modernists that the state should be separated from the Church. For, just as

faith, as far as phenomenal elements are concerned, as they say, should be subordinated to science, so in temporal

affairs should the Church be subject to the state. This, indeed, they do not by chance say openly, but by reason of

their thinking are forced to admit. For laying down the principle that the state alone has power in temporal matters, if
it happens that the believer, not content with internal acts of religion, proceeds to external acts, as for example, the
administration or reception of the sacraments, these will necessarily fall under the dominion of the state. What, then,
about the authority of the Church? Since this is not explained except through external acts, it will be entirely

responsible to the state. Obviously forced by this conclusion, many of the liberal Protestants entirely reject all
external sacred worship, rather, even any external religious association, and strive to introduce individual religion, as
they say. But if the modernists do not yet proceed openly to this point, they ask meanwhile that the Church of her
own accord tend in the direction in which they themselves impel her, and that she adapt herself to the forms of the

state. Now these are their ideas on disciplinary authority.--On the other hand, by far more evil and pernicious are
their opinions ondoctrinal and dogmatic power. On the magisterium of the Church they comment, for example,
as follows: A religious society can never truly coalesce into one unless the conscience of the associates be one, and
the formula which they use one. But this twofold unity demands a kind of common mind whose duty it is to find and

determine the formula which corresponds best with the common conscience; and this mind must have sufficient
authority to impose on the community the formula which it has determined upon Moreover, in this union and fusion,
as it were, both of the mind which draws up the formula, and of the power which prescribes it, the modernists place
the notion of themagisterium of the Church. Since, then, themagisterium finally arises at some time from the

individual consciences and has as a mandate the public duty to the benefit of the same consciences, it necessarily
follows that themagisterium depends on these, and so must bend to popular forms. Therefore, to prohibit the
consciences of individuals from expressing publicly and openly the impulses which they feel; to obstruct the way of
criticism whereby it impels dogma in the path of necessary evolutions, is not the use but the abuse of the power

permitted for the public weal. Similarly, in the very use of power, measure and moderation are to be applied. To
censure and proscribe any book without the knowledge of the author, without permitting any explanation, without
discussion, is surely very close to tyranny.--Thus, here also a middle course must be found to preserve the rights at
once of authority and liberty. Meanwhile the Catholic must so conduct himself as to proclaim publicly his strict
 respect for authority, yet not to fail to obey his own mind.--In general they prescribe as follows for the Church: that,
since the end of ecclesiastical power pertains onl to th spiritual, all external trappings must be abolished, by which
it is adorned most magnificently for the eyes of the onlookers. In this the following is completely overlooked, that
religion, although it pertains to souls, is not confined to souls exclusively, and that the honor paid to authority

redounds to Christ as its founder.

2094 Moreover, to complete this whole subject of faith and its various branches, it remains for us, Venerable

Brethren, to consider finally the precepts of the modernists on the development of both.--Here is a general principle:

in a religion which is living nothing is without change, and so there must be change. From here they make a step to

what is essentially the chief point in their doctrines, namevolution. Dogma, then, Church, worship, the Books
that we revere as sacred, even faith itself, unless we wish all these to be powerless, must be bound by the laws of
evolution. This cannot appear surprising to you, if you bear in mind what the modernists have taught on each of
these subjects. So, granted the law of evolution, we have the way of evolution described by the modernists

themselves. And first, as regards faith. The primitive form of faith, they say, was crude and common to all men,
since it ha its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution contributed progress; to be sure, not by the
novelty of forms added to it from the outside, but by the daily increasing pervasioof the religious sense into the
conscience. Moreover, this progress was made in two ways: first, in a negative way, by eliminating anything

extraneous, as for example, that might come from family or nation; second, in a positive way, by the intellectual and
moral refinement of man, whereby the notion of the divine becomes fuller and clearer, and the religious sense more
accurate. The same causes for the progress of faith are to be brought forward as were employed to explain its
origins. But to these must be added certain extraordinary men (whom we call prophets, and of whom Christ is the

most outstanding), not only because they bore before themselves in their lives and works something mysterious
which faith attributed to the divinity, but also because they met with new experiences never had before,
corresponding to the religious needs of the time of each.--But the progress of dogma arises chiefly from this, that
impediments to faith have to be overcome, enemies have to be conquered, objections have to be refuted. Add to

this a perpetual struggle to penetrate more deeply the things that are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, to
pass over other examples, it happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something or other, which faith
admitted, was slowly and gradually expanded, so that finally He was held to be God.--The necessity of
accommodating itself to the customs and traditions of the people especially contributed to the evolution of worship;

likewise, the necessity of employing the power of certain acts, which they have acquired by usage.-- Finally, the
cause of evolution as regards the Church arose in this, that she needs to be adjusted to contemporary historical
conditions, and to the forms of civil government publicly in vogue. This do they think regarding each. But before we
proceed we wish that this doctrine of necessities or needs be well noted; for beyond all that we have seen, this is, as

it were, the basis and foundation of that famous method which they call historical.
2095 To linger still on the doctrine of evolution, this is to be noted especially, that, although needs or necessities impel

to evolution, yet if driven by this alone, easily trangressing the boundaries of tradition and thus separating itself from

the primitive vital principle, it would lead to ruin rather than to progress. Thus, following the mind of the modernists

more completely, we shall say that evolution comes out of the conflict of two forces, one of which leads to progress,
the other holds back to conservation. The conserving force flourishes in the Church and is contained in tradition.
Indeed, religious authority makes use of it; and this it does both by right itself, for it is in the nature of authority to
guard tradition, and in fact, for authority remote from the changes of life is pressed on not at all, or very little by the

incentives that drive to progress. On the contrary the force which attracts to progress and responds to the inner
needs, lies hidden, and works in the consciences of individuals, especially of those who attain life, as they say, more
closely and intimately.--Behold here, Venerable Brethren, we perceive that most pernicious doctrine raise it head,
which introduces into the Church the members of the laity as elements of progress.--By a kind of covenant and pact

between these two forces, the conserver and the promoter of progress, namely, between authority and the
consciences of individuals, advances and changes take place. For the consciences of individuals, or certain of them,
act on the collective conscience; but this last acts upon those who have authority, and forces them to effect
agreements and to abide by the pact.--As a result of this, moreover, it is easy to understand why the modernists

marvel so, when they realize that they are caught or are punished. What is held up to them as a fault, they
themselves hold as a religious duty to be fulfilled. No one knows the needs of consciences better than they
themselves, because they come in closer touch with them than does ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, they gather
all these needs, as it were, within themselves; and so they are bound by the duty of speaking and writing publicly.

Let authority rebuke them, if it wishes; they themselves are supported by the conscience of duty, and they know by
 intimate experience that they deserve not criticism but praise. Surely it does not escape them that progress is by no
means made without struggles, nor struggles without victims; so let they themselves be victims, just as the prophets
and Christ. Because they are held in evil repute, they do not look askance at authority on this account; they even

concede that it is carrying out its duty. They complain only that they are not heard; for thus the course of souls is
impeded; yet the time to put an end to delays will most certainly come, for the laws of evolution can be halted, but
they can by no means be broken. Therefore, they continue on their established road; they continue, although refuted
and condemned, concealing their incredible audacity with a veil of feigned humility. Indeed, they bow their heads in

pretense, yet with their hands and minds they boldly follow through what they have undertaken. Moreover, thus they
act quite willingly and wittingly, both because they hold that authority must be stimulated and not overturned, and
because it is a necessity for them to remain within the fold of the Church, that they may gradually change the
collective conscience. Yet when they say this, they do not remark that they confess that the collective conscience is

apart from them, and thus without right they commend themselves as its interpreters. . . . [Then is adduced and
explained what is contained in this Enchiridion n1636 1705 , 1800 ].--But after we have observed the philosopher,
believer, and theologian among the followers of modernism, it now remains for us to observe the historian, critic,
apologist, and reformer in like manner.

2096 [IV] Certain of the modernists who have given themselves over to composing history, seem especially solicitous

lest they be believed to be philosophers; why, they even profess to be entirely without experience of philosophy.

This they do with consummate astuteness, lest, for example, anyone think that they are imbued with the prejudiced
opinions of philosophy, and for this reason, as they say, are not at objective. the truth is that their history or

criticism bespeaks pure philosophy; and whatever conclusions are arrived at by them, are derived by right reasoning
from their philosophic principles. This is indeed easily apparent to one who reflects.--The first three canons of such
historians and critics, as we have said, are those same principles which we adduced from the philosophers above:
namely, agnosticism, the theorem of thetransfigura- tion of things by faith, and likewise another which it seemed

could be called disfiguration. Let us now note the consequences that come from them individually.--According to
agnosticism, history, just as science, is concerned only with phenomena. Therefore, just as God, so any divine
intervention in human affairs must be relegated to faith, as belonging to it alone. Thus, if anything occurs consisting of
a double element, divine and human, such as are Christ, the Church, the sacraments, and many others of this kind,

there will have to be a division and separation, so that what was human may be assigned to history, and what divine
to faith. Thus, the distinction common among the modernists between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith, the
Church of history and the Church of faith, the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and other similar
distinctions in general.--Then this human element itself, which we see the historian assume for himself, must be

mentioned, such as appears in documents, raised above historical conditions by faith through transfiguration. so,
the additions made by faith must in turn be dissociated, and relegated to faith itself, and to the history of faith; so
when Christ is being discussed, whatever surpasses the natural condition of man, as is shown by psychology, or has
been raised out of the place and the time in which He lived, must be dissociated.--Besides, in accord with the third

principle of philosophy those things also which do not pass beyond the field of history, they view through a sieve, as
it were, and eliminate all and relegate likewise to faith, which in their judgment, as they say, are not in the logic of
facts or suited to the characters. Thus they do not will that Christ said those things which appear to exceed the
capacity of the listening multitude. Hence from Hisreal history they delete and transfer to faith all his allegories that

occur in His discourses. Perhaps we shall ask by what law these matters are dissociated? From the character of the
man, from the condition which He enjoyed in the state; from His education, from the complexus of the incidents of
any fact, in a word, if we understand well, from a norm which finally at some time recedes into the merely
subjective. They aim, of course, themselves to take on the character of Christ and, as it were, to make it the own;

whatever, in like circumstances they would have done, all this they transfer to Christ.--Thus then to concludea
priori and according to certain principles of philosophy which they in truth hold but profess to ignore, they affirm
that Christ, in what they calrealhistory, is not God and never did anything divine; indeed, that He did and said as a
man what they themselves attribute to Him the right of doing and saying, taking themselves back to His times.

2097 [V] Moreover, as history receives its conclusions from philosophy, so criticism takes its conclusions from

history. For the critic, following the indications furnished by the historian, divides documents in two ways. Whatever

is left after the threefold elimination just mentioned he assignreal history; the rest he delegates to the history of
faith orinternal history. For they distinguish sharply between these two histories; the history of faith (and this we

wish to be well noted) they oppose to the real history, as it is real. Thus, as we have already said, the two Christs:
one real, the other, who never was in fact, but pertains to faith; one who lived in a certain place and in a certain age;
 another, who is found only in the pious commentaries of faith; such, for example, is the Christ whom the Gospel of
John presents, which, according to them is nothing more or less than a meditation.

2098 But the domination of philosophy over history is not ended with this. After the documents have been distributed

in a twofold manner, the philosopher is again on hand with his dogma of vital immanence; and he declares that all

things in the history of the Church are to be explained bvital emanation. But either the cause or the condition of
vital emanation is to be placed in some need or want; therefore, too, the fact must be conceived after the need,

and the one is historically posterior to the other. --Why then the historian? Having scrutinized the documents again,
either those that are contained in the Sacred Books or have been introduced from elsewhere, he draws up from
them an index of the particular needs which relate not only to dogma but to liturgy, and other matters which have
had a place one after the other in the Church. He hands over the index so made to the critic. Now he (the critic)

takes in hand the documents which are devoted to the history of faith, and he so arranges them age by age that they
correspond one by one with the index submitted, always mindful of the precept that the fact is preceded by the
need, and the need by the fact. Surely, it may at times happen that some parts of the Bible, as for example the
epistles, are the fact itself created by the need. Yet whatever it is, the law is that the age of any document is not to

be determined otherwise than by the age of any need that has arisen in the Church.--Besides, a distinction must be
made between the origin of any fact and the development of the same, for what can be born on one day, takes on
growth only with the passage of time .For this reason the critic must, as we have said, again divide the documents
already distributed through the ages, separating the ones which have to do with the origin of the thing, and those

which pertain to its development, and he must in turn arrange them by periods.
2099 Then again there is place for the philosopher, who enjoins upon the historian so to exercise his zeal as the

precepts and laws of evolution prescribe. Thereupon the historian examines the documents again; examines carefully

the circumstances and conditions which the Church has experienced for period after period: her conserving power,

the needs both internal and external which have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles which have been in her
way, in a word, everything whatsoever which helps to determine how the laws of evolution have been kept. Finally,
after this he describes the history of the development in broad outlines, as it were. The critic comes in and adapts
the rest of the documents. He applies his hand to writing. The history is finished.--Now we ask, to whom is this

history to be ascribed? To the historian or to the critic? Surely to neither; but to the philosopher. The whole business
is carried on throughapriorism; and indeed by an apriorism reeking with heresy. Surely such men are to be pitied,
of whom the Apostle would have said: "They become vain in their thoughts . . . professing themselves to be wise
they became fools" [ Rom. 1:21-22 ]; but yet they move us to anger, when they accuse the Church of so confusing

and changing documents that they may testify to her advantage. Surely they charge the Church with that for which
they feel that they themselves are openly condemned by their own conscience.
2100 Furthermore, as a result of this division and arrangement of the documents by ages it naturally follows that the

Sacred Books cannot be attributed to those authors to whom in fact they are ascribed. For this reason the

modernists generally do not hesitate to assert that those same books, especially the Pentateuch and the first three
Gospels, from the brief original account grew gradually by additions, by interpolations, indeed, in the manner of
either theological or allegorical interpretations; or even by the interjection of parts solely to join different passages
together.--To state it briefly and more clearly, there must certainly be admitted tvitalevolution of the Sacred

Books, born of the evolution of faith and corresponding to the same.--Indeed, they add that the traces of this
evolution are so manifest that its history can almost be described. Nay, rather, they do in fact describe it with no
hesitation, so that you would believe that they saw the very writers with their own eyes as they applied their hand in
every age to amplifying the Sacred Books. Moreover, to support these actions they call to their aid a criticism which

they call textual; and they strive to convince us that this or that fact or expression is not in its own place, and they
bring forward other such arguments.--You would indeed say that they had prescribed for themselves certain types,
as it were, of narrations and discourses, as a result of which they decide with certainty what stands in its own place
or in a strange place.--Let him who wishes judge how skilled they can be to make decisions in this way. Moreover,

he who gives heed to them as they talk about their studies on the Sacred Books, as a result of which it was granted
them to discover so many things improperly stated, would almost believe that no man before them had turned the
pages of these same books; and that an almost infinite number of doctors had not examined them from every point
of view, a group clearly far superior to them in mind, and erudition, and sanctity of life. These very wise doctors

indeed, far from finding fault with the Sacred Scriptures in any part, rather, the more thoroughly they investigated
 them, the more they gave thanks to divine authority for having deigned so to speak with men. But alas, our doctors
with respect to the Sacred Books did not rely upon those aids on which the modernists did; thus they did not have
philosophy as a master and guide, nor did they choose themselves as their own authority in making decisions. Now,

then, we think that it is clear of what sort the method of the modernists is in the field of history. The philosopher
goes ahead; the historian succeeds him; right behind, in order, works criticism, both internal and textual. And since it
is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its power to its consequences, it becomes evident that such
criticism is not criticism at all; that it is rightagnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist; and that so, he who

professes it and uses it, professes the errors implicit in the same and opposes Catholic doctrine.--For this reason it
can seem most strange that criticism of this kind has such weight today among Catholics. This obviously has a
twofold cause: first of all the pact by which the historians and the critics of this kind are so closely joined, the
differences of nationality and the dissension of religions being placed in the background; then the endless effrontery

by which all with one voice extol whatever each of them prattles, and attribute it to the progress of science; by
which in close array they attack him who wishes to examine the new marvel or his own; by which they accuse him
who denies it of ignorance, adorn him with praises who embraces and defends it. Thus no small number are
deceived who, if they should examine the matter more closely, would be horrified.--From this powerful domineering

on the part of those in error, and this heedless compliance on the part of fickle souls, a corruption in the surrounding
atmosphere results which penetrates everywhere and diffuses its pestilence.
2101 [VI] But let us pass on to the apologist. He, too, among the modernists depends in a twofold manner upon the

philosopher. First,indirectly,taking history as his subject matter, written at the dictation of the philosopher, as we

have seen; then directly, having obtained his doctrines and judgments from him. Hence that precept widespread in
the school of the modernists that the new apologetics should resolve controversies over religion by historical and
psychological investigations. Therefore, the modernist apologist approaches his task by advising the rationalists that
they defend religion not by means of the Sacred Books, nor by history as widely employed in the Church which is

written in the old way, but byreal history composed of modern principles and the modern method. And this they
assert not as if using aargumentum ad hominem, but because in very fact they think that only such history hands
down the truth. They are indeed unconcerned about asserting their sincerity in what they write; they are already
known among the nationalists; they are already praised for doing service under the same banner; and on this praise,

which a real Catholic would reject, they congratulate themselves, and, hold it up against the reprimands of the
Church.--But now let us see how one of them proceeds in his apologies. The end which he places before himself for
accomplishment, is this: to win a person thus far inexperienced in the faith over to it, that he may attain this
experience of the Catholic religion, which according to the modernists is the only basis of faith. A twofold way is

open to this: oneobjective, the othersubjective. The first proceeds from agnosticism, and it strives to show that
that vital virtue is in religion, especially the Catholic religion, which persuades every psychologist and likewise
historian of good mind that in its history something of tunknown must be concealed. To this end it is necessary to
show that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is exactly that which Christ founded, or that it is nothing other than

the progressive development of that germ which Christ introduced. First, then, it must be determined of what nature
the germ is. This, furthermore, they wish to prove by the following formula: The Christ announced the coming of the
kingdom of God, which was to be established shortly; and that He Himself would be its Messias, that is, the divinely
given founder and ordainer. Then it must be shown in what way this germ, always immanent and permanent in the

Catholic religion, has evolved gradually, and according to history, and has adapted itself to succeeding
circumstances, taking to itself from thesvitally whatever of the doctrinal, cultural, and ecclesiastical forms was
useful to it, but meanwhile overcoming such obstacles as met it, scattering its enemies, and surviving all attacks and
combats. Yet after it has been shown that all these, namely, obstacles, enemies, attacks, combats, and likewise the

vitality and fecundity of Church have been of such nature that, although the laws of evolution appear unimpaired in
the history of the Church, yet they are not alike to be fully developed by the same history; the unknown will stand
before it, and will present itself of its own accord.--Thus do they argue. In all this reasoning, however, they fail to
notice one thing, that that determination of the primitive germ is due solely to the apriorism of the agnostic and

evolutionist philosopher, and the germ itself is so gratuitously defined by them as to fit in with their case.
2102 Yet while by reciting arguments the new apologists struggle to proclaim and bring conviction to the Catholic

religion, of their own accord they grant and concede that there is much in it which offends. With a kind of

ill-concealed pleasure they even declare repeatedly and openly that they find errors and contradictions also in the

field of dogma; yet they add that these not only admit of an excuse, but, which should be an object of wonder, that
these have been produced rightly and lawfully. Thus, even according to themselves much in the Sacred Books
 within the field of science and history is affected by error. But they say that here it is not a question of science or
history, but only of religion and morals. There science and history are a kind of covering with which the religious and

moral experiences are bound, so that they may be more easily spread among the masses; since, indeed, the masses
would not understand this otherwise, a more perfect kind of science and history would not have been a help but a
harm to them. But, they add, the Sacred Books, because they are religious by nature, necessarily possess life; now,
life also has its own truth and logic, quite different from rational truth and rational logic, rather of an entirely differe

order, namely, the truth of comparison and proportion not only with reference to the medium (so they themselves
call it) in which it is lived, but also with reference to the end for which it is lived. Finally, they proceed to such a poi
that, abandoning all restraint, they assert that whatever is evolved through life, is entirely true and legitimate.--Now
We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is one, unique truth, and who regard the Sacred Books thus, "that written

under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they have God as their author" [see 1787 ], declare that this is the same as
giving the lie of utility, or the officious lie to God Himself, and We assert in the words of St. Augustine: "Once some
officious lie is admitted against so high an authority, there will remain not a clause in those books which, according
as it will appear to anyone difficult to practice or incredible of belief, is not referred according to this same

pernicious rule to the plan and purpose of a lying author.* Therefore it will happen, as the same Holy Doctor adds:
"In these, namely the Scriptures, everyone will believe what he wishes; what he does not wish, he will not
believe."--But the modernist apologists move forward rapidly. They also concede that in the Sacred Books such
reasonings are frequently discovered which attempt to prove a certain doctrine without rational foundation; such

kind are those which rest upon the prophecies. And they defend these as a kind of artifice for preaching, which are
made legitimate by life. What more? They admit, rather, they assert that Christ Himself manifestly erred in indicating
the time of the coming of the kingdom of God; and this should not seem strange, they say, for He, too, was bound
by the laws of life! Again, what about the dogmas of the Church? These also abound in open contradictions; but in

addition to the fact that they are admitted by vital logic, they are not opposed to symbolic truth; for in these it is a
question of the infinite, to which belong infinite considerations. Finally, they so prove and defend all this that they do
not hesitate to profess that no more noble honor is shown the Infinite than the affirming of contradictions about
Him.--But when a contradiction is approved, what will not be approved?

2103 He who does not yet believe can be disposed toward faith not only by objective but also bysubjective

arguments. To this end the modernist apologists return to the doctrine ofimmanence. They labor in fact to

persuade man that in him, and in the innermost recesses of his nature and life are concealed a desire and need for
some religion; not for any religion, but for such a one as is the Catholic religion; for this, they say, is ab-

absolutely postulated by the perfect development of life.--Here, moreover, we should again complain vigorously
that there are not lacking among Catholics those who, although they reject the doctrine ofimmanence as a
doctrine, yet employ it as a method of apology; and they do this so heedlessly that they seem to admit in human
nature not only a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural order, as certain Catholic apologists have always

demonstrated within proper bounds, but a genuine need in the true sense of the word.--To speak more accurately,
this need of the Catholic religion is introduced by modernists who wish to be known as the more moderate. For,
those who can be called integralists wish that the germ be demonstrated to the man who does not yet believe, as
being hidden in him, the very germ which was in the consciousness of Christ and was transmitted to men by

Him.--Thus then, Venerable Brethren, we recognize the apologetic method of the modernists, summarily described,
as quite in keeping with their doctrine; a method indeed, as also the doctrines, full of errors, not suited for edifying,
but for destroying, not for making Catholics, but for dragging Catholics into heresy, yes, even for the complete
subversion of every religion.

2104 [VII] Finally, a few words must be said about the modernist as a reformer. What we have said thus far shows

abundantly with how great and keen a zeal for innovating these men are carried away. Moreover, this zeal extends

to absolutely everything which exists among Catholics. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in
ecclesiastical seminaries, so that, after relegating scholastic philosophy to the history of philosophy along with the

other obsolete systems, youth may be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and in accord with our
age.--To reform theology, they wish that that which we call rational have modern philosophy as a basis, but they
demand that positive theology be based especially upon the history of dogma.--They also demand that history be
written and be taught according to their method and modern prescriptions. Dogmas and the evolution of the same,

they declare, must be brought into harmony with science and history.--As regards catechesis, they demand that only
those dogmas be noted in catechism, which have been reformed, and are within the capacity of the masses. As for
worship they say that external devotions are to be reduced in number, and that steps be taken to prevent their
 increase, although some who are more favorable toward symbolism show themselves more indulgent on this

score.--They cry out that the government of the Church must be reformed in every respect, but especially on the
disciplinary and dogmatic side. Thus, both within and without it is to be brought in harmony with the modern
conscience, as they say, which tends entirely towards democracy; so to the lower clergy and to laity itself
appropriate parts in the government should be assigned, and when authority has been unified too much and too

centralized, it is to be dispersed.--The Roman congregations they likewise wish to be modified in the performance
of their holy duties, but especially that which is known as tHoly Office and is also called thIndex. Likewise,
they contend that the action of ecclesiastical authority must be changed in the political and social fields, so that it
may at the same time live apart from civil affairs, yet adapt itself to them in order to imbue them with its spirit.--In

the field of morals they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are to be placed before the
passive, and should be put ahead of them in practice.--They desire that the clergy be prepared to practice the
ancient humility and poverty; moreover, that in thought and deed they conform with the precepts of
modernism.--Finally, there are some who, giving heed to the words of their Protestant masters, desire the removal

of holy celibacy itself from the priesthood--What, then, do they leave untouched in the Church, that is not to be
reformed by them or according to their pronouncements?
2105 In explaining all this doctrine of the modernists, Venerable Brethren, We shall seem to some, by chance, to have

delayed too long. Yet it was quite necessary to do so, both that, as is customary, We might not be charged by them

with ignorance of their tenets, and that it might be clear that when it is a question of modernism we are dealing not
with scattered teachings in no way connected with one another, but with a single and compact body, as it were, in
which, if you admit one thing, the rest necessarily follows. Thus we have made use of what amounts to didactic
reasoning, and sometimes we have not rejected the atrocious words which the modernists have employed.

Now as we look back upon the whole system in one glance, as it were, no one will be surprised when we
define it as the synthesis of all heresies. Surely, if anyone had proposed this to himself, to bring together into one the
sap and blood of all the errors that have ever existed about the faith, no one would have performed the task more
completely than the modernists have done it. Rather they have gone so much beyond this as not only to destroy

completely the Catholic religion, but all religion, as We have already intimated. Hence, the applause of the
rationalists; for this reason do those among the rationalists who speak more freely and openly congratulate
themselves on having found no more efficacious allies than the modernists.
Now let us return for a moment, Venerable Brothers, to that most pernicious doctrine of agnosticism. By it

2106

evidently, as far as the intellect is concerned, every way to God is barred to man, while a more fitting approach is
supposed to be open through a certain sense of the soul and action. Who does not see how wrong this is? For the
sense of the soul is the response to the action of the thing which the intellect and the external senses have proposed.
Take away the intellect and man will be prone to follow the external senses, in which direction he is already

proceeding. Again this is bad; for any phantasies of the religious sense will not destroy common sense; moreover,
by common sense we are taught that any disturbance or occupation of the soul is not a help but rather a hindrance
to the search for truth, for truth, we say, as it is in itself; for tsubjective truth, the fruit of the internal sense
and action, if indeed it is adapted to play, contributes nothing at all to man whose chief concern it is to learn whether

outside himself there is a God into whose hands he will one day fall.--But the modernists do introduce experience as
an aid to so great a task. Yet, what will this add to that sense of the soul? Nothing at all, except to make it more
vehement; and as a result of this vehemence to make its conviction of the truth of the object proportionately
stronger. Now these two certainly never make the sense of the soul cease to be sense, nor do they change its nature

which is always liable to deception, unless it is directed by the intellect; but rather they confirm and assist it, for the
more intense the sense, by that greater right it is sense.
2107 Now since we are here dealing with religious sense and the experience contained in it, you know well,

Venerable Brethren, how much there is need of prudence in this matter; likewise how much doctrine to guide

prudence itself. You know this from your own experience with souls, especially certain ones in whom the sense is
pre-eminent; you know it from your habit of reading books which treat of asceticism, which works, although they
are of little worth in the estimation of the modernists, yet present a doctrine far more solid and more profound for
observing wisdom than that which they arrogate to themselves. Indeed, it seems to Us the part of madness, or at

least consummate imprudence, to hold as true without investigation the intimate experiences which the modernists
recommend. But why, to speak cursorily, if there is so much force and value in these experiences, should not the
 same value be attributed to that experience which many thousands of Catholics assert that they have regarding the
erroneous path on which the modernists tread? Is not all this false and fallacious? But the great majority of men

firmly hold this, and will hold this: that through sense alone and experience, with no guidance and light of the mind,
man can never attain God. And so we again have atheism, and no religion.
2108 The modernists promise themselves nothing better by proclaiming the doctrine of symbolism. For if all

intellectual elements, as they say, are merely symbols of God, will not the very name of God, or of the divine

personality be a symbol. And if this is so, then there will be a possibility of doubt about the divine personality and
the way is open to pantheism. Moreover, in the same way the other doctrine of divine immanence leads to pure and
unmixed pantheism. For we ask this: Does such immanence distinguish God from man or not? If it does so
distinguish, in what then does it differ from Catholic doctrine, or why does it reject the doctrine of external

revelation? If it does not so distinguish, we have pantheism. But this immanence of the modernists holds and grants
that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. Thus good reasoning infers from this that God
and man are one and the same; and so we have pantheism.
Indeed, the distinction which they proclaim between science and faith admits no other conclusion. For, they

2109

place the object of science in the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, in the reality of the
unknowable. Now, the unknowable is fully established from this, that between the material object and the intellect
there is no proportion, and this defect of proportion can never be removed, not even in the doctrine of the
modernists. Therefore, the unknowable will always remain unknowable, to the believer as well as to the

philosopher. Therefore, if we will possess any religion, it will be of an unknowable reality. Why this cannot also be
the soul of the universe, as certain rationalists admit, we certainly do not see. But let these words suffice now to
show fully how the doctrine of the modernists leads by manifold routes to atheism, and to the destruction of all
religion. Indeed, the error of the Protestants was the first to take the step down this road; the error of the

modernists follows; atheism will be the next step. [After fixing the causes of these errors-- curiosity, pride, ignorance
of true philosophy--certain rules are laid down for the support and organization of philosophical, theological, and
profane studies, and for the cautious selection of teachers, etc.]

The Author and Historical Truth of the Fourth Gospel *

[Response of the Biblical Commission, May 29, 1907]

Question I: Whether from the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church coming down from the

2110

second century, inasmuch as it is taken chiefly a) from the testimonies and allusions of the Holy Fathers,
ecclesiastical writers, even heretics, which, since they must derive from the disciples and first successors of the
apostles, are necessarily closely connected with the very origin of the work itself; b) from the acceptance always
and everywhere of the name of the author of the fourth Gospel in the Canon and in the catalogues of the Sacred

Scriptures; c) from the oldest manuscripts, codices, and versions in various languages of the same Books; d) from
the public liturgical practice obtaining in the whole world from the beginnings of the Church; prescinding from
theological proof, it is demonstrated by such strong historical proof that John the Apostle and no other is to be
recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel, that the reasons adduced by critics in opposition by no means

weaken this tradition?--Answer: In the affirmative.

2111 Question II: Whether the internal reasons also, which are taken from the text of the fourth Gospel, considered

separately, from the testimony of the author and the manifest relationship of the Gospel itself with the First Epistle of

the Apostle John, are to be considered as confirming the tradition which undoubtedly attributes the fourth Gospel to

the same Apostle?--And whether the difficulties which are assumed from a comparison of the Gospel with the other
three, the diversity of the times, purposes, and audiences, for whom and against whom the author wrote, being kept
in view, can be reasonably solved, just as the most Holy Fathers and exegetes have shown in different
places?--Answer: In the affirmative to both parts.

2112 Question III: Whether, not withstanding the practice which flourished constantly in the whole Church from the

earliest times, of arguing from the fourth Gospel as from a truly historical document, in consideration, nevertheless,

of the peculiar nature of the same Gospel, and of the manifest intention of the author to illustrate and to prove the
divinity of Christ from the very deeds and words of the Lord, it can be said that the deeds related in the fourth

Gospel are totally or partially so invented that they are allegories or doctrinal symbols; but that the words of the
Lord are not properly and truly the words of the Lord himself, but theological compositions of the writer, although
placed in the mouth of the Lord?-- Answer: In the negative.

The Authority of the Decisions of the Biblical Commission *

[From Motu prop Rio, "Praestantia Scripturae," Nov. 18, 1907]

. . . After long discussions and most conscientious deliberations, certain excellent decisions have been published

2113

by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, very useful for the true advancement of Biblical studies and for directing the
same by a definite norm. Yet we notice that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive
such decisions with the obedience which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff.
Therefore, we see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order, that all are

bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which
have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred
Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such
decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of

grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be
responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously.
2114 In addition to this, intending to repress the daily increasing boldness of spirit of many Modernists, who by

sophisms and artifices of every kind endeavor to destroy the force and the efficacy not only of the Decree,

"Lamentabili sane exitu," which was published at Our command by the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition on
the third of July of the current year [see 2071 ff.], but also of Our Encyclical Letter, "Pascendi Dominici gregis,"
given on the eighth of September of this same year [see n. 2071 ff.] by Our Apostolic authority, We repeat and
confirm not only that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation, but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours, adding

the penalty of excommunication against all who contradict them; and We declare and decree this: if anyone, which
may God forbid, proceeds to such a point of boldness that he defends any of the propositions, opinions, and
doctrines disproved in either document mentioned above, he is ipso facto afflicted by the censure imposed in the
 chapter Docentes of the Constitution of the Apostolic See, first among those excommunications latae sententiae

which are reserved simply to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication, however, is to be understood with no
change in the punishments, which those who have committed anything against the above mentioned documents may
incur, if at any time their propositions, opinions, or doctrines are heretical; which indeed has happened more than
once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, but especially when they defend the errors of

modernism, that is, the refuge of all heresies.

The Nature and Authorship of the Book of Isaias *

[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 28th, 1908]

2115 Question I: Whether it can be taught that the prophecies which are read in the book of Isaias, and here and

there in the Scriptures, are not prophecies in the true sense of the word, but either accounts composed after the

event or, if it is necessary that they be acknowledged as being foretold before the event, that the prophet foretold

them not from any natural revelation of God who knows the future, but by a kind of happy sagacity and natural
acumen of the mind from things that have already happened?-- Reply: In the negative.
2116 Question II: Whether the opinion which prevails that Isaias and the other prophets uttered only prophecies

which were to take place in the near future, or after no great space of time, can be reconciled with those

prophecies, especially the Messianic and eschatological, which were certainly pronounced by these same prophets
a long time in advance, and also with the common opinion of the Holy Fathers who assert with one accord that the
prophets foretold those things also which were to be fulfilled after many ages?-Reply: In the negative.
Question III: Whether it can be admitted that the prophets, not only as reformers of human depravity, and

2117

heralds of the divine Word for the benefit of those who heed it, but also as foretellers of future events, must have
continually addressed themselves, not to future listeners but to contemporary ones, on an equal footing with
themselves, and in a manner to make possible a clear understanding; that as a consequence the second part of book
of Isaias (chapter 40, 66), in which the prophet living among them addresses and consoles not the Jews on an equal

footing with Isaias, but the lamenting in Babylonian exile, cannot have had Isaias himself, who was already dead, as
its author, but should be assigned to some unknown prophet living among the exiles?-- Reply: In the negative.
2118 Question IV: Whether the philological argument taken from the language and style to impugn the identity of the

author of the book of Isaias, is to be considered of such importance as to force a serious person, skilled in the art of

criticism and in the Hebrew language, to recognize in the same book a plurality of authors?-Reply: In the negative.
2119 Question V: Whether solid arguments stand out, even taken collectively, to induce the conviction that the Book

of Isaias is not to be attributed to Isaias himself alone, but to two, or even to several authoReply: In the

negative.

The Relationship Between Philosophy and Theology *

[From the Encyclical, "Communium rerum,'' April 21, 1909]
2120 . . . (Therefore) the task of philosophy is chiefly to set forth prominently the "reasonable servRom. 12:1 ] of

our faith, and the duty which follows from that of joining faith to divine authority which proposes the most profound

mysteries which, proven by many evidences of truth, "are become exceedingly credible" [ Ps. 92:5 ]. Far different
from this is the task of theology, which relies on divine revelation and makes more solid in the faith those who

confess that they rejoice in the honor of the Christian name; for no Christian should dispute how what the Catholic
Church believes in heart, and confesses in words is not so; but always unhesitatingly holding to the same faith, but
loving and living according to it, humbly seek the reason, insofar as he can, how it is so. If he can understand, let him
give thanks to God; if he cannot let him not push his horns to the struggle [C1 Mach. 7:46 ], but let him submit his

head to veneration.

The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis *

[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]

2121 Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical

sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are

sustained by a solid foundation?--Reply: In the negative.

2122 Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of

the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the

manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy
Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it

can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really
happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in
fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic
doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality,

set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in pa
and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souReply: In the negative to both
parts.
Question 111: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a

2123

matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example,
among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the
formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first
parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience;

the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of
our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restoReply: In the negative.
2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have

understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while

preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which
everyone has wisely approved?-- Reply: In the affirmative.
2125 Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned

chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this,

even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or
anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment?--
Reply: In the negative.
Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical

2126
 interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself
2127 Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to
teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to

give to his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the
understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the
interpretation of these?-Reply: In the negative.

2128 Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first
chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the
improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free

disagreement among exegetes?-- Reply: In the affirmative.

The Authors and the Time ofthe Composition of the Psalms *

[Reply of the Biblical Commission, May 1, 1910]

Question 1: Whether the designations Psalms of David, Hymns of David, Davidian Psalter, used in the
2129

ancient collections and in the Councils themselves to designate the Book of 150 psalms of the Old Testament, just

as also the opinion of many Fathers and Doctors who held that absolutely all the psalms of the Psalter are to be
ascribed to David alone, have such force that David ought to be held as the only author of the entire Psalter?--
Reply: In the negative.

2130 Question 11: Whether from a comparison of the Hebraic with the Alexandrian Greek text and with other old

versions it can rightly be argued that the titles of the psalms prefixed to the Hebraic text are more ancient than the

so-called version of the seventy men; and therefore have derived, if not directly from the authors themselves of the
psalms, at least from an old Judaic tradition?Reply: In the affirmative.

2131 Question III: Whether the aforesaid titles of the psalms, witnesses of the Judaic tradition, since there is not

serious argument against their authenticity, can prudently be called into doubt?Reply: In the negative.

2132 Question IV: Whether, if the by no means infrequent testimonies of Holy Scripture about the natural skill of

David, illustrated by the grace of the Holy Spirit in composing the religious hymns, are considered, the institutions

established by him on the liturgical singing of the psalms, the attributing of the psalms to him both in the Old
Testament and the New, and in the inscriptions themselves which were prefixed to the psalms from antiquity,
besides the consensus of opinion of the Jews, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, it can be prudently denied that
David is the chief author of the hymns of the Psalter; or on the other hand affirmed that only a few hymns of the

Psalter are to be attributed to himReply:-- In the negative to both parts.

2133 Question V: Whether in appearance the Davidian origin can be denied to those psalms which are cited in the

Old and New Testament distinctly under the name of David, among which to be considered before the rest come:

psalm 2, Quare fremuerunt gentes; psalm 15, Conserva me, Domine; psalm 17 Diligam te, Domine, fortitudo
 mea; psalm 31, Beati, Quorum remissae sunt iniquitates; psalm 68, Salvum me fac, Deus; psalm 109, Dixit
Dominus Domino meo?--Reply: In the negative.
2134 Question Vl: Whether the opinion of those can be admitted who hold that among the psalms of the psalter

some, whether of David or of other authors, which for liturgical and musical reasons, the listlessness of the

amanuenses, or for other unknown reasons, have been divided into several groups or joined into one; and likewise
that there are other psalms, such asMiserere mei, Deus, which, that they may be made to fit in better with historic
circumstances or the solemnities of the Jewish people, have been lightly revised and modified by the subtraction or
addition of one or two verses, although preserving the inspiration of the entire sacred textReply: In the affirmative

to both parts.
2135 Question Vll: Whether the opinion can probably be sustained of those among more recent writers who, relying

on internal indications only, or on an inaccurate interpretation of the sacred text, tried to show that not a few psalms

were composed after the times of Esdras and Nehemias, even in the late period of the Machabees.--Reply: In the

negative.
2136 Question VIII: Whether because of the many testimonies of the Sacred Books of the New Testament, and the

unanimous consent of the Fathers, together also with the indications of the writers of the Judaic nation, more psalms

should be recognized as prophetic and messianic, which have predicted the coming of the future Liberator, the

kingdom, the priesthood, the passion, the death, and resurrection; and therefore their opinion ought to be
completely rejected, who pervert the prophetic and messianic nature of the psalms and restrict the same oracles on
Christ only to pronouncing the future lot of the elect people?Reply: In the affirmative for both parts.

The Age for Admitting to First Eucharistic Communion *

[From the Decree, "Quem singular)," of the Congregation on the Sacraments, August 8, 1910]
2137 I. The age of discretion both for confession and for Holy Communion is that at which the child begins to reason,

that is, at about the seventh year, more or less. The obligation of satisfying both precepts of confession and

communion begins from that time [see n. 437 ].

2138 II. For first confession and for first communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not

necessary. But the child will be obliged afterwards to learn gradually the whole catechism in accord with his

intelligence.

2139 III. The knowledge of religion which is required in a child, that he may prepare himself fittingly for his first

communion, is that by which in accord with his capacity he perceives the mysteries of faith necessary by a necessity

of means, and by which he distinguishes Eucharistic bread from the common and corporeal, in order that he may
approach the most blessed Eucharist with that devotion which his age carries.

2140 IV. The obligation of the precept of confession and communion which rests upon a child, falls especially upon
 those who should have care of him, that is, upon parents, confessor, teachers, and pastor. But to the father, or to

those who take his place, and to the confessor, it pertains, according to the Roman Catechism, to admit the child to
first communion.

2141 V. Once or several times a year let the pastors take care to announce and to hold general communion for

children, and to admit to it not only new communicants but also others who by the consent of their parents or

confessor, as has been mentioned above, have already partaken for the first time from the holy altar. Let some days
for instruction and preparation be set aside in advance.

2142 VI. Those who have charge over children must make every effort to see that these same children after first

communion approach the holy table often, and, if it can be done, daily, just as Jesus Christ and Mother Church

desire [see n.1981 ff.]; and that they do this with that devotion of mind which is appropriate to such an age. Let
those who have this responsibility remember besides the very serious obligation by which they are bound, see to it

that the children themselves continue to be present at the public instructions in catechism, or otherwise in some
manner supply the same with religious instruction.
2143 VII. The custom of never admitting children to confession, or of never absolving them when they have arrived at

the use of reason, is to be disapproved entirely. Therefore, the local ordinaries will see to it, even by applying the

remedy of the law, that this custom is entirely abandoned.

2144 VIII. The abuse of not administering Viaticum and extreme unction to children past the age of reason, and of

burying them according to the rite of infants is entirely an abuse. Let the local ordinaries deal severely with those

who do not abandon such a custom.

The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism *

[From Mot?' proprio, "Sacrorum antistitum,', September 1, 1910]

2145 I . . . firmly embrace and accept all and everything that has been defined, affirmed, and declared by the unerring

magisterium of the Church, especially those chief doctrines which are directly opposed to the errors of this time.

And first, I profess that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be certainly known and thus can also be
demon strafed by the natural light of reason "by the things that are made" [cRom. 1:20 ], that is, by the visible

works of creation, as the cause by the effects. Secondly, I admit and recognize the external arguments of revelation,
that is, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, as very certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian
religion; and I hold that these same arguments have been especially accommodated to the intelligence of all ages and
men, even of these times. Thirdly, likewise, with a firm faith I believe that the Church, guardian and mistress of the

revealed word, was instituted proximately and directly by the true and historical Christ Himself, while he sojourned
among us, and that the same was built upon Peter, the chief of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the
end of time. Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox
fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the
 evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had; and
likewise I reject all error whereby a philosophic fiction is substituted for the divine deposit, given over to the Spouse
of Christ and to be guarded faithfully by her, or a creation of the human conscience formed gradually by the efforts
of men and to be perfected by indefinite progress in the future. Fifthly, I hold most certainly and profess sincerely

that faith is not a blind religious feeling bursting forth from the recesses of the subconscious, unformed morally under
the pressure of the heart and the impulse of the will, but the true assent of the intellect to the truth received
extrinsically eauditu, whereby we believe that what has been said, attested, and revealed by the personal God,
our Creator and Lord, to be true on account of the authority of God the highest truth.

2146 I also subject myself with the reverence which is proper, and I adhere with my whole soul to all the

condemnations, declarations, and prescriptions which are contained in the Encyclical letter, "Pascendi" [see n2071

ff.] and in the Decree, "Lamentabili" [see n2001 f.], especially on that which is called the history of dogma. In the
same manner I disapprove the error of those who affirm that the faith proposed by the Church can be in conflict

with history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, cannot be reconciled with
the more authentic origins of the Catholic religion.--I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that the
more erudite Christian puts on a dual personality, one of the believer, the other of the historian, as if it were
permitted the historian to hold what is in contradiction to the faith of the believer; or to establish premises from

which it follows that dogmas are either false or doubtful, provided they are not directly denied.--I disapprove
likewise that method of studying and interpreting Sacred Scripture, which disregards the tradition of the Church, the
analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, and adheres to the fictions of the rationalists, and no less freely
than boldly adopts textual criticism as the only and supreme rule.--Besides I reject the opinion of those who hold

that to present the historical and theological disciplines the teacher or the writer on these subjects must first divest
himself of previously conceived opinion either on the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition, or on the aid promised
by God for the perpetual preservation of every revealed truth; then that the writings of the individual Fathers are to
be interpreted only by the principles of science, setting aside all divine authority, and by that freedom of judgment

with which any profane document is customarily

2147 investigated. Finally, in short, I profess to be utterly free of the error according to which the modernists hold that

there is nothing divine in the sacred tradition; or, what is far worse, admit this in the pantheistic sense, so that nothing

remains but the bare and simple fact to be assimilated with the common facts of history, namely, of men by their

industry, skill, and genius continuing through subsequent ages the school inaugurated by Christ and His disciples. So
I retain most firmly the faith of the Fathers, and shall retain it until the final breath of life, regarding the certain gif
truth, which is, was, and will be always in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostle* not so that what may
seem better and more fitting according to each one's period of culture may be held, but so that the absolute and

immutable truth preached * by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed otherwise, may never be
understood otherwise.
All these things I promise that I shall faithfully, completely, and sincerely keep and inviolably watch, never
deviating from them in word and writing either while teaching or in any other pursuit. So I promise, so I swear, so

may God, etc.

Certain Errors of the Orientals *

 [From the letter, "Ex quo,,' to the Archbishops Apostolic
Delegates in Byzantium, in Greece, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia, in Syria, and in the Oriental Indies, December 26,
1910]

2147a No less rashly than falsely does one approach this opinion, that the dogma concerning the procession of the

Holy Spirit from the Son by no means is taken from the very words of the Gospel, or is sanctioned by the faith of

the ancient Fathers;--most imprudently, likewise, is doubt raised as to whether the sacred dogmas on purgatory and
on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary were acknowledged by the holy men of earlier years;--.

. . regarding the constitution of the Church . . . first of all an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor,
Innocent X, is being renewed [cf. n. 1091 ], in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to
St. Peter;--then, with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a
sovereignty of one person, that is amonarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid

arguments.--But . . . the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched
when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of
consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis,*although, on the
other hand, it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on

the substance of the sacraments; and no less inharmonious with this is the view that confirmation conferred by any,
priest at all is to be held valid.
These opinions are noted as "grave errors."

The Author, the Time of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospel According to Matthew *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 19, 1911]

I. Whether after noting the universal and constant agreement of the Church from the earliest times, which is
2148

clearly shown by the eloquent testimonies of the Fathers, the inscriptions of the manuscripts of the Gospels, even the

most ancient versions of the Sacred Scriptures, and the catalogues handed down by the Holy Fathers, the
ecclesiastical writers, the Highest Pontiffs, and the Councils, and finally the liturgical practice of the Eastern and
Western Church, it can and should be affirmed with certainty that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, is in fact the

author of the vulgate Gospel under his name?-- Reply: In the affirmative.
2149 II. Whether the opinion should be considered as sufficiently supported by the assent of tradition, which holds

that Matthew preceded the other evangelists in his writing, and that he composed the first Gospel in the native

language then employed by the Jews of Palestine, to whom that work was directed?-- Reply: In the affirmative to

both parts.
2150 III. Whether the redaction of this original text can be placed beyond the time of the overthrow of Jerusalem, so

that the prophecies which are read there about this same overthrow were written after the event; or whether what is

customarily alleged to be the testimony of Irenaeus Adv. haer., lib. 3, capI,n. 2] of uncertain and controversial

interpretation, is to be considered of such weight that it forces us to reject the opinion of those who think, more in
accord with tradition, that the same redaction was composed even before Paul's arrival in the City? --Reply: In the
negative to both parts.
IV. Whether that opinion of certain moderns can even with some probability be sustained, according to which
2151

Matthew did not properly or strictly compose the Gospel such as has been handed down to us, but only some

collection of the words or conversations of Christ, which another anonymous author has made use of as sources,
whom they make the redactor of the Gospel itself.--Reply :In the negative.
V. Whether from the fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, indeed the Church herself from her own
2152

incunabula used, as canonical, only the Greek text of the Gospel known under the name of Matthew, not even

excepting those who taught expressly that Matthew the Apostle wrote in his native language, it can be proved with
certainty that the Greek Gospel is identical as to substance with that Gospel written in his native language by the
same Apostle?-- Reply: In the affirmative.

2153 VI. Whether from the fact that the author of the first Gospel pursues especially the dogmatic and apologetic aim,

namely, of demonstrating to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets, and descended from the

lineage of David, and from the fact that when arranging the deeds and words which he narrates and sets forth anew,
he does not always hold to the chronological order, it may be deduced that these matters are not to be accepted as

true; or, also, whether it can be affirmed that the accounts of the accomplishments and discourses of Christ, which
are read in the Gospel itself, have undergone a kind of alteration and adaptation under the influence of the prophets
of the Old Testament, and the status of the more mature Church, and so are by no means in conformity with
historical truth?Reply: In the negative to both parts.

2154 VII. Whether in particular the opinions of those persons should be rightly considered as devoid of solid

foundation, who call into question the historical authenticity of the two first chapters, in which the genealogy and

infancy of Christ are related; as also of certain opinions on dogmatic matters of great moment, as are those which
have to do with the primacy of Peter [Matt. 16:17-19 ], the form of baptizing, together with the universal mission of

preaching handed over to the apostles [ Matt. 28:19-20 ], the apostles' profession of faith in the divinity of Christ [
Matt. 14:33 ], and other such matters which occurred in Matthew announced in a special way?-- Reply: In the
affirmative.
The Author, the Time of Composition, the Historical Truth of the Gospels According to Mark and According to
Luke *
[Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 26, 1912]

2155 I. Whether the evident judgment of tradition, from the beginnings of the Church in wonderful agreement with and

confirmed by manifold arguments, namely, the eloquent testimonies of the Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers,

the citations and allusions which occur in the writings of the same, the practice of the ancient heretics, the versions of
the Books of the New Testament, the most ancient and almost entire body of manuscripts, and also the internal

reasons taken from the very text of the Sacred Books, definitely compels the affirmation that Mark, the disciple and
expounder of Peter, and Luke the physician, the hearer and companion of Paul, are in fact the authors of the
Gospels which are respectively attributed to them?-- Reply: In the affirmative.
II. Whether the reasons by which some critics strive to demonstrate that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of
2156

Mark [ Mark 16:9-20 ] were not written by Mark himself, but were added by another hand, are such as to give the

right to affirm that they are not to be accepted as inspired and canonical; or at least demonstrate that the author of
the said verses is not Mark?--Reply: In the negative to both parts.
III. Whether one may likewise doubt the inspiration and canonicity of the accounts given by Luke of the infancy
2157

of Christ Luke 1-2 ]; or the apparition of the Angel strengthening Christ, and the sweat of blooLuke 22:43 f.]; or

whether it can at least be shown by solid reasons--as pleased the ancient heretics, and is agreeable also to some
more recent critics--that the said accounts do not belong to the genuine Gospel of Luke?-- Reply: In the negative to
both parts.

2158 IV. Whether those most rare and very peculiar documents, in which the Canticle Magnificat is directed not to

the Blessed Virgin but to Elizabeth, can and should in any way prevail against the harmonious testimony of almost all

manuscripts, both of the original Greek text and of the versions, as well as against the interpretation which the
context no less than the spirit of the Virgin herself, and the constant tradition of the Church clearly exaReply:

In the negative.
2159 V. Whether, with respect to the chronological order of the Gospels, it is right to withdraw from that opinion

which, strengthened equally by the most ancient and continued testimony of tradition, testifies that Mark was the

second in order to write and Luke the third, after Matthew, who was the first of all to write his Gospel in his native

tongue; or, whether their opinion, which asserts that the Gospel was composed second and third before the Greek
version of the first Gospel, is to be regarded in turn as in opposition to this idReply: In the negative to both
parts.
VI. Whether the time of composition of the Gospel of Mark and Luke may be postponed until the overthrow of
2160

the city of Jerusalem; or, because the prophecy of the Lord in Luke about the overthrow of this city seems more

definite, it can be sustained that his Gospel at least was composed after the siege had already begun?-Reply: In the
 negative to both parts.
VII. Whether it ought to be affirmed that the Gospel of Luke preceded the book of the Acts of the Apostles;
2161

and although this book, with same i author Luke [ Acts 1:1 f.], was finished before the end of the Apostle's Roman

captivity Acts 28:30 f.], his Gospel was not composed after this time?--Reply: In the affirmative.
2162 VIII. Whether, keeping in mind both the testimonies of tradition and internal evidence, as regards the sources

which both evangelists used in composing the Gospels, that opinion can prudently be called into question which

holds that Mark wrote according to the preaching of Peter, but Luke according to the preaching of Paul; and which
also asserts that other sources worthy of trust were also at hand for these same evangelists, either oral or even
already consigned to writing?--Reply: In the negative.
IX. Whether the words and deeds which are described accurately and, as it were, graphically by Mark
2163

according to the preaching of Peter, and are most sincerely set forth by Luke, following everything diligently from

the beginning through witnesses clearly worthy of trust, inasmuch as they themselves from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [ Luke 1:2 f.], rightly vindicate that complete historical faith in themselves
which the Church has always given them; or, whether on the contrary the same deeds and actions are to be judged

void of historical truth, at least in part, either because the writers were not eyewitnesses, or because in both Gospels
defects in order and discrepancies in the succession of the deeds are not rarely caught; or because, since they came
and wrote later, they were obliged to represent conceptions necessarily extraneous to the minds of Christ and the
apostles, or deeds now more or less distorted by the imagination of the people; or, finally, because they indulged in

preconceived dogmatic ideas, each one according to his purpose?-- Reply: In the affirmative to the first part; in the
negative to the second.

The Synoptic Question or the Mutual Relations between the Three Earlier Gospels *

[Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 26, 1912]

2164 I. Whether, preserving what must be jealously preserved according to the decisions made above, especially on

the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; on the substantial identity of the

Greek Gospel of Matthew with its early original; also on the order of time in which the same were written, to explain
their mutual likenesses and differences, midst so many varying and opposite opinions of the authors, it is permitted
for exegetes to dispute freely and to appeal to the hypotheses of tradition whether written or oral, or even of the
dependence of one upon a preceding or upon several preceding?-- Reply: In the affirmative.

2165 II. Whether they should be advised to preserve what was established above, who, supported by no testimony

of tradition or by historical argument, easily taken in by the hypothesis publicly proclaimed of two sources, which

labors to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and of the Gospel of Luke chiefly by their
dependence upon the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the Lord's discourses; and whether they are

thus able to defend this freely?Reply. In the negative to both parts.

The Author, Time of Composition, Historical Veracity of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles
 [Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 12, 1913]

2166 I. Whether in view especially of the tradition of the whole Church going back to the earliest ecclesiastical

writers, and noting the internal reasons of the book of Acts, considered in itself or in its relation to the third Gospel,

and especially because of the mutual affinity and connection between the two prologues [ Luke 1:1-4 ;Acts 1:1 f.], it
must be held as certain that the volume that is entitlActus A postolorum, or, (Greek text deleted), has Luke the
Evangelist as author?--Reply: In the affirmative.
II. Whether for critical reasons taken from the language and style, and from the manner of narrating, and from
2167

the oneness of aim and doctrine, it can be demonstrated that the book of the Acts of the Apostles should be

attributed to one author alone; and therefore that the opinion of more recent writers which holds that Luke is not the
only author of the book, but that different persons are to be recognized as authors of the same book is devoid of
any foundation?-- Reply: In the affirmative to both parts.

2168 III. Whether in outward appearance, the prominent chapters in the Acts where the use of the third person is

broken off and the first person plural introduced, weaken the unity and authenticity of composition; or rather

historically and philologically considered are to be said to confirm iReply: In the negative to the first part; in the
affirmative to the second.

2169 IV. Whether because of the fact that the book itself is abruptly concluded after scarcely making mention of the

two years of Paul's first Roman captivity, it may be inferred that the author had written a second volume now lost,

or had intended to write it; and so the time of composition of the Book of Acts can be deferred long after this
captivity; or whether it should rather rightly and worthily be held that Luke toward the end of the first Roman

captivity of the Apostle Paul had completed his book?-- Reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to
the second.
2170 V. Whether, if there is considered together the frequent and easy communication which Luke undoubtedly had

with the first and prominent founders of the Palestinian church, and also with Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles,

whose assistant in the preaching of the Gospel and companion in travel he was; also his customary industry and
diligence in seeking witnesses, and in observing things with his own eyes; also, and finally, the evident and amazing
agreement for the most part of the Book of Acts with the letters of Paul and the more genuine monuments of history,
it should be held with certainty that Luke had at hand sources worthy of all trust, and applied them accurately, well,

and faithfully, so that he rightly indicates for himself full historical autReply: In the affirmative.
2171 VI. Whether the difficulties which are usually raised from the supernatural deeds related by Luke, and from the

narration of certain discourses which, since they are handed down in summary, are considered fictitious and

adapted to circumstances; also from certain passages, apparently at least, in disagreement with history whether

profane or biblical; finally also from certain accounts which seem to be at odds with the author of the Acts, or with
other-sacred authors, are such as can call the historical authority of the Acts into doubt or at least in some manner
diminish it?-Reply: In the negative.
 The Author, Integrity, and Time of Composition of the Pastoral
Letters of Paul the Apostle *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 12, 1913]

2172 I. Whether, keeping in mind the tradition of the Church which continues universally and steadily from the earliest

times, just as the ancient ecclesiastical records testify in many ways, it should be held with certainty that the

so-called pastoral letters, that is, the two to Timothy and another to Titus, notwithstanding the rashness of certain
heretics who have eliminated them as being contrary to their dogma from the number of Pauline epistles, without

giving any reason, were composed by the Apostle Paul himself, and have always been reckoned among the genuine
and canonical?-- Reply: In the affirmative.
2173 II. Whether the so-called fragmentary hypothesis introduced by certain more recent critics and variously set

forth, who for no otherwise probable reason, rather while quarreling among themselves, contend that the pastoral

letters were constructed at a later time from fragments of letters, or from corrupt Pauline letters by unknown
authors, and notably increased, can bring some slight prejudice upon the clear and very strong testimony of
tradition?-Reply: In the negative.
III. Whether the difficulties which are brought up in many places whether from the style and language of the
2174

author, or from the errors especially of the Gnostics, who already at that time are described as serpents; or from the

state of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is supposed to have been already evolved, and other such reasons in
opposition in some way, weaken the opinion which holds the authenticity of the pastoral letters as valid and
certain?--Reply: In the negative.

2175 IV. Whether, since no less from historical reasons as from ecclesiastical tradition, in harmony with the

testimonies of the oriental and occidental most holy Fathers; also from the indications themselves which are easily

drawn from the abrupt conclusion of the Book of the Acts and from the Pauline letters written at Rome, and
especially from the second letter to Timothy, the opinion of a twofold Roman captivity of the Apostle Paul should be

held as certain, it can be safely affirmed that the pastoral letters were written in that period of time which intervenes
between the liberation from the first captivity and the death of the Apostle?Reply: In the affirmitive.

The Author and Method of Composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews *

[Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 24, 1914]

2176 I. Whether so much force is to be attributed to the doubts which inthe first centuries possessed the minds of

some in the Occident regarding the divine inspiration and Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because of
 the special abuse of heretics, that, although aware of the perpetual, unanimous, and continued affirmation of the
Oriental Fathers, to which was added after the fourth century the full agreement of the entire Western Church;
weighing also the acts of the Highest Pontiffs and of the sacred Councils, especially of Trent, and also the perpetual
practice of the universal Church, one may hesitate to classify it with certainty not only among the canonical--which is

determined regarding faith--but also among the genuine epistles of the Apostle Paul?--Reply: In the negative.
2177 II. Whether the arguments which are usually drawn from the unusual absence of the name of Paul, and the

omission of the customary introduction and salutation in the Epistle to the Hebrews--or from the purity of the same

Greek language, the elegance and perfection of diction and style,--or from the way by which the Old Testament is

cited in it and arguments made from it,--or from certain differences which supposedly existed between the doctrine
of this and of the other epistles of Paul, somehow are able to weaken the Pauline origin of the same; or whether, on
the other hand, the perfect agreement of doctrine and opinions, the likeness of admonitions and exhortations, and
also the harmony of the phrases and of the words themselves celebrated also by some non-Catholics, which are

observed between it and the other writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles, demonstrate and confirm the same Pauline
origin?--Reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.
2178 III. Whether the Apostle Paul is so to be considered the author of this epistle that it should necessarily be
affirmed that he not only conceived and expressed it all by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but also endowed it
with that form with which it stands out?-Reply: In the negative, save for a later judgment of the Church.

The False Doctrines of the Modernists *

[From the Encyclical, "Pascendi dominici gregis," Sept. 8, 1907]

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Benedict XV 1914-1922
BENEDICT XV 1914-1922

Parousia, or the Second Advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle *
[Reply of the Biblical Commission, June 18, 1915]

2179 I. Whether to solve the difficulties which occur in the epistles of St. Paul and of the other apostles, where there is mention of "parousia," as they
say, or of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, a Catholic exegete is permitted to assert that the apostles, although under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, taught no error, nevertheless express their own human feelings in which error or deception can lie concealed?-- Reply: In the negative.
2180 II. Whether, bearing in mind the genuine notion of the apostolic gift, and the undoubted fidelity of St. Paul with regard to the doctrine of the
Master, likewise the Catholic dogma on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, according to which all that the sacred writer asserts,
declares, and introduces ought to be maintained as asserted, declared, and introduced by the Holy Spirit; weighing also the texts of the epistles of the
Apostle considered in themselves, especially in harmony with the method of speaking of the Lord himself, one should affirm that the Apostle Paul in his
writings said nothing at all which does not agree perfectly with that ignorance of parousia of the time, which Christ Himself proclaimed to belong to
man?--Reply: In the affirmative.
2181 III. Whether, noting the Greek expression, "(Greek text deleted) weighing also the explanation of the Fathers, especially of John Chrysostom,
who was most versed in the native idiom and in the epistles of Paul, it is permitted to reject the traditional interpretation in the Catholic schools as more
remotely desired and devoid of solid foundation (which was retained by the renewers themselves also of the sixteenth century), which explains the words
of St. Paul in chapter 4, epist. 1 to the Thessalonians, vv. 15-7, without in any way involving the affirmation of parousia so proximate that the Apostle
numbers himself and his readers among those faithful who are to go to meet Christ as survivers?--Reply: In the negative.

On Dying and Dead Schismatics *

[Reply of the Holy Office to various local ordinaries, May 17 1916]

2181a I. Whether when material schismatics at the point of death, in good faith seek either absolution or extreme unction, these sacraments can be
conferred on them without their renouncing errors?--Reply: In the negative, but that it be required that they reject errors as best they can, and make a
profession of faith.
II. Whether absolution and extreme unction can be conferred on schismatics at the point of death when unconscious?--Reply: Conditionally, in
the affirmative, especially if from additional circumstances it can be conjectured that they at least implicitly reject their errors, yet effectually removing
scandal, at least by manifesting to bystanders that they accept the Church and have returned at the last moment to unity.
III. As regards ecclesiastical burial the Roman Ritual must stand firm.

Spiritism *
[Reply of the Holy Office, April 21 1917]

2182 Whether it is permitted through a medium, as they call him, or without a medium, with or without the application of hypnotism, to be present at
spiritistic conversations or manifestations of any kind, even though these phenomena present the appearance of honesty or piety, whether by interrogating
souls or spirits, or by listening to responses, or only by looking on, even with a tacit or expressed protestation that one does not wish to have anything to
do with wicked spirits.--Reply: In negative in all cases.

From the Codex of Canon Law promulgated on May 19, 1918,

variously, see in Index systematicus.

Certain Propositions on Knowledge of the Soul of Christ *

[Decree of the Holy Office, June 5, 1918]

When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be
safely taught:
2183 I. It is not established that there was in the soul of Christ while living among men the knowledge which the blessed and the comprehensors have
[cf. Phil. 3:12,13].
2184 II. Nor can the opinion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all
things in the Word, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.

2185 III. The opinion of certain more recent persons on the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is to be accepted in Catholic schools no less than
the notion of the ancients on universal knowledge.
The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, the prayer of the Consultors being held first,
decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

The Inerrancy of Holy Scripture *

[From the Encyclical, "Spiritus Paraclitus," September 15, 1920]

2186 By the doctrine of Jerome those statements are well confirmed and illustrated by which Our predecessor, Leo XIII, solemnly declared the
ancient and constant faith of the Church in the absolute immunity of Scriptures from any errors: Tantum abest . . . [see n. 1951]. And, introducing the
definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed in the Vatican Synod, he has the following: "Therefore, nothing at all matters . . . otherwise
He Himself were not the Author of all Sacred Scripture" [See n. 1952].

Although these words of Our predecessors leave no place for ambiguity or evasion, We must grieve, Venerable Brothers, that not only were
there not lacking some among those outside the Church, but even among the sons of the Catholic Church, moreover--which wounds Our soul more
severely--among the clergy itself and the teachers of the sacred disciplines, who relying proudly on their own judgment, either openly reject the
magisterium of the Church on this subject or secretly oppose it. Indeed, We approve the plan of those who, to extricate themselves and others from the
difficulties of the Sacred Codex, in order to eliminate these difficulties, rely on all the aids of scholarship and literary criticism, and investigate new
avenues and methods of research; but they will wander pitifully from their purpose, if they disregard the precepts of Our predecessor and pass beyond
certain limits and bounds which the Fathers have set [Prov. 22:28]. Yet by these precepts and limits the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained,
who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration
itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be
contracted and narrowed down to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by
God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is
only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising, then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things
occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of
opinions are not in opposition to the prescripitions of Our predecessor, since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to
external appearance, surely fallacious [see n. 1947]. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.

2187 And no less do they dissent from the doctrine of the Church who think that the historical parts of Scriptures depend not on the absolute truth of
facts, but only on what they call the relative and harmonious opinion of the multitude; and they do not hesitate to infer this from the very words of Pope
Leo, because he said that the principles established regarding the things of nature can be transferred to the historical disciplines [see n. 1949]. And so they
contend that the sacred writers, just as in physical matters they spoke according to what was apparent, so they related events unwittingly, inasmuch as
these seemed to be established according to the common opinion of the multitude or the false testimonies of others; and that they did not indicate the
sources of their knowledge, and did not make the narrations of others their own. Why shall we refute at length a matter plainly injurious to Our
predecessor, and false and full of error? For what is the similarity of the things of nature and history, when the physical are concerned with what "appears
to the senses," and so should agree with phenomena; while on the other hand the law of history is chiefly this, that what is written must be in agreement
with the things accomplished, according as they were accomplished in fact? If the opinion of these men is once accepted, how will that truth of sacred
story stand safe, immune from every falsehood, which Our predecessor declares must be retained in the entire text of its literature? But if he affirms that
the same principles that have a place in physics can to advantage be transferred to history and related disciplines, he certainly does not establish this on a
universal basis, but is only professing that we use the same methods to refute the fallacies of adversaries as we use to protect the historical faith of Sacred
Scripture against their attacks. . . .

2188 Nor is Sacred Scripture lacking other detractors; We recognize those who, if they are restrained within certain limits, so abuse right principles
indeed that they cause the foundations of the truth of the Bible to totter, and undermine the Catholic doctrine handed down by the Fathers in common.
Among these Fathers Jerome, if he were still alive, would surely hurl the sharpest weapons of his speech, because, neglecting the sense and judgment of
the Church, they very smoothly take refuge in citations which they call implicit, or in accounts historical in appearance; or, they contend that certain kinds
of literature are found in the sacred books, with which the whole and perfect truth of the divine word cannot be reconciled; or, they have such an opinion
on the origin of the Bible that its authority collapses and utterly perishes. Now, what must be thought of those who in expounding the Gospels themselves
diminish the human faith due them and overturn divine faith? For what our Lord Jesus Christ said, and what He did they are of the opinion did not come
down to us entire and unchanged, although they are witnesses of all those who wrote down religiously what they themselves had seen and heard; but
that--especially with reference to the fourth Gospel-- part came down from the evangelists who themselves planned and added much, and part was
brought together from the account of the faithful of another age.

Now, Venerable Brethren, with the passing of the fifteenth generation after the death of the greatest Doctor We have communicated with you
not to delay to bring these words to the clergy and your people, that all, under the patronage and leadership of Jerome, may not only retain and guard the
Catholic doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, but may also cling most zealously to the principles which are prescribed in the Encyclical
Letter, "Providentissimus Deus," and in this Our own. . . .

The Doctrines of Theosophy *

[Reply of the Holy Office, July 18, 1919]

2189 Whether the doctrines, which today are called theosophical, can be in harmony with Catholic doctrine; and thus whether it is permitted to join
theosophical societies, attend their meetings, and read their books, daily papers, journals, and writings.--Reply: In the negative in all cases.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius XI 1922-1939

PIUS XI 1922-1939

The Relation Between Church and State *

[From the Encyclical, "Ubi arcano," December 23, 1922]

2190 But if the Church thinks it unlawful to mingle in these worldly affairs, concerned in the mere controlling of politics, without reason, yet by her
own right she strives that civil power invent no cause for obstructing in any way those higher blessings in which man's eternal salvation is contained, or
for threatening harm or destruction by unjust laws and orders; or for undermining the divine constitution of the Church; or, finally, of trampling upon the
sacred laws of God in the civil community of men.

The Law and Method of Following the Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas *
[From the Encyclical, "Studiorum Ducem," June 29, 1923]

2191 We desire very much that those especially who hold the magisteriaof the higher disciplines in the schools of the clergy note carefully and
observe inviolably all the precepts which both Our predecessors, and first of all Leo XIII * and Pius X,* have decreed and We ourselves have ordered last
year.* Moreover, let them be convinced that they will then satisfy the demands of their office and will likewise fulfill Our expectation, if, when they
begin truly to love the Doctor Aquinas, by a long and intensive study of his works, and by interpreting the Doctor himself, they communicate the warmth
of this love to the students under their instruction, and render them capable of exciting a similar zeal in others.

2192 Naturally among lovers of St. Thomas, such as all the sons of the Church who are concerned with the highest studies should be, We desire that
there exist that honorable rivalry with just freedom from which studies make progress, but no detraction which is not favorable to truth and which serves
only to break the bonds of charity. Therefore, let whatever is prescribed * in the Code of Canon Law be sacred to each one of them, that "the professors
may carry on the study of rational * philosophy and of theology and the instruction of their students in these disciplines according to the method,
doctrines, and principles of the Angelic Doc- tor, and may hold them sacred," and that all so conduct themselves according to this norm as to be truly able
to call him that master. "But let not some exact from others anything more than this which the Church the mistress and mother of all demands of all; for in
those matters about which there is wont to be varied opinions among teachers of higher distinction among our Catholic schools no one is to be prevented
from following the opinion which seems to him the more probable."

The Revival of Merits and Gifts *

[From the Bull of Jubilee, "lnfinita Dei misericordia," May 29, 1924]

2193 Now when the Hebrews in the year of the Sabbath, after recovering their goods which had passed into the ownership of others, were returning
"to their own possession," and the servants, now free, were betaking themselves "to their former family" [Lev. 25:10], and the debt of the debtors was
cancelled, all this more happily happens and is accomplished among us in the year of atonement. For, all who by doing penance carry out the salutary
orders of the Apostolic See in the course of the great Jubilee, the same regain anew and receive that abundance of merits and gifts which they had lost by
sinning, and they are so set free from the cruel domination of Satan that they regain the freedom "wherewith Christ has made us free" [Gal. 4:31], and,
finally, of all the punishment which they would have been obliged to pay for their faults and sins, because of the highly accumulated merits of Jesus
Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints, they are fully absolved.

The Kingship of Christ *

[From the Encyclical, "Quas primas," December 11, 1925]

2194 Moreover, on what foundation this dignity and power of our Lord rests, Cyril of Alexandria aptly observes: "He obtained his dominion over all
creatures, to speak in a word, not by having wrested it by force or brought it in from some other source, but by His own essence and nature"; * naturally,
His kingdom depends on that wonderful union which is called hypostatic. Therefore, it follows not only that Christ is to be adored as God by angels and
men, but also that angels and men obey and are subject to His power as man, namely, that Christ obtains His power over all creatures solely in the name
of the hypostatic union. ---But yet what could be more pleasing to us and more pleasant to contemplate than that Christ commands us not only by right of
birth but also by an acquired right, that is, of redemption? Would that all forgetful men would recall what price they have cost our Savior, for, "not with
corruptible things as with gold or silver were you redeemed but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled" [1 Pet. 1:18, 19].
Now we are not our own, since Christ has bought us "with a great price" [1 Cor. 5:20]; our very bodies "are members of Christ" [1 Cor. 6:15 ].

2195 Now to explain briefly the force and nature of this kingship, it is hardly sufficient to say that it consists of a threefold power, and if it lacked
this, it is scarcely recognized as a kingship. Testimonies drawn and gathered from Sacred Scriptures indicate more than sufficiently this fact about the
universal power of our Redeemer, and according to the Catholic faith it must be believed that Jesus Christ was given to men as a Redeemer, in whom to
trust; but at the same time as a legislator, to whom to give obedience (Cone. Trid., sess. VI, can. 21 [see n. 831]). But the Gospels do not insist so much
on the fact that He established laws, as they do of Him observing laws; and, indeed, whoever keep these precepts, the same are said in different words in
different places by the divine Master both to prove their love for Him, and to remain in His love [John 14:15; 15:10]. Jesus Himself declared to the Jews,
who accused Him of violating the quiet of Sabbath by the wonderful healing of the sick man, that the Father had bestowed judicial power on Him: "For
neither cloth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son" [John 5:22]; by which this also is understood--- since the fact cannot be
separated from the judgment---that by His own right He confers rewards and punishments upon men while still living. And furthermore that power which
is called executive is to be attributed to Christ, since it is necessary that all obey His power, and since no one can escape what has been imposed upon the
contumacious in the imposing of punishment.

Nevertheless, that such a kingdom is spiritual in a special way, and pertains to spiritual things, not only do the words which we have quoted
above from the Bible show, but Christ the Lord by His manner of action confirms. For, on more than one given occasion, when the Jews, or rather the
apostles themselves were of the opinion through error that the Messias would deliver the people into liberty and would restore the kingdom of Israel, He
Himself destroyed and dispelled their vain opinion and hope; when He was about to be proclaimed king by a surrounding multitude, He declined the
name and honor by fleeing and hiding; in the presence of the Roman governor He declared that His kingdom was not "of this world" [John 18:36].
Indeed. this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except
through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration; it is opposed only to the kingdom of Satan
and to the powers of darkness, and demands of its followers not only that, with mind detached from wealth and earthly things, they prefer gentleness of
character, and hunger and thirst after justice, but also that they renounce themselves and take up their cross. Moreover, since Christ as Redeemer has
acquired the Church by His blood, and as Priest has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins, does it not seem right that He assume
the nature of both offices and participate in them?

2196 Otherwise he would err basely, who should deprive Christ, the man, of power over all civil affairs, since He has received the most absolute right
over created things from the Father, so that all have been placed under His authority. But yet, as long as He led His life on earth, He abstained entirely
from exercising such domination; and just as He once belittled the possession and desire of human things, so He then permitted and today permits the
possession of them. And regarding this the following is very aptly said: "He does not snatch away mortal things, who gives heavenly kingdoms" [Hymn,
"Crudelis Herodes," in the Office of the Epiphany]. And so the kingdom of our Redeemer embraces all men, and in this matter We gladly make the words
of Our predecessor of immortal memory Our own: "Clearly His power is not only over Catholic peoples, or over those alone who, cleansed by holy
baptism, surely belong to the Church, if right is considered, though error of opinion leads them in devious ways, or dissension separates them from
charity, but it embraces even those who are reckoned as destitute of Christian faith, so that in all truth all mankind is under the power of Jesus Christ"
[Encyclical, "Annum sacrum," given May 25, 1899]. Nor is there in this matter any difference among individuals and domestic and civic groups, because
men united in society are no less under the power of Christ. Surely the same (Christ) is the source of individual and common salvation: "Neither is there
salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" [Acts 4:12]; the same Person is the author of
prosperity and true happiness for individual citizens and for the state: "For the city is not made happy from one source, and man from another, since the
state is nothing else than a harmonious multitude of men." * Therefore, let the rulers of nations not refuse to offer the public service of reverence and
obedience to the power of Christ through themselves and through the people, if they truly wish, while preserving their authority to advance and increase
the fortunes of their country.

Laicism *
[From the same Encyclical, "Quas primas," December 11, 1925]

2197 Now, if we order that Christ the King be worshiped by all of Catholic name, by this very fact we intend to provide for the necessity of the times
and to apply a special remedy for the plague which infects human society.*
We call the plague of our age so-called laicism, with its errors and nefarious efforts. . . . For the power of Christ over all nations has begun to
be denied; hence, the right of the Church which exists from the very right of Christ, to teach the human race, to pass laws and to rule for the purpose of
leading people especially to eternal salvation has been denied. Then, indeed, little by little the religion of Christ was placed on the same level with false
religions, and was put in the same class most shamefully; it was then subjected to civil power, and was almost given over to the authority of rulers and
magistrates; some proceeded further, who thought that a kind of natural religion, and some sort of natural impulse of the mind should be substituted for
divine religion. States have not been lacking which proclaimed that they could live without God, and that their religion should consist in an impious
neglect of God.
The Johannine Comma *
[From the Decree of the Holy Office, January 13, 1897, and the Declaration of the Holy Office, June 2, 1927]

2198 To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called intodoubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is
authentic, which read as follows: 'And there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?'
"---the response was given on January 13, 1897: In the negative. At this response there arose on June 2, 1927, the following declaration, at first given
privately by the same Sacred Congregation and afterwards repeated many times, which was made a part of public law in EB n. 121 by authority of the
Holy Office itself:

"This decree was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the
authenticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic
writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that and temperance which the gravity
of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the
judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully."

Meetings to Procure the Unity of All Christians *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, July 8, 1927]

2199 Whether it is permitted Catholics to be present at, or to take part in conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim
to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian?
Reply: In the negative, and there must be complete adherence to the decree (De participatione catholicorum societati, "ad procurandam
christianitatis unitatem") on the participation of Catholics in a society "to procure the unity of Christianity." *

The Connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church *

[From the Apostolic Constitution, "Divini cultus," December 20, 1928]

2200 Since the Church has received from her founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of
course after preserving the substance of the sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chant--- by
which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action. And the liturgy is an
undoubtedly sacred thing; for, through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our faith, and we are obligated to it by a
most serious duty because of the benefits and helps received, of which we are always in need. Hence a kind of intimate relationship between dogma and
sacred liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Celestine I proposed and expressed a canon of faith
in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the law of supplication establish the law of believing. For when the leaders of holy peoples administer
legislation enjoined upon themselves they plead the cause of the human race before divine Clemency, and they beg and pray while the entire Church sighs
with them" [see n. 139].

Masturbation Procured Directly *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, August 2, 1929]

2201 Whether masturbation procured directly is permitted to obtain sperm, by which a contagious disease bIenorragia (gonorrhea) may be detected
and, insofar as it can be done, cured.
Reply: In the negative.

The Christian Education of Youth *

[From the Encyclical, "Divini illius magistri," December 31, 1929]

2202 Since every method of education aims for that formation of man which he ought to acquire in this mortal life, in order to attain the ultimate goal
destined for him by the Creator, it is plainly evident that as no education can be truly so called which is not entirely ordered to that final end, in the
present order of things established by the providence of God, namely after He revealed Himself in His Only-begotten, who alone is "the way, the truth,
and the life" [John 14:6], no full and perfect education can exist except that which is called Christian. . . .

2203 The task of educating does not belong to individual men but necessarily to society. Now necessary societies are three in number, distinct from
one another, yet harmoniously combined by the will of God, to which man is assigned from birth; of these, two, namely, the family and civil society, are
of the natural order; and the third, the Church, to be sure, is of the supernatural order. Family living holds first place, and, since it was established and
prepared by God Himself for this purpose, to care for the generation and upbringing of offspring, thus by its nature and by its inherent rights it has
priority over civil society. Nevertheless, the family is an imperfect society, because it is not endowed with all those things by which it may attain its very
noble purpose perfectly; but civil association, since it has in its power all things necessary to achieve its destined end, namely, the common good of this
earthly life, is a society absolute in all respects and perfect; for this same reason, therefore, it is pre-eminent over family life, which indeed can fulfill its
purpose safely and rightly only in civil society. Finally, the third society, in which man by the waters of baptism enters a life of divine grace, is the
Church, surely a supernatural society embracing the whole human race; perfect in herself, since all things are at her disposal for attaining her end, namely
the eternal salvation of man, and thus supreme in her own order.

Consequently, education, which is concerned with the whole man, with man individually and as a member of human society, whether
established in the order of nature or in the order of divine grace, pertains to these three necessary societies, harmoniously according to the proper end of
each, proportionately according to the present order divinely established.
2204 But in the first place, in a more pre-eminent way education pertains to the Church, namely, because of a twofold title in the supernatural order
which God conferred upon her alone; and thus by an entirely more powerful and more valid title than any other title of the natural order.

The first reason for such a right rests on the supreme authority of the magisterium and on the mission which the divine Founder of the Church
bestowed upon her in those words: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore teach ye . . . even unto the consummation of l the
world" [Matt. 28:18-20]. Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all;
therefore, the Church "has been established by her divine Founder as the pillar and foundation of truth, to teach all men the divine faith, to guard its
deposit given to her whole and inviolate, and to direct and fashion men in their public and private actions unto purity of morals and integrity of life,
according to the norm of revealed doctrine." *

The second reason for the right arises from that supernatural duty of a mother, by which the Church, most pure spouse of Christ, bestows upon
men a life of divine grace, and nurtures and promotes it by her sacraments and precepts. Worthily then does St. Augustine say: "He will not have God as
father, who would not be willing to have the Church as mother." *
2205 Therefore, the Church promotes letters, the sciences, and the arts, insofar as they are necessary or useful for Christian education and for
everyone of her activities for the salvation of souls, founding and supporting her schools and institutions, in which every discipline is taught and an
approach is made to all grades of erudition.* And it must not be thought that so-called physical education is alien to her maternal magisterium, since this
also has the capacity to benefit or harm Christian education.

And this action of the Church in every kind of culture of the mind, just as it is of the highest benefit to families and nations, which with Christ
removed from their midst are rushing into destruction,---as Hilary rightly says: "What can be so perilous to the world as not to have accepted Christ?" *---
so it causes no inconvenience to the civil organization in these things; for the Church, as she is a most prudent mother, does not in the least prevent her
schools and institutions in every nation educating the laity from conforming with the prescribed laws of the authorities, but is ready in every way to
cooperate with the authorities, and if any difficulties by chance should arise, to dissolve them by a mutual understanding.

Besides, it is the right of the Church which she cannot surrender, and the duty which she cannot abandon, to watch over all education, such as is
imparted to her children, namely, the faithful in either public or private institutions, not only insofar as pertains to religious doctrine as it is taught there,
but also with regard to any other discipline or arrangement of affairs, according as they have some relationship with religion and moral precepts. *
2206 The rights of the family and of the state, even the very rights which belong to individual citizens with reference to just freedom in investigating
the things of science and of the methods of science, and of any profane culture of the mind, not only are not at variance with such a special right of the
Church, but are even quite in harmony with it. For, to make known at once the cause and origin of such concord, the supernatural order, on which the
rights of the Church depend, far from destroying and weakening the natural order, to which the other rights which we have mentioned pertain, rather
elevates and perfects it; indeed, of these orders one furnishes help and, as it were, the complement to the other, consistent with the nature and dignity of
each one, since both proceed from God, who cannot be inconsistent with Himself: "The works of God are perfect and all His ways are judgment" [Deut.
32:4].

Indeed, this matter will appear clearer if we consider the duty of educating, which pertains to the family and to the state, separately and more
closely.
2207 And, first, the duty of the family agrees wonderfully with the duty of the Church, since both very similarly proceed from God. For God
communicates fecundity directly to the family, in the natural order, the principle of life and thus the principle of education to life, at the same time along
with authority, which is the principle of order.

On this subject the Angelic Doctor with his customary clarity of thought and precision in speaking says: "The father according to the flesh in a
particular way shares in the method of the principle which is found universally in God. . . The father is the principle of generation and of education, and
of all things which pertain to the perfection of human life." *
The family, then, holds directly from the Creator the duty and the right to educate its offspring; and since this right cannot be cast aside, because
it is connected with a very serious obligation, it has precedence over any right of civil society and of the state, and for this reason no power on earth may
infringe upon it. . . .

2208 From this duty of educating, which especially belongs to the Church and the family, not only do the greatest advantages, as we have seen,
emanate into all society, but no harm can befall the true and proper rights of the state, insofar as pertains to the education of citizens, according to the
order established by God. These rights are assigned to civil society by the Author of nature himself, not by the right of fatherhood, as of the Church and
of the family, but on account of the authority which is in Him for promoting the common good on earth, which indeed is its proper end.

2209 From this it follows that education does not pertain to civil society in the same way as it does to the Church or the family, but clearly in another
way, which naturally corresponds to its proper end. This end, moreover, that is, the common good of the temporal order, consists in peace and security,
which families and individual citizens enjoy by exercising their rights; and at the same time in the greatest possible abundance of spiritual and temporal
things for mortal life, which abundance is to be attained by the effort and consent of all. The duty, then, of the civil authority, which is in the state, is
twofold, namely, of guarding and advancing but by no means, as it were, of absorbing the family and individual citizens or of substituting itself in their
place.
 Therefore, as far as education is concerned, it is the right or, to speak more accurately, the office of the state to guard the priority right of the
family by its laws, as we have mentioned above; that is, of educating offspring in the Christian manner, and so of acknowledging the supernatural right of
the Church in such a Christian education.
It is likewise the duty of the state to guard this right in the child itself, if at any time the care of parents---because of their inertia, or ignorance,
or bad behavior---fails either physically or morally; since their right of educating, as we have said above, is not absolute and despotic, but dependent on
the natural and divine law, and for this reason subject not only to the authority and judgment of the Church, but also to the vigilance and care of the state
for the common good; for the family is not a perfect society, which possesses within itself all things necessary for bringing itself to full and complete
perfection. In these cases, otherwise very rare, the state does put itself in the place of the family, but, always in keeping with the natural rights of the child
and the supernatural rights of the Church, considers and provides for the needs of the moment by opportune assistance.

2210 In general, it is the right and duty of the state to guard the moral and religious education of youth according to the norms of right reason and
faith, by removing the public impediments that stand in the way of it. But it is especially the duty of the state, as the common good demands, to promote
the education and instruction of youth in several ways; first and by itself, by favoring and aiding the work undertaken by the Church and the family, the
extent of whose success is demonstrated by history and experience; where this work is lacking or does not suffice, by performing the work itself, even by
establishing schools and institutions; for the state more than the other societies abounds in resources, which, having been given it for the common needs
of all, it is quite right and proper that it expend these for the benefit of those from whom it received them. Besides, the state can prescribe and then see to
it that all citizens learn both civil and political duties; also that they be instructed in science and in the learning of morals and of physical culture, insofar
as it is fitting, and the common good in our times actually demands. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the state is bound by this duty, not only to respect,
while promoting public and private education in all these ways, the inherent rights of the Church and family of a Christian education, but also to have
regard for justice which attributes to each one his own. Thus, it is not lawful for the state to reduce the entire control of education and instruction to itself
so that families are forced physically and morally to send their children to the schools of the state, contrary to the duties of their Christian conscience or
to their legitimate preference.

Yet, this does not prevent the state from establishing schools which may be called preparatory for civic duties, especially for military service,
for the proper administration of government, or for maintaining peace at home and abroad; all of which, indeed, since they are so necessary for the
common good, demand a peculiar skill and a special preparation, provided that the state abstains from offending the rights of the Church and of the
family in matters that pertain to them.

2211 It belongs to civil society to supply, not only for youth but also for all ages and classes, an education which can be called civic, and which on
the positive side, as they say, consists in this, that matters are presented publicly to men belonging to such a society which by imbuing their minds with
the knowledge and image of things, and by an emotional appeal urge their wills to the honorable and guide them by a kind of moral compulsion; but on
the negative side, that it guards against and obstructs the things that oppose it. Now this civic education, so very broad and complex that it includes
almost the entire activity of the state for the common good, ought to conform with the laws of justice, and cannot be in conflict with the doctrine of the
Church, which is the divinely constituted teacher of these laws.

2212
coalescing into one nature, through spirit and body, and instructed in all parts of his soul and body, which either
proceed from nature or excel it, such as we finally recognize him from right reason and divine revelation, namely,
man whom, when fallen from his original estate, Christ redeemed and restored to this supernatural dignity, to be the

adopted son of God, yet without the preternatural privileges by which his body had before been immortal, and his
soul just and sound. Hence, it happened that the defilements which flowed into the nature of man from Adam's sin,
especially the infirmity of the will and the unbridled desires of the soul, survive in man.

And, surely, "folly is bound up in the heart of a child and the rod of correction shall drive it aProv. 22:15 ].
Therefore, from childhood the inclination of will, if perverse, must be restrained; but if good, must be promoted, and
especially the minds of children should be imbued with the teachings that come from God, and their souls

strengthened by the aids of divine grace; and, if these should be lacking, no one could be restrained in his desires

nor be guided to complete perfection by the training and instruction of the Church, which Christ has endowed with
heavenly doctrine and divine sacraments for the purpose of being the efficacious teacher of all men.
2213 Therefore, every form of teaching children, which, confined to the mere forces of nature, rejects or neglects

those matters which contribute with God's help to the right formation of the Christian life, is false and full of error;

and every way and method of educating youth, which gives no consideration, or scarcely any, to the transmission of
original sin from our first parents to all posterity, and so relies wholly on the mere powers of nature, strays
completely from the truth. For the most part those systems of teaching which are openly proclaimed in our day tend
to this goal. They have various names, to be sure, whose chief characteristic is to rest the basis of almost all

instruction on this, that it is sound for children to instruct themselves, evidently by their own genius and will, spurning
the counsel of their elders and teachers, and putting aside every human and even divine law and resource. Yet, if all
these are so circumscribed by their own limits that new teachers of this kind desire that youth also take an active
part in their own instruction, the more properly as they advance in years and in the knowledge of things, and

likewise that all force and severity, of which, however, just correction is by no means a part, this indeed is true, but
not at all new, since the Church has taught this, and Christian teachers, in a manner handed down by their ancestors,
have retained it, imitating God who wished all created things and especially all men to cooperate actively with Him
 according to their proper nature, for divine Wisdom "reaches from end to end and orders all things sweetly" [Wisd.

8:1]. . . .
2214 But much more pernicious are those opinions and teachings regarding the following of nature absolutely as a

guide. These enter upon a certain phase of human education which is full of difficulties, namely, that which has to do

with moral integrity and chastity. For here and there a great many foolishly and dangerously hold and advance the

method of education, which is disgustingly called "sexual," since they foolishly feel that they can, by merely natural
means, after discarding every religious and pious aid, warn youth against sensuality and excess, by initiating and
instructing all of them, without distinction of sex, even publicly, in hazardous doctrines; and what is worse, by
exposing them prematurely to the occasions, in order that their minds having become accustomed, as they say, may

grow hardened to the dangers of puberty.

But in this such persons gravely err, because they do not take into account the inborn weakness of human
nature, and thatlaw planted within our members, which, to use the words of the Apostle Paul, "fights against the
law of my mind" [ Rom. 7:23 ]; and besides, they rashly deny what we have learned from daily experience, that

young people certainly more than others fall more often into disgraceful acts, not so much because of an imperfect
knowledge of the intellect as because of a will exposed to enticements and unsupported by divine assistance.
In this extremely delicate matter, all things considered, if some young people should be advised at the proper
time by those to whom God has entrusted the duty, joined with opportune graces, of educating children, surely

those precautions and skills are to be employed which are well known to Christian teachers.
2215 Surely, equally false and harmful to Christian education is that method of instructing youth, which is commonly

called "coeducation." Both the sexes have been established by God's wisdom for this purpose, that in the family and

in society they may complement each other, and may aptly join in any one thing; for this reason there is a distinction

of body and of soul by which they differ from each other, which accordingly must be maintained in education and in
instruction, or, rather ought to be fostered by proper distinction and separation, in keeping with age and
circumstances. Such precepts in accord with the precepts of Christian prudence are to be observed at the proper
time and opportunely not only in all schools, especially through the disturbed years of youth, upon which the manner

of living for almost all future life entirely depends, but also in gymnastic games and exercises, in which special care
must be taken for the Christian modesty of girls, inasmuch as it is especially unbecoming for them to expose
themselves, and to exhibit themselves before the eyes of all.
But to obtain perfect education care must be taken that all the conditions which surround children while they are
2216

being trained, fittingly correspond with the end proposed.

And surely from the necessity of nature the environment of the child for his proper training must be regarded as
his family, established by God for this very purpose. Therefore, finally, we shall rightly consider that institution stable
and safest which is received in a family rightly ordered and well disciplined; and the more efficacious and stable as

the parents especially and other members of the household present themselves the children as an example of virtue.
2217 Moreover, for the weaknesses of human nature, rendered weaker by the ancestral sin, God in His goodness has

provided the abundant helps of His grace and that plentiful supply of assistance which the Church possesses for

purifying souls and for leading them on to sanctity; the Church, we say, that great family of Christ, which is the

educational environment most intimately and harmoniously connected with individual families.
2218 Since, however, new generations would have to be instructed in all those arts and sciences by which civil

society advances and flourishes; and since the family alone did not suffice for this, accordingly public schools came

into being; yet in the beginning---note carefully---through the efforts of the Church and the family working together,

and only much later through the efforts of the state. Thus the seats and schools of learning, if we view their origin in
the light of history, were by their very nature helps, as it were, and almost a complement to both the Church and the
family. So the consequence is that public schools not only cannot be in opposition to the family and the Church, but
must ever be in harmony with both, as far as circumstances permit, so that these three, namely, school, family, and

Church seem to effect essentially one sanctuary of Christian education, unless we wish the school to stray from its
clear purpose and be converted into a disease and the destruction of youth.
2219 From this it necessarily follows that through schools which are calleneutral or lay, the entire foundation of
 Christian education is destroyed and overturned, inasmuch as religion has been entirely removed from them. But

they will beneutral schools in no way except in appearance, since they are in fact plainly hostile to religion or will
be.
It is a long task and there is indeed no need to repeat what Our predecessors, especially Pius IX and Leo XIII
openly declared, in whose reigns especially it happened that the serious disease of such laicism invaded the public

schools. We repeat and confirm their declarations * and likewise the prescripts of the Sacred Canons, according to
which Catholic youths are prohibited from frequenting for any reason either neutral or mixed schools, namely, those
which Catholics and non-Catholics attend for instruction; but it will be permitted to attend these, provided in the
judgment of a prudent ordinary, in certain conditions of place and time, special precautions be take*. For no

school can be tolerated (especially if it is the "only" school and all children are bound to attend it) in which, although
the precepts of sacred doctrine are taught separately to Catholics, yet the teachers are not Catholics, and who
imbue Catholic and non-Catholic children generally with a knowledge of the arts and letters.
For, because the instruction in religion is given in a certain school (usually too sparingly), such a school for this
2220

reason does not satisfy the rights of the Church and family; nor is it thus made suitable for the attendance of Catholic
pupils; for, in order that any school measure up to this, it is quite necessary that all instruction and doctrine, the
whole organization of the school, namely, its teachers, plan of studies, books, in fact, whatever pertains to any
branch of learning, be so permeated and be so strong in Christian spirit, under the guidance and the eternal vigilance

of the Church, that religion itself forms both the basis and the end of the entire scheme of instruction; and this not
only in the schools in which the elements of learning are taught but also in those of higher studies. "It is necessary," to
use the words of Leo XIII, "not only that youth be taught religion at definite times, but that all the rest of their
instruction be pervaded with a religious feeling. If this be lacking, if this sacred condition does not permeate and

stimulate the minds of the teachers and those taught, small benefit will be received from any learning, and no little
damage will often follow." *
2221 Moreover, whatever is done by the faithful of Christ to promote and protect the Catholic school for their

children, is without any doubt a religious work, and thus a most important duty of "Catholic Action"; accordingly, all

those sodalities are very pleasing to Our paternal heart and worthy of special praise, which in many places in a
special manner and most zealously are engaged in so essential a work.
Therefore, let it be proclaimed on high, well noted, and recognized by all that the faithful of Christ in demanding
a Catholic School for their children are nowhere in the world guilty of an act of a political dissension, but perform a

religious duty which their own conscience peremptorily demands; and, these Catholics do not intend to withdraw
their children from the training and spirit of the state, but rather to train them for this very end, in a manner most
perfect, and best accommodated to the usefulness of the nation, since a true Catholic, indeed, well instructed in
Catholic teaching, is by this very fact the best citizen, a supporter of his country, and obedient with a sincere faith to

public authority under any legitimate form of government.

2222 The salutary efficiency of schools, moreover, is to be attributed not so much to good laws as to good teachers,

who, being well prepared and each having a good knowledge of the subject to be taught the students, truly adorned

with the qualities of mind and spirit, which their most important duty obviously demands, glow with a pure and

divine love for the youth committed to them, just as they love Jesus Christ and His Church, ---whose most beloved
children these are---and by this very fact sincerely have the true good of the family and the fatherland at heart.
Therefore, We are greatly consoled and We acknowledge the goodness of God with a grateful heart, when we see
that in addition to the men and women of religious communities who devote themselves to the teaching of children

and youth, there are so many and such excellent lay teachers of both sexes, and that these---for their greater
spiritual advancement joining in associations and spiritual sodalities, which are to be praised and promoted as a
noble and strong aid to "Catholic Action"--unmindful of their own advantage, devote themselves strenuously and
unceasingly to that which St. Gregory of Nazianzus calls "the art of arts and the science of sciences* namely, the

direction and formation of youth. Yet, since those words of the divine Master apply to them also: "The harvest
indeed is great, but laborers are few"Matt. 9:37 ], such teachers of Christian education--- whose training should be
of special concern to the pastors of souls, and superiors of religious orders---we exhort the Lord of the harvest with
suppliant prayers to provide such teachers in greater numbers.
2223 Furthermore, the education of the child, inasmuch as he is "soft as wax to be molded into vice"* in whatever

environment he lives, must be directed and watched by removing occasions of evil, and by supplying opportunely

occasions for good in times of relaxation of mind, and enjoyment of companions, because "evil communications
corrupt good manners" [ 1 Cor. 15:33 ].

Yet, such watchfulness and vigilance, as we have said should be applied, does not at all demand that young
people be removed from association with men with whom they must live their lives, and whom they must consult in
regard to the salvation of their souls; but only that they be fortified and strengthened in a Christian
manner---especially today--- against the enticements and errors of the world, which, according to the words of

John, are entirely "concupiscence of the flesh, concupiscence of the eyes, and pride of life1 John 2:16], so that, as
Tertullian wrote of the early Christians: "Let our people keep themselves as Christians who should at all times be
sharers in the possession of the world, not of its erro*."
Christian education aims properly and immediately to make man a true and perfect Christian by cooperating
2224

with divine grace, namely, to mold and fashion Christ Himself in those who have been reborn in baptism, according
to the clear statement of the Apostle: "My little children of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you" [
Gal. 4:19]. For, the true Christian must live a supernatural life in Christ: "Christ ourCol. 3:4], and manifest the
same in all his actions, "that the life of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal fles2 Cor. 4:11].

Since this is so, Christian education embraces the sum total of human actions, because it pertains to the
workings of the senses and of the spirit, to the intellect and to morals, to individuals, to domestic and civil society,
not indeed, to weaken it, but according to the example and teaching of Jesus Christ, to elevate, regulate, and perfect
it.

Thus the true Christian, molded by Christian education, is none other than the supernatural man who thinks,
judges, and acts constantly and consistently in accordance with right reason; supernaturally inspired by the examples
and teachings of Jesus Christ; that is, a man outstanding in force of character. For whoever follows his own
inclination and acts stubbornly, intent on his own desires, is not a man of strong character; but only he who follows

the eternal principles of justice, just as even the pagan host himself recognizes when he praises "the just" man
together with "the man tenacious of purpose"; * but these ideas of justice cannot be fully observed unless there is
attributed to God whatever is God's due, as is done by the true Christian.
The true Christian, far from renouncing the activities of this life and from suppressing his natural talents, on the

contrary fosters and brings them to perfection by so cooperating with the supernatural life that he embellishes the
natural way of living, and supports it by more efficacious aids, which are in accord not only with spiritual and eternal
things but also with the necessities of natural life itself.

Christian Marriage *
[From the Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Pius Xl, Dec. 31, 1930]

First, then, let this remain as an unchangeable and inviolable basis; marriage was not instituted or restored by
2225

man but by God; not by man but by the very author of nature, God; and by the restorer of the same nature was it
fortified, confirmed, and elevated through laws; and these laws, therefore, cannot be subject to any decision of man
and not even to any contrary agreement on the part of the spouses themselves. This is a doctrine of Holy Scripture [
Gen. 1:27 f.2:22 f.Matt. 19:3 ff.Eph. 5:23 ff.]; this is the continued and unanimous tradition of the Church; this is

the solemn definition of the sacred Council of Trent, which declares and confirms [sees.24 ; see n969 ff.] that the
perpetual and indissoluble bond of marriage, and the unity and the stability of the same emanate from God as their
author.
But, although marriage by its nature was instituted by God, nevertheless man's will has its own role, and a most

noble one in it; for, every individual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union between a certain man and a certain
woman, it arises only from the free consent of both spouses, and indeed this free act of the will, by which both
parties hand over and accept the rights* proper to matrimony, is so necessary to constitute a true marriage that it
cannot be supplied by any human power. * Yet such freedom has this purpose only, to establish that contracting

parties really wish to enter upon marriage and wish to do so with a certain person or not; but the nature of marriage
is wholly removed from the freedom of man, so much so that as soon as man has contracted marriage he is subject
to its divine laws and essential properties. For the Angelic Doctor, discussing good faith in marriage and offspring,
says: "These things are so effected in marriage by the conjugal agreement itself that if anything contrary were
 expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage." *
By wedlock, then, souls are joined and made as one, and the souls are affected earlier and more strongly than
bodies; not by any transient affection of the senses or the spirit, but by a deliberate and firm decision of the will; and
from this joining of souls, with God so decreeing, a sacred and inviolable bond arises.

This entirely proper and peculiar nature of this contract makes it completely different not only from the
connections of animals performed by blind instinct of nature alone, in which there is no reason nor free will, but also
from those unrestrained unions of men, which are far removed from every true and honorable bond of wills, and
destitute of any right to family life.

2226 From this it is now well established that truly legitimate authority has the power by law and so is compelled by

duty to restrain, to prevent, and to punish base marriages, which are opposed to reason and to nature; but since a

matter is involved which follows upon human nature itself, that is no less definitely established which Our
predecessor, Leo XIII, of happy memory, plainly taught: * "In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is

within the power and discretion of individuals to prefer either one of two: either to adopt the counsel of Jesus Christ
with respect to virginity, or to bind himself with the bonds of matrimony. To take away the natural and primeval right
of marriage, or in any way to circumscribe the chief purpose of marriage established in the beginning by the authority
of God, "Increase and multiply" [Gen. 1:28 ], is not within the power of any law of man."

2227 Now as We come to explain what are these blessings, granted by God, of true matrimony, and how great they

are, Venerable Brethren, there come to Us the words of that very famous Doctor of the Church, whom not so long

ago We commemorated in Our Encyclical Letter, Ad Salutem, published on the fulfillment of the fifteenth century
after his death. St. Augustine says: "All these are blessings, because of which marriage is a blessing: of fspring,

conjugal faith, and the sacrament."* How these three headings are rightly said to contain a very splendid summary
of the whole doctrine on Christian marriage, the Holy Doctor clearly shows when he says: "By conjugal faith care is
taken that there be no intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or another woman; by offspring, that
children be begotten in love, nourished with kindness, and brought up religiously; but by the sacrament, that the

marriage be not broken, and that the separated man or woman have intercourse with another not even for the sake
of offspring. This is, as it were, the law of marriage, whereby the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the depravity
of incontinence is controlled.*
[1] Thus the child holds the first place among the blessing of matrimony. Clearly the Creator of the human race
2228

Himself, who because of His kindness wished to use men as helpers in propagating life, taught this in Paradise, when
He instituted marriage, saying to our first parents, and through them to all spouses: "Increase and multiply and fill the
earth" Gen. 1:28 ]. This thought St. Augustine very beautifully infers from words of St. Paul the Apostle to
Timothy [ 1 Tim. 5:14], when he says: "So the Apostle is witness that marriage is accomplished for the sake of

generation. Iwish, he says, young girls to marry. And as if someone said to Him: Why? he immediately adds: To
bear children, to be mothers of families" [1 Tim. 5:14 ]*
2229 Indeed, Christian parents should further understand that they are destined not only to propagate and to preserve

the human race on earth, nay rather, not to raise any kind of worshipers of the true God, but to produce offspring of

the Church of Christ; to procreate "fellow-citizens of the saints and members of God's household" [Eph. 2:19 ], that
the people devoted to the worship of God and our Savior may increase daily. For, even if Christian spouses,
although they themselves are sanctified, have not the power to transfuse sanctification into their offspring, surely the
natural generation of life has become a way of death, by which original sin passes into the offspring; yet in some

manner they share something of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is their privilege to offer their own
offspring to the Church, so that by this most fruitful mother of the sons of God they may be regenerated through the
laver of baptism unto supernatural justice, and become living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and,
finally, heirs of eternal glory which we all desire with all our heart. . . .

2230 But the blessing of offspring is not completed by the good work of procreation; something else must be added

which is contained in the dutiful education of the offspring. Surely, the most wise God would have made insufficient

provision for the child that is born, and so for the whole human race, unless He had also assigned the right and duty
of educating to the same ones to whom He had given the power and right of generating. For it cannot escape
 anyone that offspring, not only in matters which pertain to the natural life, and much less in those which pertain to the
supernatural life, cannot be sufficient unto itself or provide for itself, but is for many years in need of the assistance o
others, of care, and of education. But it is certain that, when nature and God bid, this right and duty of educating
offspring belongs especially to those who began the work of nature by generating, and they are also absolutely

forbidden to expose this work to ruin by leaving it unfinished and imperfect. Surely, the best possible provision has
been made in matrimony for this most necessary education of children, in which, since parents are joined to each
other by an insoluble bond, there is always at hand the care and mutual assistance of both. . . .
Nor can this be passed over in silence, that, since the duty committed to parents for the good of offspring is of

such great dignity and importance, any honorable use of this faculty given by God to procreate new life, at the
command of the Creator Himself and the laws of nature, is the right and privilege of matrimony alone, and must be
confined within the sacred limits of marriage.
[2] Another blessing of matrimony which we have spoken of as mentioned by Augustine, is the blessing of faith,
2231

which is the mutual fidelity of spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what by this contract, sanctioned by
divine law, is due only to one spouse, cannot be denied him nor permitted to anyone else; nor is that to be
conceded to the spouse, which can never be conceded, since it is contrary to divine rights and laws and is especially
opposed to conjugal faith.

Thus this faith demands in the first place the absolute unity of marriage, which the Creator Himself established in
the matrimony of our first parents when He willed that it exist only between one man and one woman And although
afterwards God, the supreme legislator, somewhat relaxed this primeval law for a time, nevertheless there is no
doubt that the Evangelical Law entirely restored that original and perfect unity and did away with all dispensations,

as the words of Christ and the uniform way either of teaching or acting on the part of the Church plainly show [see
note 969 ]. . . .
Nor did Christ the Lord wish to condemn only polygamy and polyandry, whether successive * or simultaneous,
as they are called, or any other dishonorable act; but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be absolutely

inviolate, He forbade also even the willful thoughts and desires about all these things: "But I say to you that
whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matt. 5:28
]. These words of Christ the Lord cannot become void even by the consent of one spouse; for they express the law
of God and of nature, which no will of man can ever break or bend. *

Even mutual familiar intercourse between spouses, that the blessing of conjugal faith may shine with due
splendor, should be so distinguished by the mark of chastity that husband and wife conduct themselves in all things
according to the law of God and of nature, and strive always to follow the will of the most wise and most holy
Creator, with great reverence for the work of God.

2232 Moreover, this conjugal fidelity, most aptly called by St. Augustin* the "faith of chastity," will flourish more

readily, and even much more pleasantly, and as ennobling coming from another most excellent source, namely, from

conjugal love, which pervades all duties of the married life and holds a kind of primacy of nobility in Christian
marriage. "Besides, matrimonial fidelity demands that husband and wife be joined in a peculiarly holy and pure love,

not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church; for the Apostle prescribed this rule when he said:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church" [ Eph. 5:25 ;cf.Col. 3:19 ]; which Church certainly He
embraced with tremendous love, not for His own advantage, but keeping before Him only the good of His Spouse."
*

We speak, then, of a love that rests not only on a carnal inclination that very quickly disappears, nor on pleasing
words only, but that is also set in the innermost affection of the heart; and, "since the proof of love is a manifestation
of deeds," * that is proven by external deeds. Now these deeds in home life include not only mutual assistance, but
also should extend to this, rather should aim especially for this, that husband and wife help each other daily to form

and to perfect the interior man more fully, so that through their partnership in life they may advance in the virtues
more and more, and may grow especially in true love toward God and their neighbors, on which indeed "dependeth
the whole Law and the Prophets" [ Matt. 22:40 ]* .Manifestly the most perfect example of all holiness set before
men by God is Christ the Lord. All, in whatever condition and whatever honorable way of life they have entered,

with God's help should also arrive at the highest degree of Christian perfection, as is proven by the examples of
many saints.
This mutual interior formation of husband and wife, this constant zeal for bringing each other to perfection, in a
very true sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, can be said to be the very first reason and purpose of matrimony;
 if, however, matrimony be not accepted too narrowly as instituted for the proper procreation and education of
children, but more broadly as the mutual participation in all life, companionship, and association.
With this same love the remaining rights as well as duties of marriage must be regulated, so that not only the law
of justice, but also the norm of love may be that of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and

the wife also in like manner to the husband" [1 Cor. 7:3].

2233 Finally, after the domestic society has been confirmed by the bond of this love, of necessity there must flourish in

it that which is called by Augustinthe order of love. Now this order includes both the primacy of the husband

over the wife and the children, and the prompt and not unwilling subjection and obedience of the. wife, which the

Apostle commends with these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the
husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church"Eph. 5:22 f.].
Yet this obedience does not deny or take away the liberty which by full right belongs to a woman, both in view
of her dignity as a human being, and in view of her noble duties of wife, mother, and companion; nor does it demand

that she obey every desire of her husband, that is, not in keeping with right reason or with her dignity as a wife; nor,
finally, does it mean that a wife is to be placed on the same level with persons who in law are called minors, to
whom the free exercise of their rights is not customarily granted because of lack of mature judgment, or because of
inexperience in human affairs; but it forbids that exaggerated liberty which has no care for the good of the family; it

forbids that in this body of the family the heart be separated from the head, to the great detriment of the whole body
and the proximate danger of ruin. For, if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and just as he holds primacy in
ruling, she can and ought to claim primacy in love for herself as her own.
Furthermore, this obedience of the wife to her husband, insofar as pertains to degree and manner, can be

different, according to different persons, places, and conditions of the time; rather, if a husband fail in his duty, it is
the wife's responsibility to take his place in directing the family. But the very structure of the family and its chief law,
as constituted and confirmed by God, can never and nowhere be overturned or tainted.
On this point of maintaining order between husband and wife Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII,

wisely taught in his Encyclical Letter on Christian marriage which We have mentioned: "The man is the ruler of the
family and the head of the woman; yet, since she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, let her be subject and
obedient to the man, not in the manner of a maidservant but of a companion, 50 that of course, neither honor nor
dignity be lacking in the obedience rendered. But let divine charity be the unfailing guide of duty in him who is at the

head, and in her who obeys, since both bear the image, the one, of Christ, the other of the Church. . . *
2234 [3] Yet the sum total of such great benefits is completed and, as it were, brought to a head by that blessing of

Christian marriage which we have called, in Augustine's words, a sacrament, by which is denoted the indissolubility

of the bond and the raising and hallowing by Christ of the contract into an efficacious sign of grace.

In the first place, to be sure, Christ Himself lays stress on the indissoluble firmness of the nuptial bond when he
says: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" [ Matt. 19:6 ]; and, "Everyone that putteth away his
wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery" [Luke 16:18 ].

Moreover, St. Augustine places in this indissolubility what he calls "the blessing of the sacrament," in these clear
words: "But in the sacrament it is intended that the marriage be not broken, and that the man or the woman
dismissed be not joined with another, even for the sake of offspring*
And this inviolable stability, although not of the same perfect measure in every case, pertains to all true
2235

marriages; for that saying of the Lord, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," although, said of
the marriage of our first parents, the prototype of every future marriage, must apply to all true marriages. Therefore,
although before Christ the sublimity and severity of the primeval law were so tempered that Moses allowed the
citizens of the people of God because of the hardness of their hearts to grant a bill of divorce for certain causes; yet

Christ in accord with His power as Supreme Legislator revoked this permission of greater license, and restored the
primeval law in its entirety through those words which are never to be forgotten: "What God hath joined together, let
no man put asunder." So, most wisely did Pius Vl, Our predecessor of happy memory, writing to the Bishop of
Agria,* say: "From this it is manifestly clear that matrimony, even in the state of nature, and surely long before it

was raised to the dignity of a sacrament properly so called, was so established by God that it carries with it a
perpetual and indissoluble bond, which, accordingly, cannot be dissolved by any civil law. And so, although the
sacramental element can be separated from matrimony, as is true in a marriage between infidels, still in such a
marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage, there must remain and surely does remain that perpetual bond which by
 divine right is so inherent in marriage from its very beginning that it is not subject to any civil power. And so
whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is in fact a true marriage, and then will
have that perpetual bond inherent by divine law in every true marriage, or it is supposed to be contracted without
that perpetual bond, and then is not a marriage, but an illicit union repugnant by its purpose to the divine law, and

therefore cannot be entered upon or maintained. *

2236 If this stability seems subject to exception, however rare, as in the case of certain natural marriages entered into

between unbelievers, or if between the faithful of Christ, those which are valid but not consummated, that exception

does not depend on the will of man or of any merely human power, but on divine law, whose only guardian and

interpreter is the Church of Christ. Yet, not even such a power can for any cause ever affect a Christian marriage
which is valid and consummated. For, since the marriage contract is fully accomplished in such case, so also
absolute stability and indissolubility by God's will are apparent, which cannot be relaxed by any human authority.
If we wish to investigate with due reverence the intimate reason for this divine will, we shall easily discover it in

the mystical signification of Christian marriage, which is fully and perfectly had in a marriage consummated between
the faithful. For with the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Ephesians as witnEph. 5:32 ] (to which we referred in the
beginning), the marriage of Christians recalls that most perfect union which exists between Christ and the Church:
"This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the church," which union, indeed, as long as Christ shall live

and the Church through Him, surely can never be dissolved by any separation. . . .
2237 In this blessing of the sacrament, in addition to its indissoluble firmness, far higher emoluments are also

contained, very aptly indicated by the word, "sacrament"; for to Christians this is not a hollow and empty name,

since Christ the Lord, "the Institutor and Perfecto* of the sacraments, raising the marriage of His faithful to a true

and proper sacrament of the New Law, made it in very fact a sign and source of that peculiar interior grace by
which it perfects natural love, confirms an indissoluble union, and sanctifies the spou*es.
And since Christ established valid conjugal consent between the faithful as a sign of grace, the nature of the
sacrament is so intimately bound up with Christian marriage that no true matrimony can exist between baptized

persons "unless by that very fact it be a sacrament.*

When then the faithful with sincere minds give such consent, they open up a treasure of sacramental grace for
themselves, from which they draw supernatural strength for fulfilling their obligations and duties faithfully, nobly, and
perseveringly even until death.

This sacrament, in the case of those who, as they say, place noobex in its way, not only increases the
permanent principle of supernatural life, namely sanctifying grace, but also bestows peculiar gifts, good dispositions
of mind, and seeds of grace, by increasing and perfecting the natural powers, so that the spouses are able not only
to understand by reason, but to know intimately, to hold firmly, to wish efficaciously, and to carry out, indeed,

whatever pertains to the marriage state, both its ends and obligations; finally, it grants them the right to obtain the
actual assistance of grace as often as they need it for fulfilling the duties of this state.
2238 And yet, since it is a law of divine Providence in the supernatural order that men do not gather the full fruit of the

sacraments which they receive after acquiring the use of reason, unless they cooperate with grace, the grace of

marriage will remain in great part a useless talent hidden in the field, unless the spouses exercise supernatural
strength and cultivate and develop the seeds of grace which they have received. But if they do all they can to make
themselves docile to grace, they will be able to bear the burdens of their state and fulfill its duties, and will be
strengthened and sanctified and, as it were, consecrated by so great a sacrament. For, as St. Augustine teaches, just

as by baptism and holy orders a man is set aside and assisted either to lead his life in a Christian manner, or to fulfill
the duties of the priesthood, and is never devoid of sacramental help, almost in the same manner (although not by a
sacramental sign) the faithful who have once been joined by the bond of marriage can never be deprived of its
sacramental assistance and tie. But rather, as the same Holy Doctor adds, they take that holy bond with them even

when they may have become adulterers, although not now to the glory of grace, but to the crime of sin, "as the
apostate soul, as if withdrawing from union with Christ, even after faith has been lost, does not lose the sacrament of
faith which it received from the laver of regeneration*
But let these same spouses, not restrained but adorned by the golden tie of the sacrament, not impeded but

strengthened, struggle with all their might for this end, that their wedlock, not only by the strength and significance of
the sacrament, but also by their mentality and character, be and always remain the living image of that most fruitful
union of Christ with the Church, which surely is to be revered as the mystery of the most perfect love.
 The Abuse of Matrimony *
[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

Let us discuss the offspring, which some have the audacity to call the troublesome burden of marriage, and
2239

which they declare should be studiously avoided not by honorable continence ( permitted even in matrimony when
both spouses consent), but by frustration of the natural act. Indeed, some vindicate themselves for this criminal
abuse on the ground that they are tired of children and wish merely to fulfill their desires without the consequent
burden; others on the ground that they can neither observe continence, nor because of difficulties of the mother or of

family circumstances cannot have offspring.

But surely no reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is intrinsically against nature becomes in
accord with nature, and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the
generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act

contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.

Therefore, it is no wonder that Sacred Scripture itself testifies that the divine Majesty looks upon this nefarious
crime with the greatest hatred, and sometimes has punished it with death, as St. Augustine relates: "It is illicit and
disgraceful for one to lie even with his legitimate wife, when conception of offspring is prevented. Onan did this;

God killed him therefore." *

2240 Since, therefore, certain persons, manifestly departing from Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning

without interruption, have recently decided that another doctrine should be preached on this method of acting, the

Catholic Church, to whom God himself has entrusted the teaching and the defense of the integrity and purity of

morals, placed in the midst of this ruination of morals, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the marriage
contract immune from this base sin, and in token of her divine mission raises high her voice through Our mouth and
again proclaims: Any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of its natural power
of procreating life, infringes on the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are

stained with the guilt of serious sin.

Therefore, We admonish the priests who devote time to hearing confessions, and others who have care of
souls, in accord with Our highest authority, not to permit the faithful committed to them to err in this most serious
law of God, and much more to keep themselves immune from false opinions of this kind, and not to connive in them

in any way. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, either himself leads the faithful entrusted to
him into these errors, or at least either by approval or by guilty silence confirms them in these errors, let him know
that he must render a strict accounting to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his trust, and let him consider
the words of Christ as spoken to himself: "They are blind, and the leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the

blind, both fall jr/to the pit"Matt. 15:14 ]. *

2241 Holy Church knows very well that not rarely one of the spouses is sinned against rather than commits a sin,

when for a very grave reason he permits a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not wish; and on this

account he is without fault, provided he then remembers the law of charity and does not neglect to prevent and

deter the other from sinning. Those spouses are not to be said to act against the order of nature who use their right
in a correct and natural way, although for natural reasons of time, or of certain defects new life cannot spring from
this. For in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as
mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means

forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its
primary end. . . .
Every care must be taken lest the calamitous conditions of external affairs give occasion for a much more
disastrous error. For no difficulties can arise which can nullify the obligation of the mandates of God which forbid

acts that are evil from their interior nature; but in all collateral circumstances spouses, strengthened by the grace of
God, can always perform their duty faithfully, and preserve their chastity in marriage untainted by this shameful stain;
for the truth of the Christian faith stands expressed in the teaching of the Synod of Trent: "Let no one rashly assert
that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God

impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands instructs you to do what
you are able, to pray for what you are not able, and assists you that you may be able" [see n804 ]. This same
 doctrine was again solemnly repeated and confirmed in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy, which dared to
utter this blasphemy against the goodness of God: "Some precepts of God are impossible of fulfillment, even for just

men who wish and strive to keep the laws according to the powers which they have; grace also is lacking to them
which would render this possible" [see n. 1092 ].

The Killing of the Foetus *

[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

2242 Another very grave crime is also to be noted, by which the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb is

attempted. Moreover, some wish this to be permitted according to the pleasure of the mother or father; others,

however, call it illicit unless very grave reasons attend, which they call by the name of medical, social, eugenic
"indication." Since this pertains to the penal laws of the state, according to which the destruction of the offspring
begotten but not yet born is prohibited, all of these demand that the "indication," which they defend individually in
one way or another, be recognized even by the public laws, and be declared free of all punishment. Nay rather,

there are not lacking those who demand that public magistrates lend a helping hand to these deathdealing
operations, something which unfortunately we all know is taking place very frequently in some places.
2243 Now as for the medical and therapeutic "indication," to use their words, We have already said, Venerable

Brethren, how sorry We are for the mother, whose health and even life are threatened by grave dangers resulting

from nature's duty; but what reason can ever be strong enough to excuse in any way the direct murder of the
innocent? For this is the case in point here. Whether this is brought upon the mother or the offspring, it is contrary to
God's precept and the voice of nature: "Thou shalt not kill!"Exod. 20:13 ]. * The life of each person is an equally
sacred thing, and no one can ever have the power, not even public authority to destroy it. Consequently, it is most

unjust to invoke the "right of the sword" against the innocent since this is valid against the guilty alone; nor is there
any right in this case of a bloody defense against an unjust aggressor (for who will call an innocent child an unjust
aggressor?); nor is there present any "right of extreme necessity," as it is called, which can extend even to the direct
killing of the innocent. Therefore, honorable and experienced physicians praiseworthily endeavor to protect and to

save the lives of both the mother and the offspring; on the other hand, most unworthy of the noble name of physician
and of commendation would they prove themselves, as many as plan for the death of one or the other under the
appearance of practicing medicine or through motives of false pity. . . .
Now what is put forth in behalf ofsocial and eugenic indication, with licit and honorable means and within due
2244

limits, may and ought to be held as a solution for these matters; but because of the necessities upon which these
problems rest, to seek to procure the death of the innocent is improper and contrary to the divine precept
promulgated by the words of the Apostle: "Evil is not to be done that good may come of it" [Rom. 3:8 ].
Finally, those who hold high office among nations and pass laws may not forget that it belongs to public

authority by appropriate laws and penalties to defend the lives of the innocent, and the more so as those whose lives
are endangered and are attacked are less able to defend themselves, among whom surely infants in their mothers'
wombs hold first place. But if public magistrates not only do not protect those little ones, but by their laws and
ordinances permit this, and thus give them over to the hands of physicians and others to be killed, let them

remember that God is the judge and the avenger of innocent "blood which cries from earth to heaven" [Gen. 4:10 ].

The Right to Marriage, and Sterilization *

[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

2245 Finally, that pernicious practice should be condemned which is closely related to the natural right of man to enter
into matrimony, and also in a real way pertains to the good of the offspring. For there are those who, overly
solicitous about the ends ofeugenics, not only give certain salutary counsels for more certainly procuring the health
and vigor of the future offspring---which certainly is not contrary to right reason---but also pleugenics before
every other end of a higher order; and by public authority wish to prohibit from marriage all those from whom,
according to the norms and conjectures of their science, they think that a defective and corrupt offspring will be
generated because of hereditary transmission, even if these same persons are naturally fitted for entering upon
matrimony. Why, they even wish such persons even against their will to be deprived by law of that natural faculty
through the operation of physicians; and this they propose not as a severe penalty for a crime committed, to be
sought by public authority, nor to ward off future crimes of the gui* but, contrary to every right and claim, by
arrogating this power to the civil magistrates, which they never had and can never have legitimately.
 Whoever so act completely forget that the family is more sacred than the state, and that men are generated
primarily not for earth and for time, but for heaven and eternity. And, surely, it is not right that men, in other respects
capable of matrimony, who according to conjecture, though every care and diligence be applied, will generate only
defective offspring, be for this reason burdened with a serious sin if they contract marriage, although sometimes they
ought to be dissuaded from matrimony.
2246 In fact, public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, they can never
directly do harm to, or in any way affect the integrity of the body, where no crime has taken place, and no cause for
serious punishment is at hand, either for reasons oeugenics, or any other purpose. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the
same, when, inquiring whether human judges have the power to inflict some evil on man to ward off future evils,
concedes this to be correct with reference to certain other evils, but rightly and worthily denies it with regard to
injuring the body: "Never ought anyone, according to human judgment, to be punished when without guilt, by a
penalty of flogging to death, or of mutilation, or of beatin*."

Christian doctrine has established this, and by the light of human reason it is quite clear that private individuals
have no other power over the members of their bodies, and cannot destroy or mutilate them, or in any other way
render them unfitted for natural functions, except when the good of the whole body cannot otherwise be provided
for.

The Emancipation of Women *

[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

2247 Whoever, then, obscure the luster of conjugal faith and chastity by writing and speaking, these same teachers of

error easily undermine the trustful and honorable obedience of the woman to the man. Many of them also boldly

prattle that it is an unworthy form of servitude on the part of one spouse to the other; that all rights between spouses
are equal; and when these are violated by the servitude of one, they proudly proclaim that a kind ofemancipation

has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation, moreover, they establish in a threefold way: in the ruling of
domestic society, in the administration of family affairs, and in preventing or destroying of the life of the offspring,
and they call thesesocial, economic, and physiological: physiological, indeed, in that they wish women freed, or
to be freed of the duties of wife, whether conjugal or maternal, at her own free will (but we have already said

enough to the effect that this is not emancipation but a wretched crime); economic, of course, whereby they wish
woman, even unbeknown to or with the opposition of the man, to be able freely to possess, carry on, and
administer her own business affairs, to the neglect of children, husband, and the entire family; finally, social, insofar
as they remove from the wife domestic cares whether of children or of family, that she may be able while neglecting

these, to follow her own bent, and even to devote herself to business and public affairs.
2248 But this is not a true emancipation of woman, nor is it a freedom which is in accord with reason, nor worthy of

her and due to the office of a noble Christian mother and wife; rather it is a corruption of the feminine nature and of

maternal dignity, and a perversion of the entire family, whereby the husband is deprived of a wife, the offspring of a

mother, and the house and entire family of an ever watchful guardian. Rather, indeed, such false liberty and unnatural
equality with man are turned to the destruction of the woman herself; for, if the woman descends from that royal
seat to which she was raised within the walls of the home by the Gospel, she will shortly be reduced to ancient
servitude (if not in appearance, yet in very fact), and will become, as she was among the pagans, a mere instrument

of man.
But that equality of rights which is so greatly exaggerated and extended, ought to be recognized of course
among those which are proper to a person and human dignity, and which follow upon the nuptial contract and are
natural to marriage; and in these, surely, both spouses enjoy absolutely the same right and are bound by the same

obligations; in other matters a kind of inequality and just proportion must exist, which the good of the family and the
due unity and stability of domestic society and of order demand.
Nevertheless, wherever the social and economic conditions of the married woman, because of changed ways
and practices of human society, need to be changed in some manner, it belongs to public authority to adapt the civil

rights of woman to the necessities and needs of this time, with due consideration of what the different natural
disposition of the feminine sex, good morality, and the common good of the family demand; provided, also, that the
essential order of domestic society remains intact, which is founded on an authority and wisdom higher than human,
thatis, divine, and cannot be changed by public laws and the pleasure of individuals.

Divorces *
[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]
2249 The advocates of neopaganism, having learned nothing from the present sad state of affairs, continue daily to

attack more bitterly the sacred indissolubility of marriage and the laws that support it, and contend that there must

be a decision to recognize divorces, that other and more humane laws be substituted for the obsolete laws.
They bring forward many different causes for divorce, some deriving from the wickedness or sin of persons,

others based on circumstances (the former they call subjective, the latter objective); finally, whatever makes the
individual married life more harsh and unpleasant. . . .
So there is prattle to the effect that laws must be made to conform to these requirements and changed
conditions of the times, the opinions of men, and the civil institutions and customs, all of which individually, and

especially when brought together, most clearly testify that opportunity for divorce must forthwith be granted for
certain causes.
Others, proceeding further with remarkable impudence, believe that inasmuch as matrimony is a purely private
contract, it should be left directly to the consent and private opinion of the two who contracte, as is the case in

other private contracts, and so can be dissolved for anyreason.

2250 But opposed to all these ravings stands the one most certain law of God, confirmed most fully by Christ, which

can be weakened by no decrees of men or decisions of the people, by no will of legislators: "What God hathjoined

together, let no man put asunder" [Matt. 19:6]; And if a man, contrary to this law puts asunder, it is immediately

illegal; so rightly, as we have seen more than once, Christ Himself has declared "Everyone that putteth away his wife
and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery" Luke

16:18 ]. And these words of Christ refer to any marriage whatsoever, even that which is purely natural and
legitimate; for indissolubility is proper to every true marriage, and whatever pertains to the loosening of the bond is

entirely removed from the good pleasure of the parties concerned and from every secular power.

"Sexual Education" and "Eugenics" *

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, March 21, 1931]

2251 I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"

Response: In the negative, and that the method must be preserved entirely as set forth up to the present by the

Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian

Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929 [see n. 2214 ]. Naturally, care must especially be
taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this
instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be
inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the most Holy Eucharist,

to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to
her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, association with the wicked, and all occasions
of sin.
By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method

especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors.
2252 II) What is to be thought of the so-called theory of "eugenics," whether "positive" or "negative," and of the

means indicated by it to bring human progeny to a better state, disregarding the laws either natural or divine or

ecclesiastical which concern the rights of the individual to matrimony?

Response: That this theory is to be entirely disapproved, and held as false and condemned, as in the Encyclical
Letter on Christian marriage, "Casti connubii," dated on the 31st day of December, 1930 [see n. 2245 f.]

The Authority of the Church in Social and Economic Affairs *

[From the Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]

2253 The principle which Leo XIII clearly established long ago must be rayed down, that there rest in us the right and

the duty of passing judgment with supreme authority on these social and economic problems. *. . . For, although
 economic affairs and moral discipline make use of their own principles, each in its own sphere, nevertheless, it is
false to say that the economic and the moral order are so distinct and alien to each other that the former in no way
depends on the latter.

The Ownership or Right of Property *

[From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]

Its individual and social nature. First, then, let it be held as acknowledged and certain that neither Leo nor
2254

those theologians who taught under the leadership and direction of the Church have ever denied or called into
question the twofold nature of ownership, which is called individual and social, according as it regards individuals or
looks to the common good; but have always unanimously affirmed that the right to private ownership has been
assigned to men by nature, or by the Creator himself, both that they may be able individually to provide for
themselves and their families, and that by means of this institution the goods which the Creator has destined for the
entire human family may truly serve this end, all of which can by no means be attained except by the maintenance of
a definite and fixed order. . . .
Obligations inherent in ownership. In order to place definite limits to the controversies which have begun to
2255
arise over ownership and the duties inherent therein, we must first lay down the fundamental principle which Leo
XIII established, namely, that the right of property is distinguished from its * For that justice which is known as
"commutative" directs men to preserve the division of property as sacred, and not to encroach on the rights of
others by exceeding limits of proper ownership; but that owners make only honorable use of their property is not

the concern of this justice, but of other virtues whose duties "it is not right to seek by passing a*l Therefore,
some unjustly declare that ownership and its honorable use are bounded by the same limits; and, what is much more
at odds with the truth, that because of its abuse or nonuse the right to property is destroyed and lost. . . .
What the power of the state is. From the very nature of ownership which We have called both individual and
2256
social it follows that men must in very fact take into account in this matter not only their own advantage but also the
common good. To define these duties in detail, when necessity demands it, and the natural law does not prescribe
them, is the duty of those who are in charge of the state. Therefore, what is permitted those who possess property
in consideration of the true necessity of the common good, what is illicit in the use of their possessions public

authority can decide more accurately, following the dictates of the natural and the divine law. Indeed, Leo XIII
wisely taught that the description of private possessions has been entrusted by God to man's industry and to the
laws of peoples. . . *' Yet it is plain that the state may not perform its duty arbitrarily. For the natural right of
possessing private property and of transmitting goods by inheritance should always remain intact and unviolated,

"for man is older than the state,* and also, "the domestic household is prior both in idea and in fact to the civil
community." * Thus the most wise Pontiff had already declared it unlawful for the state to exhaust private funds by
the heavy burden of taxes and tributes. "Public authority cannot abolish the right to hold private property, since this
is not derived from the law of man but of nature, but can only control its use and bring it in harmony with the

common good. * . . .
2257 Obligations regarding superfluous income. Superfluous incomes are not left entirely to man's discretion; that

is, wealth that he does not need to sustain life fittingly and becomingly; but on the other hand Sacred Scripture and

the holy Fathers of the Church continuously declare in clearest words that the rich are bound most seriously by the

precept of practicing charity, beneficence, and liberality. The investment of rather large incomes so that
opportunities for gainful employment may abound, provided that this work is applied to the production of truly
useful products, we gather from a study of the principles of the Angelic Doctor* is to be considered a noble deed
of magnificent virtue, and especially suited to the needs of the time.

2258 Titles in acquiring ownerships. Moreover, not only the tradition of all times but also the doctrine of Our

predecessor, Leo, clearly testify that ownership in the first place is acquired by the occupation of a thing that

belongs to no one, and by industry, or specification as it is called. For no injury is done anyone, whatever some may
say to the contrary, when property is occupied which rests unclaimed and belongs to no one; but the industry which

is exercised by man in his own name, and by the aid of which a new kind, or an increase is added to his property, is
the only industry that gives a laborer a title to its fruits.

Capital and Labor *

[From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno,'' May 15, 1931]

2259 Far different is the nature of the labor which is hired out to others and is exercised on another's capital. This statement

is especially in harmony with what Leo XIII says ismost true, "that the riches of the state are produced only by the

labor of the working man." *

Neither without the other is able to produce anything. Hence it follows that unless one performs labor on his
own property, the property of the one should be associated in some way with the labor of the other; for neither
effects anything without the other. And this Leo XIII had in mind when he wrote: "There can be no capital without

labor, nor labor without capital.* Therefore, it is entirely false to ascribe to one or the other alone whatever was
obtained from the combined effort of both; and it is entirely unjust that either deny the efficacy of the other, and
arrogate to himself whatever has been accomplished. . . .
The directive principle of just distribution. Without doubt, lest by these false decisions they block the
2260

approach to justice and peace, both should have been forewarned by the wise words of Our predecessor:
"Although divided among private owners, the earth does not cease to serve the usefulness of all.* . . ." Therefore,
wealth which is being continuously increased through economic and social progress should be so distributed to
individual persons and classes of men, that the common good of all society be preserved intact. By this law of social

justice one class is forbidden to exclude the other from a share in the profits. None the less, then, the wealthy class
violates this law of social justice, when, as it were, free of all anxieties in their good fortune, it considers that order
things just by which all falls to its lot and nothing to the worker; and the class without property violates this law,
when, strongly incensed because of violated justice, and too prone to vindicate wrongly the one right of their own of

which it is conscious, demands all for itself, on the ground that it was made by its own hands, and so attacks and
strives to abolish ownership and income, or profits which have not been gained by labor, of whatever kind they are,
or of whatever nature they are in human society, for no other reason than because they are such. And we must not
pass over the fact that in this matter appeal is made by some, ineptly as well as unworthily, to the Apostle when he
says: "If any man will not work, neither let him eat2 Thess. 3:10 ]; for the Apostle utters the statement against
those who abstain from work, even though they can and ought to work; and he advises us that we should make
zealous use of time and strength, whether of body or mind, and that others should not be burdened, when we can
provide for ourselves. But by no means does the Apostle teach that labor is the only title for receiving a livelihood
and profits [cf2 Thess. 3:8-10 ].
To each, then, is his own part of property to be assigned; and it must be brought about that distribution of
created goods be made to conform to the norms of the common good or social justice. . . .

The Just Wage or Salary of Labor *

[From the same Encyclical]

Let us consider the question of wages which Leo XIII said "was of great importance," * stating and explaining

the doctrine and precepts where necessary.

2261 The wage contract not unjust in its essence. And first, indeed, those who declare that the contract of letting

out and of accepting labor for hire is unjust in its essence, and that therefore in its place there has to be substituted a

contract of partnership, are in complete error, and gravely calumniate Our predecessor, whose Encyclical Letter

"On Wages" not only admits such a contract, but treats it at length according to the principles of justice
2262 [ On what basis a just portion is to be estimated ].Leo XIII has already wisely declared in the following

words that a fair amount of wages is to be estimated not on one but on several considerations: "In order that a fair

measure of wages may be established, many conditions must be considered. . . . " *

The individual and social nature of labor. It must be observed both of ownership and of labor, especially of
that which is let out to another, that besides their personal or individual concerns there must be considered also a
social aspect; for, unless there be a truly social and organic body; unless the social and juridical order protect labor;
unless the various trades which depend on one another, united in mutual harmony, are mutually complementary; and
unless, which is more important, the intellect, capital, and labor come together as in a unit, man's efforts cannot
produce due fruits. Therefore, man's efforts cannot be estimated justly nor adequately repaid, if its social and
individual nature is overlooked.
Three fundamental matters to be considered. Moreover, from this twofold character, which is the
deep-seated nature of human labor, flow most serious conclusions by which wages should be regulated and
determined.
2263 a) The support of the workingman and his family. First, wages must be paid to the workingman which are
sufficient for the support of himself and of family.* It is right, indeed, that the rest of the family according to their
 ability contribute to the common support of all, as one can see in the families of rural people especially, and also in
many families of artisans and minor shopkeepers; but it is wrong to abuse the tender years of children and the
weakness of women. Especially in the home or in matters which pertain to the home, let mothers of families perform
their work by attending to domestic cares. But the worst abuse, and one to be removed by every effort, is that of
mothers being forced to engage in gainful occupation away from home, because of the meagerness of the father's
salary, neglecting their own cares and special duties, and especially the training of their children. Every effort, then
must be made that the fathers receive a sufficiently ample wage to meet the ordinary domestic needs adequately.
But if in the present state of affairs this cannot always be carried out, social justice demands that changes be
introduced as soon as possible, whereby every adult workingman may be made secure by such a salary. It will not
be amiss here to bestow praise upon all those who in a very wise and useful plan have attempted various plans by
which the wage of the laborer is adjusted to the burdens of the family, so that when burdens are increased, the wage
is made greater; surely, if this should happen, enough would be done to meet extraordinary needs.

2264 b) The condition of business. An account must also be taken of a business and its owner; for, unjustly would

immoderate salaries be demanded, which the business cannot endure without its ruin and the ruin of the workers

consequent on this. And yet if the business makes less profit because of dilatoriness, or laziness or neglect of
technical and economic advance, this is not to be considered a just cause for lowering the wages of the worker.

However, if no such amount of money returns to a business which is sufficient to pay the workers a just wage,
because it is oppressed by unjust burdens or because it is forced to sell its product at a price lower than is just,
those who so harass a business are guilty of a serious offense; for they deprive the workers of just wage, who,
forced by necessity, are compelled to accept a wage less than is just. . . .

2265 c) The demands of the common good. Finally, the wage scale must be adjusted to the economic welfare of

the people. We have already shown above how conducive it is to the welfare of the people, that workers and

officials by setting aside whatever part of their wage is not used for necessary expenses, gradually acquire a modest
fortune; but another thing, of scarcely less importance, and especially necessary in our time, must not be passed

over, namely, that an opportunity to work be furnished to those who are both able and willing to work. . . .
Another thing, then, is contrary to social justice, that, for the sake of personal gain, and with no consideration of the
common welfare, the wages of workers be lowered or raised too much; and this same justice demands that by a
concerted planning and good will, insofar as it can be done, salaries be so regulated that as many as possible can

have employment and receive suitable means for the maintenance of life.
Very properly, also a reasonable proportion between salaries is of importance, with which is closely connected
the proper proportion of prices at which those goods are sold which are produced by the various groups such as
agriculture, industry, and others. If all these are kept in harmony, the various skills will combine and coalesce as into
one body, and like members of one body will bring to each other mutual help and perfection. Then at length will the
economic and social order be truly established and attain its ends, if all those benefits are supplied to all and to each,
which can be furnished by the wealth and resources of nature, by technical skills, and by the social constitution of
economic affairs. Indeed, these benefits should be as numerous as are necessary to satisfy the necessities and the
honorable conveniences of life, and to raise men to that happier way of life which, provided it be conducted
prudently, not only is no hindrance to virtue, but a great help t* it.

The Right Social Order *

[From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]

2266 [The duty of the state ].When we now speak of the reformation of institutions, we have in mind chiefly the
state, not as if all salvation is to be expected from its activity, because on account of the evil of individualism, which
we have mentioned, matters have reached such a state that the highly developed social life, which once flourished
compositely in diverse institutions, has been brought low and almost wiped out; and individual men and the state
remain almost alone, to the by no means small detriment of the state, which, having lost its form of social regimen
and having taken on all the burdens formerly borne by the associations now destroyed, has been almost submerged
and overwhelmed by an endless number of functions and duties.
Therefore, the supreme authority of the state should entrust to the smaller groups the expediting of business and
problems of minor importance, by which otherwise it would be greatly distracted. Thus it will be brought about that
all matters which pertain to the state will be executed more freely, more vigorously, and more efficiently, since it

alone is qualified to perform them, directing, guarding, urging, and compelling, according as circumstances prompt
and necessity demands. Therefore, let those who are in power be convinced that the more perfectly the principle of
the duty of the "subsidiary" is kept, and a graded hierarchial order flourishes among the various associations, the
more outstanding will be the social authority and efficiency, and the happier and more prosperous the condition of

the state.
2267 The mutual harmony of "orders." Moreover, both the state and every outstanding citizen should look
 especially and strive for this, that with the suppression of the conflicts between classes a pleasing harmony may be

aroused and fostered between the orders. . . .

Therefore the social political policy must work for a restoration of the "orders" . . ., "orders," namely, in which
men are placed not according to the position which one holds in the labor market, but according to the diverse
social roles which they exercise individually. For just as it happens through natural impulse that, those who are
united by proximity of place establish municipalities, so, also, those who labor at the same trade or

profession---whether it be economic or of some other kind---form guilds or certain groups ( collegia seu corpora
quaedam ), sothat these groups, being truly autonomous, are customarily spoken of, if not as essential to civil
society, yet at least as natural to it. . . .
It is scarcely necessary to recall that what Leo XIII taught about the form of political government is equally

applicable, with due proportion, to the guilds or groups, namely, that it is sound for men to choose whatever form
they prefer, provided that the demands of justice and of the common good be given consideration. *
2268 [Freedom of association ].Now just as the inhabitants of a municipality are accustomed to establish
associations for very different purposes, with which each one has full power to join or not, so those who practice
the same trade will enter equally free associations with one another for purposes in some way connected with the
practice of their trade. Since these free associations are explained clearly and lucidly by Our predecessor, we
consider it enough to stress this one point: that man has complete freedom not only to form such associations, which
are of private right and order, but also to freely choose within these that organization and those laws which are
considered especially conducive to that end which has been proposed." * The same freedom is to be maintained in
instituting associations which extend beyond the limits of a single trade. Moreover, let these free associations which
already flourish and enjoy salutary fruits, according to the mind of Christian social teaching make it their aim to
prepare the way for those more outstanding guilds or "orders" about which we made mention above, and let them
manfully carry this out.
2269 The guiding principle of economics to be restored. Still another matter, closely connected with the former,
must be kept in mind. Just as the unity of society cannot rest on mutual opposition of classes, so the right ordering of
economic affairs cannot be given over to the free competition of forces . . . Therefore, higher and more noble
principles are to be sought, with which to control this power firmly and soundly; namely, social justice and social
charity. Therefore, the institutions of the people, and of all social life, must be imbued with this justice, so that it be
truly efficient, or establish a juridical and social order, by which, as it were, the entire economy may be fashioned.
Social charity, moreover, should be as a soul of this order, and an alert public authority should aim to protect and
guard this effectively, a task which it will be able to accomplish with less difficulty, if it will rid itself of those burd
which we have declared before are not proper to it.
Furthermore, the various nations should strive for this by combining their zeal and labors, so that, since in
economic affairs they depend for the most part on one another and need one another's help, they may by wise pacts

and institutions promote a favorable and happy cooperation in the world of economics.

Socialism *
[From the same Encyclical, "Quadragesimo anno," May 15, 1931]

2270 We declare as follows: Whether socialism be considered as a doctrine, or as an historical fact, or as an "action,"
if it truly remain socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice in the matters which we have mentioned, it
cannot be reconciled with the dogmas of the Catholic Church, since it conceives a human society completely at
variance with Christian truth.
Socialism conceives of a society and the social character of man entirely at variance with Christian
truth. According to Christian doctrine man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth, so that by leading
a life in society and under an authority ordained by God [cfRom. 13:1 ] he may develop and evolve fully all his
faculties to the praise and glory of his Creator; and by faithfully performing the duty of his trade, or of any other
vocation, he may acquire for himself both temporal and eternal happiness. Socialism, however, entirely ignorant of
this sublime end both of man and of society, and unconcerned about it, affirms that human society was instituted for
material advantages alone. . . .
Catholic and socialist have contradictory meanings. But if socialism, as all errors, contains some truth in
itself (which, indeed, the Sovereign Pontiffs have never denied), nevertheless it is based on a doctrine of human
society, peculiar to itself, and at odds with true Christianity. "Religious Socialism," "Christian Socialism" have
contradictory meanings: no one can at the same time be a good Catholic and a socialist in the true sense of the
word. .

The Universal Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary *

[From the Encyclical, "Lux veritatis,,' December 25, 1931]

2271 She (to be sure), by reason of the fact that she bore the Redeemer of the human race, in a certain manner is the
most benign mother of us all, whom Christ the Lord wished to have as brothers [cf. Rom. 8:29 ]. Our predecessor
of happy memory, Leo XIII, * so speaks: "Such did God show her to us, whom, by the very fact that He chose her
as the Mother of His Only-begotten, He clearly endowed with maternal feelings which express nothing but love and
kindness; such did Jesus Christ show her by His own deed, when He wished of His own will to be under and
 obedient to Mary, as son to mother; such did He declare her from the Cross when He committed her, as the whole
human race, to John the disciple, to be cared for and cherished by Him" [John 19:26 f.]; such, finally, did she herself

give herself, who embraced with her great spirit that heritage of great labor left by her dying Son, and immediately
began to exercise her maternal duties toward all.

The False Interpretation of Two Biblical Texts *

[Response of the Biblical Commission, July 1, 1933]

2272 I. Whether it is right for a Catholic person, especially when the authentic interpretation of the chief apostles has

been given [Acts 2:24-33 ;13:35-37 ], so to interpret the words oPsalm 15:10-11 : "Thou wilt not leave my soul in

hell; nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life," as if the

sacred author did not speak of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ'---Reply: In the negative.
2273 II. Whether it is permitted to assert that the words of Jesus Christ which are read in St. Matthe16:26 : "For

what cloth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a

man give for his soul?"; and likewise the words which are found in St. Luke 9:25: "For what is a man advantaged, if

he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself," do not in a literal sense have reference to the
eternal salvation of the soul, but only to the temporal life of man, notwithstanding the tenor of the words themselves
and their context, and also the unanimous Catholic interpretation?---Reply: In the negative.

The Need and the Office, of the Priesthood *

[From the Encyclical, "Ad catholic) sacerdotii," December 20, 1935]

The human race has always experienced the need of priests, that is, of men who, by the office lawfully entrusted
2274
to them, are mediators between God and humanity; whose entire duty in life embraces those activities which pertain
to the eternal Godhead, and who offer prayers, remedies, and sacrifices in the name of society, which is obliged in
very fact to cherish religion publicly, to acknowledge God as the Supreme Lord and first beginning, to propose Him
as its last end, to offer Him immortal thanks, and to offer Him propitiation. In fact, among all peoples, whose

customs are known, provided they are not compelled to act against the most sacred laws of nature, attendants of
sacred affairs are found, although very often they serve vain superstitions, and likewise wherever men profess some
religion and wherever they erect altars, far from lacking priests, they venerate them with special honors.
Yet, when divine revelation shone forth, the sacerdotal office was distinguished by greater dignity; this dignity,

indeed, in a hidden manner Melchisedech, priest and king [cf. Gen. 14:18 ], foretells, whose example Paul the
Apostle refers [cf.Heb. 5:10 ;6:20 ;7:1-11 ,15 , to the person and priesthood of Jesus Christ.
But if the attendant of sacred things, according to the famous definition of the same Paul, is a man "taken from
amongst men," yet "ordained for men in the things that pertain to God" Heb. 5:1 ], his office surely looks not to

human and transitory things, however much they seem worthy of regard and praise, but to divine and eternal things.
...
In the sacred writings of the Old Testament, when the priesthood was established by the norms which Moses,
influenced by the instigation and urging of God, had promulgated, special functions, duties, and rites were attributed

to it. . . .
The priesthood of the Old Testament derived its majesty and glory from nothing other than the fact that it
foretold that priesthood of the New and eternal Testament given by Jesus Christ, namely, that established by the
blood of the true God and of the true man.

The Apostle of the Gentiles treating summarily and briefly of the greatness dignity, and office of the Christian
priesthood expresses his opinion in these words, as it were, in a nutshell: "Let a man so account of us as of the
ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4:1]

The Effects of the Order of the Priesthood *

[From the Encyclical, "Ad catholic) sacerdotii," December 20, 1935]

The minister of Christ is the priest; therefore, he is, as it were, the instrument of the divine Redeemer, that He
2275
may be able to continue through time His marvelous work which by its divine efficacy restored the entire society of
men and brought it to a higher refinement. Rather, as we customarily say rightly and properly: "He is another Christ,"
since he enacts His role according to these words: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you" John 20:21 ]; and in
the same way and through the voice of the angels his Master sings: "Glory to God in the highest," and exhorts peace
 "to men of good will" [cf.Luke 2:14 ]. . . . Such powers, conferred upon the special sacrament of the priesthood,
since they become imprinted on his soul with the indelible character by which, like Him whose priesthood he shares,
he becomes "a priest forever" [Ps. 109:4 ], are not fleeting and transitory, but stable and permanent. Even if through
human frailty he lapse into errors and disgraces, yet he will never be able to delete from his soul this sacerdotal
character. And besides, through the sacrament of orders the priest not only acquires the sacerdotal character, not
only high powers, but he is also made greater by a new and special grace, and by special helps, through which
indeed---if only he will faithfully comply, by his free and personal cooperation, with the divinely efficient power of
these heavenly gifts, surely he will be able worthily and with no dejection of spirit to meet the arduous duties of his
ministry. . . .
From holy retreats [of spiritual exercises] of this kind such usefulness can also at times flow forth, that one, who
has entered "in sortem Domini" not at the call of Christ Himself but induced by his earthly motives, may be able "to
stir up the grace of God" [cf2 Tim. 1:6 ]; for since he is now bound to Christ and the Church by an everlasting
bond, he can accordingly do nothing but adopt the words of St. Bernard: "For the future make good your ways and
your ambitions and make holy your ministry; if sanctity of life did not precede, at least let it fo* The grace
which is commonly given by God and is given in a special manner to him who accepts the sacrament of orders, will
undoubtedly aid him, if he really desires it, no less for emending what in the beginning was planned wrongly by him,

than for executing and taking care of the duties of his office.

The Divine Office, the Public Prayer of the Church *

[From the Encyclical, "Ad catholic) sacerdotii," December 20, 1935]

2276 Finally, the priest in this matter, also, performing the work of Jesus Christ, who "passed the whole night in the

prayer of God" [ Luke 6:12 ], and "always lived to make intercession for us"Heb. 7:25 ], is by office the intercessor

with God for all; it is among his mandates to offer not only the proper and true sacrifice of the altar in the name of
the Church to the heavenly Godhead, but also "the sacrifice of praise" [Ps. 49:14] and common prayers; he, indeed,
by the psalms, the supplications, and the canticles, which are borrowed in great measure from Sacred Scripture,
daily, again and again discharges the duty of adoration due to God, and he performs the necessary office of such an
accomplishment for men. . . .
If private supplication is so powerful because of the solemn and great promises given by Jesus Christ Matt.
7:7-11 ;Mark 11:23 ; Luke 11:9-13 ], then the prayers, which are uttered in the Office in the name of the Church,
the beloved spouse of the Redeemer, without doubt enjoy greater force and virtue.

Social Justice *
[From the Encyclical, "Divini Redemptoris," March 19, 1937]

[51] For in reality besides the justice which is called commutative, social justice also must be fostered which
2277
demands duties from which neither workingmen nor employers can withdraw themselves. Now it is the part of
social justice to exact from the individual what is necessary for the common good. But just as in the case of the
structure of any living body, there is no regard for the good of the whole, unless each individual member be
endowed with all those things which they need to fulfill their roles, so in the case of the constitution and composition

of the community, there can be no provision for the good of the whole society, unless the individual members,
namely, men endowed with the dignity of personality, are supplied with all they need to exercise their social duties.
If, then, provision is made for social justice, the rich fruits of active zeal will grow from economic life, which will
mature in an order of tranquillity, and will give proof of the strength and solidarity of the state, just as the strength of

the body is discerned from its undisturbed, complete, and fruitful functioning
[52] Social justice will not be satisfied unless workingmen can furnish for themselves and for their families a
livelihood in a secure way, based on an acceptable salary consistent with reality; unless an opportunity is given them
of acquiring a modest fortune for themselves, so as to avoid that plague of universal pauperism, which is so widely

diffused, unless finally, opportune plans are made for their benefit, whereby the workers by means of public or
private insurances may be able to have some provision for their old age, periods of illness, and unemployment. In
this connection it is well to repeat what we said in the Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno": "Then only will the
economic and social order be soundly established, etc." [see n. 2265 ].

Resistance Against the Abuse of Power *

[From the Encyclical, "Firmissimam constantiam," to the Mexican Bishops, March 28, 1937]

2278 Surely it must be granted that for the development of the Christian life external aids, which are perceptible to the
senses, are necessary, and likewise that the Church, as a society of men, has great need of a just freedom of action
for the enjoyment and expansion of life, and that the faithful in civil society possess the right to live according to the
dictates of reason and conscience.
Consequently, then, when the natural freedoms of the religious and civil order are impugned, Catholic citizens
cannot endure and suffer this Yet the vindication of these rights and freedoms, according to attendant circumstances,
can be more or less opportune, more or less strenuous
 But you yourselves, Venerable Brothers, have often taught your faithful that the Church, despite serious trouble
to herself, is the supporter of peace and order, and condemns all unjust rebellion and violence against constituted
powers. Yet it has also been affirmed among you that, if at any time these powers manifestly impugn justice and
truth, so as to overturn the foundations of authority, it is not evident why those citizens should be condemned who
unite to protect themselves, and to preserve the nation by employing licit and proper means against those who abuse
power to overthrow the state.
But if the solution of this question necessarily depends on individuattendant circumstances, nevertheless some
principles should be brought to light:
1. Such vindications have the nature of means, or of relative end, not of ultimate and absolute end.
2. These vindications, as means, should be licit actions, not evils in themselves.
3. Since the vindications themselves should be appropriate and proportionate to the end, they are to be applied
insofar as they conduce entirely or in part to the proposed end, yet in such a manner that they do not bring greater
evils to the community and justice, than the very evils to be reformed.
4. Now the uses of such means and the full exercise of civil and political rights, since they include also problems
of a purely temporal and technical order or of violent defense, do not belong directly to the duty of Catholic Action,
although to Catholic Action does belong the duty of instructing Catholic men in the right exercise of their proper
rights, and in the defense of the same by just means, according to the demand of the common good.
5. The clergy and Catholic Action, since, because of the mission of peace and love entrusted to them, they are
bound to unite all men "in the bond of peace" Eph. 4:3 ], should contribute very much to the prosperity of the
nation, both by encouraging the union of citizens and classes, and by supporting all social initiatives which are not at
odds with the doctrine and moral law of Christ.

Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils

Pius XII 1939---

PIUS XII 1939---

The Natural Law *

[From the Encyclical, "Summi Pontificatus," October 20, 1939]

2279 It is well established that the first and profound source of the evils by which the modern state is afflicted, from this fact, that the universal
standard of morality is denied and rejected, not only in the private life of individuals but also in the state itself, and in the mutual relationships which exist
between races and nations; that is, the natural law is being nullified by detraction and neglect.
This natural law rests on God as its foundation, the omnipotent creator and author of all, and likewise the supreme and most perfect legislator,
the most wise and just vindicator of human actions. When the eternal Godhead is rashly denied, then the principle of all probity totters and sways, and the
voice of nature becomes silent, or gradually is weakened, which teaches the unlearned as well as those who have not as yet acquired the experience of
civilization what is right and what is not right; what is permitted, and what is not permitted, and warns them that some day they must render an account
for their good and evil deeds before the Supreme Judge.

The Natural Unity of the Human Race *

[From the same Encyclical, "Summi Pontificatus," October 20, 1939]

2280 [Pernicious error] is contained in the forgetfulness of that mutual relationship between men and of the love which both a common origin and the
equality of the rational nature of all men demands, to whatever races they belong. . . . The Bible narrates that from the first marriage of man and woman
all other men took their origin; and these, it relates, were divided into various tribes and nations, and were scattered over various parts of the world. . . .
[Acts 17:26]: Therefore, by a wonderful insight of mind we can behold and contemplate the human race as a unity, because of its common origin from the
Creator, according to these words: "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all" [Eph. 4:6]; and likewise, one in nature
which consists of the materiality of the body and of the immortal and spiritual soul. . . .

International Law *
[From the same Encyclical, "Summi Pontificatus," October 20, 1939]

2281 Venerable Brothers, that opinion which attributes almost infinite power to the state not only is an error fatal to the internal life of nations and to
the promotion of greater growth, but also does harm to the mutual relations of peoples, since it infringes upon that unity by which all nations should be
contained in their relations with one another, strips international laws of their force and strength, and, paving the way to the violation of other laws,
renders it very difficult for them to live together in peace and tranquillity.
For the human race, although by the law of natural order established by God it is disposed into classes of citizens, and likewise into nations and
states, yet is bound by mutual bonds in juridical and moral affairs, and coalesces into a single great congregation of peoples destined to pursue the
common good of all nations, and is ruled by special norms which both preserve unity and direct them daily to more prosperous circumstances.
Surely, there is no one who does not see, if rights are claimed for the state, which is quite absolute and responsible to no one, that this is entirely
opposed to naturally ingrained law, and wholly refutes it; and it is clear, likewise, that such rights place at the discretion of rulers of the state the bonds
lawfully agreed upon by which nations are joined to one another; and they impede an honest agreement of minds and mutual collaboration for helpful
action. If, Venerable Brothers, properly organized and long lasting understandings between states demand this, the bonds of friendship, from which rich
fruits arise, demand that peoples recognize the principles and norms of the natural law by which nations are joined to one another, and be obedient to the
same. In similar fashion these same principles demand that for every nation its own liberty be preserved, and that those rights be assigned to all by which
they may live and may advance day by day on the road of civil progress to more prosperous circumstances; finally, they demand that pacts entered upon,
as exacted and sanctioned by international law, remain unimpaired and inviolable.
There is no doubt that then only can nations live peacefully together, then only can they be governed publicly by established bonds, when
mutual trust exists between them; when all are convinced that the trust given will be preserved on both sides; finally when all accept these words as
certain, "better is wisdom than weapons of war" [cf. Eccles. 9:18]; and, furthermore, when all are prepared to inquire into and discuss a matter more
extensively, but not by force and threats to bring about a critical situation, if delays, disputes, difficulties, changes of front stand in the way, all of which
indeed can arise not only from bad faith but also from a change of circumstances and from a mutual clash of individual interests.
But then to separate the law of nations from the divine law, so that it depends upon the arbitrary decisions of the rulers of the state as its only
foundation, is nothing other than to pull it down from its throne of honor and security, and to hand it over to a zeal which is excessive and concerned with
private and public advantage, and which strives for nothing other than to assert its own rights and deny those of others.
2282 Surely, it must be affirmed that in the course of time, because of serious changes in attendant circumstances---which, while the pact was being
made, were not foreseen, or perhaps could not even have been foreseen---either entire agreements or certain parts of these sometimes become unjust to
either of the stipulating parties, or could seem so, or at least turn out exceedingly severe, or, finally, become such that they cannot be carried out to
advantage. If this should happen refuge must necessarily, of course, be taken in a sincere and honest discussion, with a view to making opportune changes
in the pact, or to composing an entirely new one. But, on the other hand, to hold proper pacts as fluid and fleeting things, and to attribute to oneself the
tacit power, as often as one's own advantage seems to demand this, of infringing on the same of one's own free will, that is, without consulting, and
overlooking the other party in the pact, certainly deprives states of due and mutual trust; and so the order of nature is completely destroyed, and peoples
and nations are separated from one another as by precipitous and deep chasms.

Sterilization *
[Decree of the Holy Office, February 24, 1940]

2283 To the question proposed to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office; "Whether direct sterilization, either perpetual or temporary,
is permitted on a man or a woman," the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, Doctors, and Cardinals, appointed to guard matters of faith and morals, on
Thursday, the 21st day of February, 1940, have decided that the following answer must be given:
"In the negative, and indeed that it is prohibited by the law of nature, and that, insofar as it pertains to eugenic sterilization, it has already been
disapproved by the decree of this Congregation, on the 21st day of March, I 93 I.

The Corporal Origin of Man *

[From an address of Pius Xll November 30, 1941, at the beginning of the year of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences]

2285 God has placed man in the highest place in the scale of living creatures endowed, as he is, with a spiritual soul, the chief and the highest of all
the animal kingdom. Manifold investigations in the fields of paleontology, biology, and morphology regarding other questions concerning the origin of
man have thus far produced nothing clear and certain in a positive way. Therefore, we can only leave for the future the reply to the question, whether
some day, science illumined and guided by revelation will offer certain and definite solutions to so serious a question.

Members of the Church *

[From the Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]

2286 Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true
faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful
authority. "For in one spirit," says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" [1 Cor. 12:13]. So,
just as in the true community of the faithful of Christ there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith [cf.
Eph. 4:5]; and so he who refuses to hear the Church, as the Lord bids "let him be as the heathen and publican" [cf. Matt. 18:17]. Therefore, those who are
divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit.

The Jurisdiction of Bishops *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis,'' June 29, 1943]

2287 Therefore, the bishops of the sacred rites are to be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church not only because they
are bound with the divine Head of the whole Body by a very special bond, and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord," * but,
as far as each one's own diocese is concerned, because as true shepherds they individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them
[Cone. Vat., Const. de Eccl., cap. 3; see n. 1828]; yet while they do this, they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the
Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff. So they should be revered by the
people as divinely appointed successors of the apostles [cf. Cod. Iur. Can., can. 329, 1]; and more than to the rulers of the world, even the highest, are
those words befitting to our bishops, inasmuch as they have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit: "Touch ye not my anointed" [1 Chronicles.
16, 22; Ps. 104:15].

The Holy Spirit as the Soul of the Church *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]

2288 If we closely examine this divine principle of life and virtue given by Christ, insofar as He established it as the source of every gift and created
grace, we easily understand that this is nothing else than the Paraclete, the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who in a special manner
is called "the Spirit of Christ," or "the Spirit of the Son" [Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6]. For by this Breath of grace and truth did the Son of God anoint
His soul in the uncontaminated womb of the Virgin; this Spirit holds it a delight to dwell in the beloved soul of the Redeemer as in His most beloved
temple; this Spirit, Christ by shedding His own blood merited for us on the Cross; this Spirit, finally, when He breathed upon the apostles, He bestowed
on the Church for the remission of sins [cf. John 20:22]; and, while Christ alone received this Spirit according to no measure [cf. John 3:34], yet to the
members of the mystical body He is imparted only according to the measure of the giving of Christ, out of Christ's own fullness [cf. Eph. 1:8; 4:7]. And
after Christ was glorified on the Cross, His Spirit is communicated to the Church in the richest effusion, that she and her individual members may more
and more daily become like our Savior. It is the Spirit of Christ that has made us God's adopted sons [cf. Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:6-7], that someday "we all
beholding the glory of God with open face may be transformed into the the same image from glory to glory" [2 Cor. 3:18].

Moreover, to this Spirit of Christ as to no visible principle is this also to be attributed, that all parts of the Body are joined to one another as they
are with their exalted head; for He is entire in the Head, entire in the Body, entire in the individual members, and with these He is present, and these He
assists in various ways, according to their various duties and offices, according to the greater or less degree of spiritual health which they enjoy. He is the
one who by His heavenly grace is to be held as the principle of every vital and in fact every salutary act in all the parts of any body. He is the one who,
although He Himself is present of Himself in all members, and is divinely active in the same, yet in the inferior members also operates through the
ministry of the higher members; finally, He is the one who, while He always day by day produces the growth of the Church by imparting grace, yet
refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in members wholly cut off from the Body. Indeed, the presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ are
succinctly and vigorously expressed by Our most wise predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, "Divinum illud," in these words:
"Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.''*

Knowledge of the Soul of Christ *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943]

2289 But such a most loving knowledge as the divine Redeemer from the first moment of His Incarnation bestowed upon us, surpasses any zealous
power of the human mind; since through that beatific vision, which He began to enjoy when He had hardly been conceived in the womb of the Mother of
God, He has the members of His mystical body always and constantly present to Him, and He embraces all with His redeeming love.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Souls *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mystic" Corporis," June 29, 1943]

2290 Surely we are not ignorant of the many veils that stand in the way of our understanding and explaining this profound doctrine, which is
concerned with our union with the divine Redeemer, and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a special way in souls; veils by which this profound
doctrine is enveloped as by a kind of cloud, because of the weakness of the minds of those who make inquiry. And we know also that from correct and
persistent investigation of this subject, and from the conflict of various opinions and the clash of ideas, provided love of truth and due obedience to the
Church direct such investigations, precious light abounds and comes forth, by which also in the sacred science akin to this actual progress is attained.
Therefore, we do not censure those who enter upon diverse ways and methods of reasoning to understand, and according to their power to clarify the
mystery of this marvelous union of ours with Christ. But let this be a general and unshaken truth, if they do not wish to wander from sound doctrine and
the correct teaching of the Church: namely, that every kind of mystic union, by which the faithful in Christ in any way pass beyond the order of created
things and wrongly enter among the divine, so that even a single attribute of the eternal Godhead can be predicated of these as their own, is to be entirely
rejected. And, besides, let them hold this with a firm mind as most certain, that all activities in these matters are to be held as common to the Most Holy
Trinity, insofar as they depend upon God as the supreme efficient cause.

Let them note also that there necessarily is here a question of a hidden mystery, which in this earthly exile, being covered by a veil, can never
be looked into or be described by human tongue. Indeed, the divine Persons are said to indwell inasmuch as being present in an inscrutable manner in
animate creatures endowed with intellect they are attained by them through knowledge and love, * yet in a manner intimate and unique that transcends
all nature. Indeed, to contemplate this so as at least to approach it slightly, that way and method are not to be overlooked which the Vatican Synod [sees.
3, Const. de fid. cash., cap. 4; see n. 1795] strongly recommended in matters of this kind; this method, indeed, struggling to obtain light by which the
hidden things of God may be recognized at least slightly, proceeds thus, comparing these mysteries with one another and with the final end to which they
are directed. Opportunely then does Our very wise predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory, when he spoke of this union of ours with Christ and of the
divine Paraclete dwelling within us, turn His eyes to that beatific vision by which at sometime in heaven this same mystic union will obtain its
consummation and perfection. He says: "This wonderful union, which is called by the name 'indwelling,' differs only by our created state from that by
which God gives joy and embraces the inhabitants of heaven.''* In this heavenly vision it will be proper in an utterly ineffable manner to contemplate the
Father, Son, and divine Spirit with the eyes of the mind increased by the higher light, and to assist throughout eternity at the processions of the divine
Persons, and to rejoice with a happiness very like that with which the most holy and undivided Trinity is happy.

The Relationship between the B.V.M. and the Church *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mystic) Corporis," June 29, 1943]

2291 It was she [the Virgin Mother of God] who, free from sin either personal or original, always most closely united with her Son, offered Him on
Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the holocaust of her mother's rights and mother's love, as a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam stained by his
pitiful fall, so that she, who in the flesh was the mother of our Head, by the new title also of grief and glory, in the spirit was made the mother of all His
members. She it was who by very powerful prayers accomplished that the Spirit of the divine Redeemer, already given on the Cross, should be bestowed
with wonderful gifts on the day of Pentecost upon the recently risen Church. Finally, she herself by enduring her tremendous griefs with a strong and
confident spirit, more than all the faithful of Christ, the true Queen of the Martyrs, "filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ . . .
for His Body, which is the Church" [Col. 1:24]; and she has attended the mystical body of Christ, born * of the torn heart of our Savior, with the same
mother's care and deep love with which she cherished and nurtured the Infant Jesus nursing in the crib.

So may she, the most holy Mother * of all the members of Christ, to whose Immaculate Heart We have confidently consecrated all men and
who now is resplendent in heaven in the glory of body and soul, and reigns together with her Son, earnestly request and strive to obtain from Him that
copious streams of grace flow from the exalted Head upon all the members of the mystical body without interruption.

The Authenticity of the Vulgate *

[From the Encyclical, "Divino afflante Spiritu," September 30, 1943]
2292 But that the Synod of Trent wished the Vulgate to be the Latin version "which all should use as authentic," applies, as all know, to the Latin
Church only, and to the public use of Scripture, and does not diminish the authority and force of the early texts. For at that time no consideration was
being given to early texts, but to the Latin versions which were being circulated at that time, among which the Council decreed that that version was
rightly to be preferred which was approved by the long use of so many centuries within the Church. So this eminent authority of the Vulgate, or, as it is
expressed, authenticity, was established by the Council not especially for critical reasons, but rather because of its authorized use in the Church continued
through the course of so many centuries; and by this use it is demonstrated that this text, as the Church has understood and understands, in matters of faith
and morals is entirely free of error, so that, on the testimony and confirmation of the Church herself, in discussions, quotations, and meetings it can be
cited safely and without danger of error; and accordingly such authenticity is expressed primarily not by the term critical but rather juridical. Therefore,
this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine does not at all prevent---rather it almost demands today---this same doctrine being called upon for
help, whereby the correct meaning of Sacred Scripture may daily be made clearer and be better explained. And not even this is prohibited by the decree of
the Council of Trent, namely, that for the use and benefit of the faithful in Christ and for the easier understanding of divine works translations be made
into common languages; and these, too, from the early texts, as we know has already been praiseworthily done with the approval of the authority of the
Church in many regions.

The Literal and Mystical Sense of Holy Scripture *

[From the same Encyclical, "Divino afflante Spiritu,", September 30, 1943]

2293 Well equipped with a knowledge of ancient languages and with the help of critical scholarship, let the Catholic exegete approach that task
which of all those imposed upon him is the highest, namely, to discover and set forth the true meaning of the Sacred Scriptures. In this work let
interpreters keep in mind that their greatest care should be to discern and define what the so-called literal sense of the language of the Bible is. Let them
bring out this literal meaning of the words with all diligence through a knowledge of languages, employing the aid of the context and of comparison with
similar passages; indeed, all these are customarily used for assistance in the interpretation of profane writers also, so that the mind of the author may
become quite clear. Moreover, let the exegetes of Sacred Scriptures, mindful of the fact that they are dealing with the divinely inspired word, no less
diligently take into account the explanations and declarations of the magisterium of the Church, and likewise the explanation given by the Holy Fathers,
and also the "analogy of faith," as Leo XIII in the Encyclical letter, Providentissimus Deus, very wisely notes.* Indeed, let them see to this with special
zeal, that they explain not only those matters which are of concern to history, archaeology, philology, and other such disciplines as we grieve to say is
done in certain commentaries, but, after bringing in such matters opportunely, insofar as they can contribute to exegesis, point out especially what is the
theological doctrine on matters of faith and morals in the individual books and texts, so that this explanation of theirs may not only help teachers of
theology to set forth and confirm the dogmas of faith, but also be of assistance to priests in clarifying Christian doctrine to the people, and finally serve all
the faithful to lead holy lives worthy of a Christian.
When they have given such an interpretation, especially, as we have said, theological interpretation, let them effectively silence those who
assert that with difficulty do they find anything by way of Biblical commentary to raise the mind to God, nourish the soul, and promote the interior life,
and declare that recourse must be had to a certain spiritual and so-called mystical interpretation. How far from rightly they profess this the experience of
many shows, who frequently considering and meditating upon the word of God, perfect their souls, and are moved by a strong love toward God; and this
is clearly proved by the everlasting institution of the Church and the admonitions of the most eminent Doctors. Surely, all spiritual meaning is not
excluded from Sacred Scripture. For what was said and done in the Old Testament, was most wisely so ordered and disposed by God that past events in a
spiritual manner presignified what would take place in the new covenant of grace. So the exegete, just as he should find and expound the so-called literal
significance of the words, which the sacred writer intended and expressed, so also he should the spiritual significance, provided it can be rightly
established that it was given by God. For God alone could know this spiritual significance and reveal it to us. Indeed, the divine Savior Himself indicates
such a sense to us in the Holy Gospels and teaches us; the apostles, also, imitating the example of the Master, in speaking and writing profess this; so does
the teaching handed down by the Church; finally, the ancient practice of the liturgy declares, wherever that famous pronouncement can rightly be applied:
The law of praying is the law of believing. So, let Catholic exegetes make clear and set forth this spiritual sense, intended and ordained by God Himself,
with that diligence which the dignity of the divine Word demands; but let them beware religiously lest they proclaim other transferred meanings of things
as the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture.

Kinds of Literature in Holy Scripture *

[From the same Encyclical, "Divino afflante Spiritu," September 30, 1943]

2294 Therefore, let the interpreter with all care and without neglect of the light which the more recent investigations
have shed, strive to discern what the real character and condition of life of the sacred writer were; in what age he

flourished; what sources he used whether written or oral, and what forms of expression he employed. Thus he will
be able to know better who the sacred writer was, and what he wished to indicate by his writing. For it escapes no
one that the highest norm of interpretation is that by which what the writer intends to say is perceived and defined,

as St. Athanasius advises: "Here, as it is fitting to do in all other passages of divine Scripture, we observe that it must
be accurately and faithfully considered on what occasion the Apostle has spoken; what is the person and what is the
subject on which he has written, lest anyone ignorant of these things, or understanding something else besides them,

wander from the true meaning." *

But what the literal sense is in the words and writings of the old oriental authors is very often not as clear as it is
among the writers of our age. For what they wish to signify by words is not determined by the laws of grammar or
philology alone, nor by the context of the passage alone; the interpreter should by all means return mentally, as it
 were, to those remote ages of the Orient, in order that rightly assisted by the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology,
and of other disciplines, he may discern and perceive what so-called literary genres the writers of that age sought to
employ and in fact did employ. For the old Orientals, to express what they had in mind, did not always use the same
forms and the same modes of speaking as we do today, but rather those which were accepted for use among men

of their own times and localities. What these were, the exegete cannot determine, as it were, in advance, but only by
an accurate investigation of the ancient literatures of the Orient. Furthermore, such investigation carried on within the
last ten years with greater care and diligence than before, has shown more clearly what forms of speaking were
employed in those ancient times, whether in describing matters in poetry, or in proposing norms and laws of life, or

finally in narrating the facts and events of history. This same investigation has also proven this clearly, that the people
of Israel were especially pre-eminent among the rest of the ancient nations of the Orient in writing history properly,
both because of the antiquity and the faithful recountal of events; which indeed, is surely the effect of divine
inspiration, and the result of the special purpose of biblical history which pertains to religion. Indeed, let no one who

has a right understanding of Biblical inspiration, be surprised that among the Sacred Writers, as among the other
ancients, certain definite ways of explaining and narrating are found; certain kinds of idioms especially appropriate to
Semitic languages, so calledapproximations, and certain hyperbolic methods of speaking, yes, sometimes even
paradoxes by which events are more firmly impressed upon the mind. For none of those methods of speaking is

foreign to the Sacred Scriptures which among ancient peoples, especially among Orientals, human speech
customarily used to express its thought, yet on this condition, that the kind of speaking employed be not at odds
with the sanctity and truth of God, just as with his usual perspicacity the Angelic Doctor has noted in the following
words: "In Scripture divine matters are made known to us in the manner we customarily employ.'' * For just as the

substantial Word of God was made like man in all things "without sin,"* so also the words of God, expressed in
human language, in all things have been made like human speech, without error,. which Saint John Chrysostom has
already extolled with highest praise as the(greek text deleted)or, condescension of a provident God; and which he
has asserted * again and again is the case in the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, let the Catholic exegete, in order to

satisfy the present day needs of Biblical matters, in explaining Sacred Scripture, and in showing and proving it free
of all error, prudently use this aid, to inquire how the form of expression and the kind of literature employed by the
Sacred writer, contribute to a true and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office
cannot be neglected without great harm to Catholic exegesis. For not uncommonly---to touch upon one thing

only---when some propose by way of rebuke that the Sacred Authors have strayed away from historical truth, or
have not reported events accurately, it is found to be a question of nothing other than the customary natural methods
of the ancients in speaking and narrating, which in the mutual intercourse among men were regularly employed, and
in fact were employed in accord with a permissible and common practice. Therefore, intellectual honesty requires

that when these matters are found in divine speech which is expressed for man in human words, they be not charged
more with error than when they are uttered in the daily use of life. Therefore, by a knowledge and accurate
appraisal of the modes and skills of speaking and writing among the ancients, many problems will be possible of
solution, which are raised against the truth and historical trustworthiness of the divine Scripture; and no less fittingly

will such study contribute to a fuller and clearer understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.

The Purposes of Matrimony *

[Decree of the Holy Office, April 1, 1944]

2295 Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come

forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of

offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the
complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action;
mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one's own
person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for
example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by
theologians.
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most

Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of
faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed
to them "Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose
 of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially

subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: In
the negative.

Millenarianism (Chiliasm) *

[Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944]

2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked

what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord

before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule
over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.

The Presence of Christ in the Mysteries of the Church *

[From the Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]

2297 In every liturgical act there is present together with the Church her divine Founder; Christ is present in the august

Sacrifice of the altar, not only in the person of His minister, but especially in the species of the Eucharist; He is

present in the sacraments through His power which He transfuses into them as instruments for effecting sanctity;
finally, He is present in the praises and supplications directed to God, according to these words: "For where there
are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" Matt. 18:20 ]. . . .
Therefore, the liturgical year, which the piety of the Church fosters and follows, is no cold and indifferent

representation of those things which belong to times of the past, or a simple and bare recollection of things of an
earlier age. But rather, it is Christ Himself, who perseveres in His Church, and who is pursuing the way of His great
mercy; indeed, when He made His way through this mortal life doing good, * He entered upon it with this purpose,
that His mysteries might penetrate the minds of men and that through them in some way they might live; and these

mysteries surely are present and operate continuously not in that uncertain and obscure manner about which certain
more recent writers babble, but in the manner that is taught us by the Church; since, according to the opinion of the
Doctors of the Church, the examples of Christian perfection are pre-eminent, and the sources of divine grace,
because of the merits and deprecations of Christ and by their effect endure in us, although they exist individually in

their own way according to each one's own character for the sake of our salvation.

The Full Notion of Liturgy *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]

2298 The sacred Liturgy, then, constitutes the public worship which our Redeemer, the Head of the Church, has

shown to the heavenly Father; and which the society of the faithful in Christ attribute to their Founder, and through

Him to the eternal Father; and, to sum up briefly, it constitutes the public worship of the mystical body of Jesus

Christ, namely, the Head and its members.

Therefore, they wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who
consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of
ceremonial proprieties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which

the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered.

The Relationship Between the Ascetic Life and the Piety of the Liturgy *
[From the same Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 30, 1947]

2299 Therefore in the spiritual life there be no difference and no conflict between that divine action which infuses

grace into souls to perpetuate our redemption, and the kindred and laborious work of man which should not render

* God's gift in vain; and likewise between the efficacy of the external rite of the sacraments, which ariseopere
 operato (from an accomplished task), and a well deserving act on the part of those who partake of and accept the
sacraments; which act indeed we call Opus operantis (the work of the worker); and in like manner between public
supplications and private prayers; between the right way of acting and the contemplation of supernal things; between
the ascetic life and the piety of the Liturgy; and, finally, between the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy and

that legitimatmagisterium and that power, which are properly called sacerdotal, and which are exercised in the
sacred ministry.
For serious cause the Church urges that those who serve the altar as an intrusted duty, or who have entered an
institution of the religious life de* themselves at stated times to pious meditation, to diligent self examination

and criticism, and other spiritual exercises, since they are appointed in a special way to the liturgical functions of
regularly performing the Sacrifice and of offering due praise. Without doubt liturgical prayer, since it is the public
supplication of the illustrious Spouse of Jesus Christ, stands out with greater excellence than private prayers. But this
greater excellence by no means indicates that these two kinds of prayer are different from and at odds with each

other. For, since they are animated by one and the same zeal, they also come together and are united according to
these words: "Christ is all and in alCol. 3:11], and strive for the same purposes, until Christ be formed in u*.

The Participation of the Faithful in the Priesthood of Christ *

[From the same Encyclical, "Mediator Dei," November 20, 1947]

2300 It is expedient that all the faithful in Christ understand that it is their supreme duty and dignity to participate in t

Eucharistic Sacrifice. . . .

Yet, because the faithful in Christ participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, they do not on this account enjoy
sacerdotal power. It is indeed quite necessary that you keep this clearly before the eyes of your flocks.
For there are those . . . who today revive errors long since condemned, and teach that in the New Testament
the name "priesthood" includes all who have been cleansed by the water of baptism; and likewise that that precept

by which Jesus Christ at the Last Supper entrusted to the apostles the doing of what He Himself had done,
pertained directly to the entire Church of the faithful in Christ; and that hence, and hence only, has arisen the
hierarchical priesthood. Therefore, they imagine that the people enjoy true sacerdotal power, but that the priest acts
only by virtue of an office delegated by the community. So they believe that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is truly called a

"concelebration," and they think that it is more expedient for priests standing together with the people to
"concelebrate" than to offer the Sacrifice privately in the absence of the people.
It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this kind contradict those truths which we have stated above,
when treating of the rank which the priest enjoys in the mystical body of Christ. Yet we think that we must call this

to mind namely, that the priest acts in place of the people only for this reason, that he plays the part of our Lord,
Jesus Christ, insofar as He is the Head of all the members, and offers himself for them, and that for this reason he
approaches the altar as a minister of Christ, inferior to Christ, but superior to the pe* The people, on the other
hand, inasmuch as they do not in any way play the part of the divine Redeemer, and are not a conciliator between

themselves and God, can by no means enjoy the sacerdotal right.

All this, indeed, is established by the certitude of faith; yet, furthermore, the faithful in Christ are also to be said
to offer the divine victim, but in a different way.
Now some of Our predecessors and doctors of the Church have declared this very clearly. "Not only," says

Innocent III of immortal memory, "do the priests offer the Sacrifice, but all the faithful also; for what is specially
fulfilled by the ministry of the priests, this is done collectively by the prayers of the * And it is pleasing to
bring to bear on this subject at least one of the many statements of St. Robert Bellarmine: "The Sacrifice," he says,
"is offered chiefly in the person of Christ. And so the oblation that follows the Consecration is a kind of attestation

that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it at the same time with him.*
The rite and the prayers of the Eucharistic Sacrifice no less clearly point out and show that the oblation of the
victim is performed by the priests together with the people. . . .
It is not surprising that the faithful of Christ are raised to such a dignity. For, by the waters of baptism, by the

general title of Christian they are made members of the mystical body of Christ, the priest, and by the "character", as
it were, imprinted upon their souls, they are assigned to divine worship; and so they participate in the priesthood of
Christ Himself according to their condition. . . .
But there is also a very profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at the altar, are

said to offer the Sacrifice.

In this very important subject, lest insidious error arise, we should limit the word "offer" by terms of exact
meaning. For that unbloody immolation, by which, when the words of consecration are uttered, Christ is made
 present on the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest alone, because he bears the role of Christ, and

not because he plays the role of the faithful in Christ. And so, because the pr places the victim upon the altar, he
offers to God the Father, the same Victim by which he offers an oblation for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity and
for the good of the whole Church. But the faithful in Christ participate in this oblation in a restricted sense in their
own fashion, and in a twofold manner, namely, because they offer the Sacrifice not only through the hands of the

priest, but also, in a manner, together with him; indeed, because of this participation the oblation of the people is
also referred to the liturgical worship.
Moreover, it is clear that the faithful in Christ offer the Sacrifice through the hands of the priest from this, that th
minister at the altar plays the part of Christ, as of the Head, making His offering in the name of all His members,

whereby indeed it happens that the whole Church is rightly said to offer the oblation of the Victim through Christ.
But that the people together with the priest himself offer the Sacrifice is not established because of this, because the
members of the Church, just as the priest himself, perform a visible liturgical rite, which belongs only to the minister
divinely assigned to this; but for the reason that they join their prayer of praise, impetration, expiation, and

thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest Himself; so that in the very same
oblation of the Victim, also according to an external rite by the priest, they may be presented to God, the Father.
For the external rite must by its very nature manifest internal worship; but the Sacrifice of the New Law signifies that
supreme allegiance by means of which the principal Offerer Himself, who is Christ, and together with Him and

through Him all of His mystical members attend and venerate God with due honor.

The Material and Form of the Sacrament of Orders *

[Apostolic Constitution, "Sacramentum Ordinis," November 30, 1947]

2301 1. The sacrament of orders instituted by Christ the Lord, by which spiritual power is handed down and grace is

conferred to perform ecclesiastical duties properly, the Catholic faith professes to be one and the same for the

universal Church. . . . And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church

has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of
the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance
of the sacraments," that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the
Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign. . . .

3. It is established moreover, among all that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of
invisible grace, owe and signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which the, signify. Indeed the
effects which should be produced and so signified by the sacred ordination of the diaconate, presbyterate, and
episcopate namely, power and grace, are found to have been sufficiently signified in all the rites of the universal

Church of different times and regions by the imposition of hands, and by the words that determine this. Furthermore,
there is no one who does know that the Roman Church always considered valid the ordinations conferred in the
Greek rite, without the handing over of the instruments, so that at the Council of Florence, in which the union of the
Greeks with the Church of Rome was accomplished, it was not imposed on the Greeks that they change the rite of

ordination, or that they insert in it the tradition of the instruments; rather, the Church wished that in the City itself
(Rome) Greeks be ordained according to their own rite. From all this it is gathered that according to the mind of the
Council of Florence the tradition of the instruments is not required for the substance and validity of this sacrament,
according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But if, according to the will and prescription of the Church,

the same should some day be held necessary for validity also, all would know that the Church is able even to
change and to abrogate what she has established.
4. Since these things are so, invoking divine light by Our supreme apostolic authority and certain knowledge We
declare, and, according as there is need, decree, and determine that the matter of sacred orders of the diaconate,

priesthood, and episcopate, and this alone, is the imposition of the hands; but that the form, and likewise alone, is
the words which determine the application of this matter, by which the sacramental effects are signified with but one
meaning, namely, the power of orders, and grace of the Holy Spirit, and which as such are accepted and applied by
the Church. Hence it follows that in order to do away with all controversy and to preclude the way to anxieties of

conscience, by Our Apostolic Authority We do declare, and, if ever it has been otherwise lawfully arranged, decide
that the tradition of the instruments at least for the future is not necessary for the validity of the sacred orders of the
diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate.
5. But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority

We decree and establish the following: In the ordination of deacons the matter is the one imposition of the bishop's
 hand, which occurs in the rite of that ordination. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the
following are essential and so required for validity: "Send forth upon him, we beseech, O Lord, the Holy Spirit, by
which for the work of faithfully performing your ministry he may be strengthened by the gift of Thy sevenfold grace."

In the ordination of priests the matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands which is done in silence, but there is
no continuation of the same imposition by an extension of the right hand, nor the last to which these words are
joined: "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, etc." But the form consists of the words of the
"preface," of which the following are essential and so required for validity: "Bestow, we beseech, almighty Father,

upon this thy servant the dignity of the priesthood; renew in his vitals the spirit of sanctity, that he may obtain the gift
of good merit acceptable to Thee, O God, and may by the example of his conversation introduce rigid judgment of
morals." Finally, in the episcopal ordination or consecration the matter is the imposition of the hands by the
consecrating bishop. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and

thus required for validity: "Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all
glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent." . . .
6. That no occasion for doubt may be offered, we command that in any conferring of orders the imposition of
hands be made by physically touching the head of the one to be ordained, although even the moral touch suffices for

performing a sacrament validly. . . . The disposition of this Our Constitution does not have retroactive force.

The Time of the Documents of the Pentateuch, and the Literary Genre of the Eleven First Chapters of Genesi
*

[Letter of the Secretary of the Biblical Commission to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris, January 16, 1948]

2302 Our Most Holy Father has decided to commit to the consideration of the Pontifical Biblical Commission two

questions which were recently submitted to His Holiness on the sources of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the

eleven first chapters of Genesis. These two questions, together with their doctrines and prayers, were examined
most attentively by the Most Reverend Consultors and Most Eminent Cardinals assigned to the aforesaid
Commission. At the end of their deliberations His Holiness has deigned to approve the response which follows, in
audience on the 16th day of January, 1948, granted to the undersigned.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission with a joyful heart praises the sense of filial confidence which inspired this
consultation, and desires to respond to it in a sincere effort to promote Biblical studies, since within the limits of the
traditional doctrine of the Church the fullest freedom is granted them. This freedom is affirmed explicitly in the
Encyclical,Divino afflante Spiritu, of the Supreme Pontiff, who is reigning gloriously, with these words: "The

Catholic exegete, impelled by an active and strong love of his science, and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother
Church, should by no means be kept from attacking difficult questions as yet unresolved, again and again, not only
to refute what is raised in opposition by adversaries, but to strive also to find a solid explanation which is in faithful
accord with the doctrine of the Church, namely with what has been taught about Sacred Scripture free of all errors,

and also satisfies in due measure certain conclusions of the profane sciences.
But let all the other sons of the Church remember that the attempts of these strenuous workers in the vineyard of
the Lord should be judged not only with an honest and just heart, but also with the highest charity; indeed, these
men should beware of that zeal, which is by no means prudent, whereby it is thought that whatever is new, for this

very reason should be attacked or brought into suspicion" [AAS 35 (1943), 319].
If anyone under the light of this commendation of the Supreme Pontiff should consider and interpret the three
replies given officially by the Biblical Commission on the questions already mentioned, i.e., on the 23rd day of June,
1905, regarding the stories in the historical books Sacred Scripture, which have only the appearance of history

[n.1980 ] on the 27th day of June, 1906, on the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch [n.1997-2000 ], on the 30th
day of June 1909, on the historical character of the three first chapters of Genesis 2121-2128 ], will concede that
these responses are by no means opposed to the earlier and truly scientific examination of these questions, which
was instituted according to the information obtained within the last forty years. Therefore, the Biblical Commission

does not think that, at least for the present, new decrees on these questions should be issued.
As for what pertains to the composition of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission in the above mentioned
decree of the 27th day of June, 1906, recognized that it could be affirmed that "Moses in the composition of his
work had made use of sources, namely, written documents or oral tradition" [n. 1999 ], and that modifications and

additions later than Moses can also be admitted [cf. n2000 ]. There is no one today who doubts the existence of
these sources, or who does not admit the successive additions which are due to the social and religious conditions
of later times, and which are evident also in the historical narrative. However, among non-Catholic exegetes today
very different opinions are offered regarding the nature and number of these documents, and their identification and
 time. Authors are not lacking in various countries who, from purely critical and historical reasons, without any
apologetic zeal, definitely reject the theories set forth up to now, and try to explain certain peculiarities of the
composition of the Pentateuch not so much from the diversity of supposed sources as from the special psychology
and peculiar method, more thoroughly known today, of thinking and speaking on the part of the ancient Orientals;

or also from the literary genre which varies according to subject matter. Therefore, we urge Catholic scholars to
examine these questions with open minds in the light of sane criticism, and according to the findings which other
sciences interested in the subject have obtained. For such an examination will undoubtedly show how great a part
and what a profound influence Moses had as author and legislator.

The question of the literary forms of the eleven first chapters of Genesis is more obscure and more complicated.
These literary forms do not correspond exactly with any classical category, and are not to be judged according to
Greco-Latin or modern literary forms. Hence the historicity of these chapters can neither be denied nor affirmed
simply, without undue application to them of the norms of a literary form under which they cannot be classed. If,

then, it is admitted that in these chapters history in the classic and modern sense is not found, it must also be
confessed that modern science does not yet offer a positive solution to all the problems of these chapters. . . . If
anyone should contend a priori that their narratives contain no history in the modern sense of the word, he would
easily insinuate that these are in no sense of the word historical, although in fact they relate in simple and figurative

words, which correspond to the capacity of men who are less erudite, fundamental truths with reference to the
economy of health, and also describe in popular manner the origin of humankind and of an elect people. . . .

Artificial Fertilization*

[From the Address of Pius XII on September 29, 1949, before the fourth international convention of Catholic physicians]

2303 1. The practice of artificial fertilization, insofar as it concerns man, cannot be judged exclusively, or even

principally, according to the norms of biology and medicine, neglecting moral and juridical norms.

2. Artificial fertilization outside of marriage is to be condemned purely and simply as immoral.

In fact, natural law and positive divine law demand that procreated new life be the fruit of marriage alone. Only
marriage guards the dignity of spouses (especially of the wife, as far as this question is concerned), and their
personal good. Only marriage of itself provides for the good and education of the child. Therefore, it follows that

there can be no divergence of opinion among Catholics in condemning artificial fertilization outside the conjugal
union. Offspring conceived in such a manner would be by the very fact illegitimate.
3. Artificial fertilization, which is effected within marriage but by an active element of a third party, is in the same
way immoral, and as such is to be condemned absolutely.

Only spouses have a reciprocal right over the body to procreate new life, which right is exclusive and
inalienable. The child also demands this. For upon him, who communicates new life to the child, nature itself by the
force of this relationship imposes the obligation both of protecting and raising this offspring. Indeed, between the
legitimate husband and the child procreated by the active element of the third party (even if the husband should

consent) no bond of origin, nor any moral and juridical bond of matrimonial procreation exists.
4. As for the morality of artificial fertilization within marriage, let it suffice for the present for Us to call to min
the principles of the natural law; the mere fact that the end which is intended is actually achieved in this way does not
make the use of this means lawful; and the desire of spouses (in itself, moreover, lawful) of having offspring does not

yet prove sufficiently that the use of artificial fertilization, by which this desire is fulfilled, is licit.
It is an erroneous opinion which holds that marriage between persons incapable of contracting marriage because
of the impediment of impotence can be rendered valid by the use of this means.
On the other hand it goes without saying that the active element is always procured illicitly by acts which are

contrary to nature.
Although a priori new methods cannot be excluded merely because they are new, nevertheless, as far as
artificial fertilization is concerned, not only is there need of the greatest circumspection, but it simply must be
avoided. By these words We do not necessarily forbid the use of artificial means, which are destined only either to

render the natural act easier or to bring it about that the completed act attain its end in a natural way.
Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of new life, which takes place according to the will and order of the
Creator, obtains to a truly perfect degree the ends intended by it. Such procreation corresponds at once to the
corporal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the spouses and to the normal and happy development of the infant.

The Intention to be Possessed in Baptism *

 [Response of the Holy Office, December 28, 1949]

2304 To this Supreme Sacred Congregation ... the question has been proposed:

"Whether, in judging matrimonial cases, baptism conferred in the sects of the Disciples of Christ, the

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, when the necessary matter and form have been used, is to
be presumed as invalid because of the lack of the required intention in the minister of doing what the Church does,

or what Christ instituted; or whether it is to be presumed as valid unless in a particular case it is proven to the
contrary."The reply: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.

Some False Opinions that Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine *

[From the Encyclical, "Humani generis", August 12, 1950]

2305 The discord and departure from truth on the part of the human race in religious and moral affairs have always

been a source and a cause of very painful grief to all good men, and especially to the faithful and sincere sons of the

Church, and more than ever today when we perceive the very principles of Christian culture offended on all sides.
Indeed, it is no wonder that such discord and wandering have always flourished outside the fold of Christ. For
although human reason, speaking simply, by its natural powers and light can in fact arrive at true and certain
knowledge of one personal God who in His providence guards and directs the world, and also of the natural law

infused into our souls by the Creator, nevertheless, not a few obstacles prevent man's reason from efficaciously and
fruitfully using this natural faculty which it possesses. For matters which pertain to God and have to do with
relationships between men and God, are truths which completely transcend the order of sensible things, and, when
they are introduced into the action of life and shape it, demand devotion of self and self-abnegation. The human

intellect, moreover, in acquiring such truths labors with difficulty not only on account of the impulse of the depraved
senses and the imagination, but also of the desires which have their source in original sin. Therefore it happens that
men in matters of this kind easily persuade themselves that what they do not wish to be true, are false or at least
doubtful.

For this reason divine "revelation" must be considered morally necessary, in order that those truths, which in the
realm of religion and morals are not of themselves beyond the scope of reason, yet in the present con" dition of the
human race, may be readily grasped by all with strong certitude and with no admixture of error.*
Yet on the other hand the human mind can sometimes experience difficulties in forming a certain judgment "of

credibility" about the Catholic faith, although so many wonderful external signs have been disposed by God, through
which, even by the natural light of reason alone, the divine origin of the Christian religion can be proven with
certainty. For man, whether induced by prejudiced opinions or instigated by desires and evil will, can refuse and
resist not only the evidence of external signs, which is pre-eminent, but also the supernal inspirations which God

brings into our hearts.

Anyone who observes those who are outside the fold of Christ, can easily see the chief ways upon which many
learned men have entered. There are those who contend that the so-called system of evolution, not yet irrefutably
demonstrated within the scope of the natural sciences, and admitted imprudently and indiscreetly, extends to the

origin of all things, and who boldly entertain the monistic and pantheistic theory that the whole world is subject to
continuous evolution. Indeed, the supporters of communism gladly employ this theory, to bring out more
efficaciously and defend their "dialectic materialism," casting out of mind every notion of God.
 Such fictions of evolution, by which whatever is absolute, firm, and immutable, is repudiated, have paved the
2306

way for a new erroneous philosophy which, in opposition to "idealism," "immanence," and "pragmatism," has

obtained the name of "existentialism," since it is concerned only with the "existence" of individual things, and neglects
the immutable essence of things.
There is also a kind of false "historicism," which attends only to events of human life, and razes the foundations

of all truth and absolute law, not only insofar as it pertains to the philosophical matters, but to Christian teachings as
well.
2307 In such a great confusion of opinions as this it gives us some solace to note those who not rarely today desire to

return from the principles of "realism," in which they had once been instructed, to the well-springs of truth revealed

by God, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as preserved in Holy Scripture. Yet at the same time
We must grieve that by no means a few of these, the more firmly they cling to the word of God, that much more
diminish human reason; and the more they exalt the authority of God who reveals, the more sharply they spurn the
magisterium of the Church, instituted by Christ the Lord to guard and interpret the truths revealed by God. This

indeed is not only in open contradiction to Sacred Scripture, but is proved false from actual experience. Often the
very ones who disagree with the true Church openly complain about their own discord in matters of dogma, so that
they unwillingly confess to the necessity of the limagisterium.
Indeed, Catholic theologians and philosophers, upon whom falls the serious duty of protecting divine and human
2308

truth, and of inculcating these in the minds of men, may not ignore or neglect these opinions which more or less stray

from the straight road. Moreover, they should thoroughly examine these opinions, because diseases cannot be cured
unless they have been rightly diagnosed; also because sometimes in false fabrications something of truth lies hidden;
finally, because such theories provoke the mind to scrutinize and weigh certain truths, philosophical or theological,

more carefully.
But, if our philosophers and theologians strive to gather only such fruit from these doctrines, after cautious
examination, there would be no reason for the intervention of themagisterium of the Church. However, although
We have found that Catholic doctors in general are on their guard against those errors, yet it is well established that

there are not lacking today, just as in apostolic times, those who, in their extreme zeal for novelty and also in their
fear of being held ignorant of those matters which the science of a progressive age has introduced, strive to
withdraw themselves from the temperateness of the sacred magisterium; and thus they become involved in the
danger of gradually and imperceptibly departing from the truth revealed by God, and of leading others into error

along with themselves.

Indeed, even another danger is observed, and is more serious, since it is more concealed under the appearance
of virtue. There are many who, deploring the discord of the human race and the confusion of minds, and roused by
an imprudent zeal for souls, are moved by a kind of impulse, and burn with a vehement desire to break down the

barriers by which good and honest men are mutually separated, embracing such an irenicism that, forgetting the
questions that separate men, they not only seek to refute destructive atheism by common strength, but even to
reconcile opposing ideas in dogmatic matters. And just as once there were those who asked whether the traditional
study of apologetics constituted an obstacle rather than an aid to the winning of souls for Christ, so today there are

not lacking those who dare proceed to the point of seriously raising the question whether theology and its method,
as they flourish in the schools with the approval of ecclesiastical authority, ought not only to be perfected, but even
to be entirely reformed, so that the king dom of Christ may be propagated more efficaciously everywhere in the
land, among men of every culture, and of every religious opinion. If these men aimed at nothing else than the better

adaptation of ecclesiastical science and its method to present day conditions and demands, by introducing a kind of
new plan, there would be little reason to fear; but, burning with an imprudent irenicism, some seem to consider as
obstacles to the restoration of fraternal unity those matters which rest upon the very laws and principles given by
Christ, and upon the institutions founded by Him, or which are the bulwarks and pillars of the integrity of faith, by

the collapse of which all things are united to be sure, but only in ruin. . . .
2309 As far as theology is concerned, some propose to diminish as much as possible the significance of dogmas, and

to free dogma itself from the manner of speaking long accepted in the Church, and from the philosophical notions

which are common among Catholic teachers; so that in explaining Catholic doctrine there may be a return to the
 manner of speaking of the Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers. They cherish the hope that the time will come
when dogma, stripped of the elements which they say are extrinsic to divine revelation, may be profitably compared
with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church; and in this way gradually a
mutual assimilation will be reached between Catholic dogma and the principles of the dissidents.

2310 In addition, when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, they think that the way is paved to

satisfy present-day needs, by expressing dogma in the terms of contemporary philosophy, whether of "immanence"

or of "idealism," or "existentialism," or of any other system. Certain more daring persons contend that this can and
ought to be done for this reason, because they maintain that the mysteries of faith can never be expressed by notions

that are adequately true, but only by so-called "approximative" notions, always changeable, by which truth is
indicated to a certain degree, but is also necessarily deformed. So they think that it is not absurd, but quite
necessary that theology in place of the various philosophies which it has used as its instruments in the course of time,
substitute new notions for old ones, so that in ways that are different, and even in some degree opposite, yet

possessing the same value, as they say, render the same divine truths in a human way. They add also that the history
of dogmas consists in presenting the various successive forms with which revealed truth has clothed itself, according
to the different doctrines and opinions which have arisen in the course of the ages.
But it is clear from what we have said that such endeavors lead not only to dogmatic "relativism," as it is called,
2311

but actually contain it; indeed, the contempt for the doctrine as commonly handed down, and for the phraseology by

which the same is expressed, more than sufficiently bear this out. Surely there is no one who does not see that the
phraseology of such notions not only as employed in the schools but also by the magisterium of the Church herself,
can be perfected and polished; and, besides, it is noted that the Church has not always been constant in employing

the same words. It is also evident that the Church cannot be bound to any system of philosophy which flourishes for
a brief period of time; for, what has been set in order over many centuries by common consent of Catholic teachers,
in order to achieve some understanding of dogma, without doubt does not rest on so perishable a foundation.
Rather they are based on principles and notions derived from a true knowledge of created things; and surely in

deriving this knowledge, truth divinely revealed has through the Church illumined the mind like a star. Therefore, it is
no wonder that some such notions were not only employed by ecumenical councils but also so sanctioned that it is
not right to depart from them.
Therefore, to neglect, or to reject, or to deprive so many great things of their value, which in many instances
2312

have been conceived, expressed, and perfected after long labor, by men of no ordinary genius and sanctity, under

the watchful eye of the holymagisterium, and not without the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit for the
expression of the truths of faith ever more accurately, so that in their place conjectural notions may be substituted,
as well as certain unstable and vague expressions of a new philosophy, which like a flower of the field exists today

and will die tomorrow, not only is the highest imprudence, but also makes dogma itself as a reed shaken by the
wind. Moreover, the contempt for the words and ideas which the scholastic theologians customarily use, tends to
weaken so-called speculative philosophy, which they think is void of true certitude, since it rests on theological
reasoning.

2313 Surely it is lamentable that those eager for novelty easily pass from a contempt for scholastic theology to a

neglect, and even a disrespect for thmagisterium of the Church, which supports that theology by its authority.

For, thismagisterium is considered by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle to science; indeed, by
certain non-Catholics it is looked upon as an unjust restraint by which some learned theologians are prevented from

pursuing their science. And, although this sacremagisterium, in matters of faith and morals, should be the
proximate and universal norm of faith to any theologian, inasmuch as Christ the Lord entrusted the entire deposit of
faith to it, namely, the Sacred Scriptures and divine "tradition," to be guarded, and preserved, and interpreted; yet
its office, by which the faithful are bound to flee those errors which more or less tend toward heresy, and so, too,

"to keep its constitutions and decrees, by which such perverse opinions are proscribed and prohibited,'* is
sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. There are some who consistently neglect to consult what has been set forth
in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs on the character and constitution of the Church, for the reason that a
certain vague notion prevails drawn from the ancient Fathers, especially the Greek. For the popes, as they

repeatedly say, do not wish to pass judgment on those matters which are in dispute among theologians, and so there
must be a return to the early sources, and the more recent constitutions and decrees of thmagisterium are to be
 explained from the writings of the ancients.
Even if perchance these things seem to have been wisely said, yet they are not without error. It is true that, in

general, the Pontiffs grant freedom to theologians in those matters which are disputed with varying opinions, but
history teaches that many things, which formerly were subject to free discussion, later cannot permit any discussion.
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in
this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the

ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16 ];
and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the
Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is
clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a

question of free discussion among the theologians.

2314 It is also true that theologians must always have recourse to the sources of divine revelation; for it is their duty to

indicate how what is taught by the livinmagisterium is found, either explicitly or implicitly, in Sacred Scripture and

in divine "tradition." In addition, both sources of doctrine, divinely revealed, contain so many and such great

treasures of truth that they are in fact never exhausted. Therefore, the sacred disciplines always remain vigorous by
a study of the sacred sources, while, on the other hand, speculation, which neglects the deeper investigation of
sacred deposit, as we know from experience, becomes sterile. But for this reason even positive theology, as it is
called, cannot be placed on equal footing with merely historical science. For, together with these sacred sources

God has given a livingmagisterium to His Church, to illumine and clarify what is contained in the deposits of faith
obscurely and implicitly. Indeed, the divine Redeemer entrusted this deposit not to individual Christians, nor to the
theologians to be interpreted authentically, but to magisterium of the Church alone. Moreover, if the Church
exercises this duty of hers, as has been done again and again in the course of the ages, whether by ordinary or

extraordinary exercise of this function, it is clear that the method whereby clear things are explained from the
obscure is wholly false; but rather all should follow the opposite order. Therefore, Our predecessor of immortal
memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble function of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church
is contained in the sources, added these words, not without grave reason: "By that very sense by which it is

defined."* . . .
2315 But to return to the new opinions which We have touched upon above, many things are proposed or instilled in

the mind (of the faithful) to the detriment of the divine authority of Sacred Scripture. Some boldly pervert the

meaning of the definition of the Vatican Council, with respect to God as the author of Sacred Scripture; and they

revive the opinion, many times disproved, according to which the immunity of the Sacred Writings from error
extends only to those matters which are handed down regarding God and moral and religious subjects. Again, they
speak falsely about the human sense of the Sacred Books, under which their divine sense lies hidden, which they
declare is alone infallible. In interpreting Sacred Scripture they wish that no account be taken of the analogy of the

faith and of "the tradition" of the Church, so that the teaching of the Holy Fathers and of the magisterium is to
be referred, as it were, to the norm of Sacred Scripture as explained by exegetes in a merely human manner, rather
than that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to the mind of the Church, which was established by Christ the
Lord as the guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of truth revealed by God.

2316 And besides, the literal sense of Sacred Scripture and its exposition, as elaborated by so many great exegetes

under the watchful eye of the Church, according to their false opinions, should yield to the new exegesis which they

call symbolic and spiritual; by which the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, which today are as a closed source in
the Church, may be opened sometime to all. They declare that by this method all difficulties vanish, by which they

only are shackled who cling to the literal sense of Scripture.

Surely, everyone will see how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly established
by Our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus," Benedict XV in the
Encyclical Letter, "Spiritus Paraclitus," and also by us in the Encyclical Letter, "Divino afflante Spiritu."

2317 And it is not strange that such innovations, as far as pertains to almost all branches of theology, have already

produced poisonous fruit. It is doubtful that human reason, without the aid of divine "revelation" and divine grace,

can demonstrate the existence of a personal God by arguments deduced from created things; it is denied that the
world had a beginning, and it is disputed that the creation of the world was necessary, since it proceeds from the
 necessary liberality of divine love; eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men is likewise denied
to God; all of which, indeed, are opposed to the declarations of the Vatican Council*
2318 The question is also raised by some whether angels are personal creatures; and whether matter differs

essentially from spirit. Others destroy the true "gratuity" of the supernatural order, since they think that God cannot

produce beings endowed with intellect without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. This is not all: the
notion of original sin, without consideration of the definitions of the Council of Trent, is perverted, and at the same
time the notion of sin in general as an offense against God, and likewise the concept of the satisfaction made by
Christ for us. And there are those who contend that the doctrine of transsubstantiation, inasmuch as it is founded on

an antiquated philosophical presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist, is reduced to a kind of symbolism, so
that the consecrated species are no more than efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ, and of His
intimate union with the faithful members in the mystical body.
Some think that they are not bound by the doctrine proposed a few years ago in Our Encyclical Letter, bearing
2319

upon the sources of "revelation," which teaches that the mystical body of Christ and the Church are one and the

same.* Some reduce to any empty formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to attain eternal
salvation. Others, finally, do injury to the reasonable nature of the "credibility" of the Christian faith.
It is well known how much the Church values human reason, in what is concerned with definitely demonstrating
2320

the existence of one personal God; and likewise with proving irrefutably from divine signs the foundations of the

Christian faith itself; and, in like manner, with expressing rightly the law which the Creator has placed in the souls of
men; and finally, with attaining some understanding, and this a most fruitful understanding, of the myste*i Yet
reason will be able to fulfill this function only when it has been trained in the required manner; namely, when it has

become imbued with that sound philosophy which has long stood out as a patrimony handed down from the earlier
Christian ages, and so possesses the authority of an even higher order, because themagistetium of the Church has
carefully weighed its principles and chief assertions, which were gradually made clear and defined by men of great
genius, by the test of divine "revelation" itself. Indeed, this philosophy, recognized and accepted within the Church,

protects the true and sincere value of human understanding, and constant metaphysical principles ---namely, of
sufficient reason, causality, and finality---and, finally, the acquisition of certain and immutable truth.
2321 To be sure in this philosophy many things are treated with which matters of faith and morals are neither directly

nor indirectly concerned, and which, therefore, the Church entrusts to free discussion of learned men; but in regard

to other matters, especially the principles and chief assertions which we mentioned above, the same freedom is not
granted. In such essential questions, one may indeed clothe philosophy with a more fitting and richer dress, fortify it
with more efficacious words, rid it of certain supports of scholars which are not fitting, and also cautiously enrich it
with certain sound elements of progressive human study; but it is never right to subvert it, or to contaminate it with

false principles, or to consider it a great but obsolete monument. For truth and its philosophic declaration cannot be
changed from day to day, especially when it is a question of principles known to the human mind per se, or of those
opinions which rest both on the wisdom of the ages, and on the consent and support of divine revelation. Whatever
truth the human mind in its honest search will be able to discover, surely cannot be opposed to truth already

acquired, since God, the highest Truth, created and directs the human intellect not that it may daily oppose new
truths to those rightly acquired, but that by the removal of errors, which perchance have crept in, it can build truth
upon truth in the same order and structure by which the very nature of things, from which truth is drawn, is
perceived to have been constituted. Therefore, the Christian, whether philosopher or theologian, does not hastily

and easily adopt every new thing thought up from day to day, but with the greatest care places it in the scale of
justice, and weighs it, lest he lose or corrupt the truth already acquired, indeed with grave danger and harm to faith
itself.
If these matters are thoroughly examined, it will be evident why the Church demands that future priests be
2322

instructed in the philosophic disciplines "according to the manner, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doct*r ''

since it knows well from the experience of many ages that the method and system of Aquinas, whether in training
beginners or investigating hidden truth, stand out with special prominence; moreover, that his doctrine is in harmony,
as in a kind of symphony, with divine "revelation," and is most efficacious in laying safe foundations of faith, and also
 in collecting usefully and securely the fruits of sound progr*ss.
2323 For this reason it is to be exceedingly deplored that the philosophy accepted and recognized within the Church

is today held in scorn by some; so much so that it is impudently renounced as antiquated in form, and rationalistic, as

they say, in its process of thinking. For they insist that this philosophy of ours defends the false opinion that an

absolutely true metaphysics can exist, while on the other hand they assert that things, especially the transcendent,
cannot be expressed more aptly than by disparate doctrines, which complement each other, although, in a manner
they are opposed to each other. So, they concede that the philosophy of our schools, with its clear description and
solution of questions, with its accurate demarcation of notions and clear distinctions, can indeed be useful for a

training in scholastic theology, well accommodated to the minds of men of the Middle Ages, but does not offer a
system of philosophizing which corresponds with our modern culture and its needs. Then they raise the objection
that an unchanging philosophy is nothing but a philosophy of immutable essences, while the modern mind must look
to the "existence" of individual objects, and to life, which is always in a state of flux. While they despise this

philosophy, they extol others, whether ancient or modern, whether of the peoples of the Orient or of the Occident,
so that they seem to insinuate that any philosophy or belief with certain additions, if need be, as corrections or
supplements, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt that this is quite false, especially since
it involves those fictions which they call "immanence," or "idealism," or "materialism," whether historic or dialectic, or

even "existentialism," whether professing atheism, or at least rejecting the value of metaphysical reasoning.
2324 And, finally, they find this fault with the traditional philosophy of our Schools, namely, that in the process of

cognition it is concerned only with the intellect, and overlooks the function of the will, and of the affections of the

mind. This certainly is not true. For never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and the efficacy of the

good disposition of the entire mind for fully comprehending and embracing religious and moral truths; on the other
hand, it has always taught that the lack of such dispositions can be the cause of the intellect becoming affected by
disordered desires and an evil will, and of being so obscured that it does not see rightly. On the other hand the
Common Doctor is of the opinion that the intellect can in some way perceive the higher goods that pertain to the

moral order, whether natural or supernatural, since it experiences in the mind a kind of passionate "relationship" with
these goods, whether natural, or added by the gift of grace* and it is evident how much even such an obscure
understanding can be an aid to the investigations of reason. Yet, it is one thing to recognize the force of the will for
the disposition of the affections in aiding reason to acquire a more certain and firmer understanding of matters of

morals; but these innovators make a different claim, namely, they assign to the faculties of desiring and coveting a
kind of intuition, and that man, when he cannot through the process of reason decide with certainty what is to be
accepted as true, turns to the will, by which he decides freely and chooses between opposite opinions, thus stupidly
confusing the act of cognition and of the will.

2325 It is not strange that because of these new opinions two branches of philosophy are endangered, which by their

nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, namely, theodicy and ethics. Indeed, some believe that the

function of these disciplines is not to demonstrate anything certain about God or any other transcendental being, but
rather to show that what faith teaches about a personal God and His precepts is in perfect harmony with the needs

of life, and thus should be embraced by all, so that despair may be avoided and eternal salvation attained. Since all
such opinions are openly opposed to the teachings of Our predecessors, Leo XIII and Pius X, they cannot be
reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. Surely, it would be superfluous to deplore these wanderings
from the truth, if all, even in philosophical matters, would accept with due reverence magisterium of the

Church, whose duty it surely is not only to guard and interpret the deposit of truth revealed by God, but also to
watch over these philosophical disciplines, lest Catholic dogma suffer any harm from incorrect opinions.
2326 It remains for Us to say something on the questions which, although they have to do with the disciplines which

are customarily called "positive," yet are more or less connected with the truths of Christian faith. Not a few

insistently demand that the Catholic religion give as much consideration as possible to these disciplines. Surely, this
is praiseworthy when it is a case of actually proven facts, but caution must be exercised when the question concerns
"hypotheses," although in some manner based on human knowledge, in which hypotheses doctrine is discussed
which is contained in the Sacred Scriptures or in "tradition." When such conjectural opinions are opposed directly
 or indirectly to the doctrine revealed by God, then their demand can in no way be admitted.
2327 Wherefore, the magisterium of the Church does not forbid that the teaching of "evolution" be treated in accord

with the present status of human disciplines and of theology, by investigations and disputations by learned men in

both fields; insofar, of course, as the inquiry is concerned with the origin of the human body arising from already

existing and living matter; and in such a way that the reasonings of both theories, namely of those in favor and of
those in opposition, are weighed and judged with due seriousness, moderation, and temperance; and provided that
all are ready to yield to the judgment of the Church, to which Christ has entrusted the duty of interpreting Sacred
Scriptures authentically, and of preserving the dogmas of fait*Yet some with daring boldness transgress this

freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were
already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if
there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this
thinking.

2328 When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the

Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds that either after

Adam there existed men on this earth, who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first
parent of all; or that Adam signifies some kind of multitude of first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such

an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of thmagisterium of the Church
teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all
by generation, and exists in each one as his own*
Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical there are those who boldly
2329

transgress the limits and precautions established by the Church. And, We especially deplore a certain entirely too

liberal manner of interpreting the historical books of the Old Testament, the supporters of which defend their case
by reference without warrant to a letter given not long ago by the Pontifical Council on Biblical Affairs to the
Archbishop of Paris.* This Letter plainly advises that the eleven first chapters of Genesis, although they do not

conform properly with the methods of historical composition which distinguished Greek and Latin writers of past
events, or the learned men of our age have used, nevertheless in a certain sense, to be examined and determined
more fully by exegetes, are truly a kind of history; and that the same chapters, in simple and figurative speech suited
to the mentality of a people of little culture, both recount the principal truths on which the attainment of our eternal

salvation depends, and also the popular description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people. But if
the ancient sacred writers draw anything from popular narrations (which indeed can be conceded) it must never be
forgotten that they did so assisted by the impulse of divine inspiration, by which in selecting and passing judgment on
those documents, they were preserved free from all error.

2330 Moreover, these matters which have been received into Sacred Literature from popular narrations are by no

means to be identified with mythologies or other things of this kind, which proceed from undue imagination rather

than from that zeal for truth and simplicity which so shines forth in the Sacred Books of the Old Testament that our
sacred writers must evidently be said to excel the ancient profane writers.

The Definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary *

[From the Apostolic Constitution, "Munificentissimus Deus," Nov. 1, 1950]

2331 All these arguments and considerations of the Holy Fathers and of the theologians are based on the Holy

Scriptures as their ultimate foundation, which indeed place before us as though before our eyes the loving Mother of

God as most closely joined with her divine Son, and as ever sharing His lot. Therefore, it seems almost impossible
to think of her who conceived Christ, bore Him, nourished Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and pressed

Him to her breast, as separated from Him after this earthly life in her body, even though not in soul. Since our
Redeemer is the Son of Mary, surely, as the most perfect observer of divine law, He could not refuse to honor, in
addition to His Eternal Father, His most beloved Mother also. And, since He could adorn her with so great a gift as
to keep her unharmed by the corruption of the tomb, it must be believed that He actually did this

But this especially must be remembered, that ever since the second century the Virgin Mary has been presented
 by the Holy Fathers as the new Eve, very closely connected with the new Adam, although subect to Him in that
struggle with the enemy of hell, which, as is presignified in the protevangeliGen. 3:15 ] was to result in a most
complete victory over sin and death, which are always joined together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles [

Rom. 5:6 ;1 Cor. 15:21-26 ;54-57 ]. Therefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part, and
the final evidence of this victory, so the Blessed Virgin's common struggle with her Son was to be concluded with
the "glorification" of her virginal body, as the same Apostle says: "When . . . this mortal haton immortality, then
shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victor1 Cor. 15:54 ].

Therefore, the august Mother of God, joined in a secret manner with Jesus Christ, from all eternity "by one and
the same decree''* of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most pure virgin in her divine maternity, noble
ally of the divine Redeemer, who has gained full triumph over sin and its consequences, has finally attained as the
highest crown of her privileges, that she should be immune from the corruption of the tomb, and that in the same

manner as her Son she would overcome death and be taken away soul and body to the supernal glory of heaven,
where as Queen she would shine forth at the right hand of the same Son of hers, the immortal King of Ages [ 1 Tim.
1:17].
Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flourishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a
2332
knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the
bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faith---a truth which is founded
on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been approved by
ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with the other revealed truths, and has been
splendidly explained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theologians---We think that the
moment appointed in the plan of a provident God has now come to proclaim solemnly such an extraordinary
privilege of the Virgin Mary. . . .
2333 Accordingly, after We directed Our prayers in supplication to God again and again, and invoked the light of the
Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God, who lavishes His special benevolence on the Virgin Mary, for the
honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the victor over sin and death, for the increasing glory of the
same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the whole Church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority We pronounce, declare, and define that the
dogma was revealed by God, that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, after completing her
course of life upon earth, was assumed to the glory of heaven both in body and soul.
Therefore, if anyone, which may God forbid, should dare either to deny this, or voluntarily call into doubt what
has been defined by Us, he should realize that he has cut himself off entirely from the divine and Catholic faith.

Kinds of Literature in Holy Scripture *

[From the same Encyclical, "Divino afflante Spiritu," September 30, 1943]

Appendix

St.Boniface I 418-422
ST. BONIFACE I, 418-422

The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff *

[From the Letter, "Manes beatum," to Rufus and the other Bishops through out Macedonia, etc., March 11, 422]

5000 The watchful care over the universal Church confided to Peter abides with him by reason of the Lord's statement; for he knows on the
testimony of the Gospel [Matt. 16:18] that the Church was founded on him. His office can never be free from cares, since it is certain that all things
depend on his deliberation. These considerations turn my mind to the regions of the Orient, which we behold in a way with genuine solicitude. Far be it
from the priests of the Lord, that anyone of them fall into the offense of making the decrees of our elders foreign to him, by attempting something in the
way of a novel and unlawful usurpation, realizing that he thus makes him a rival, in whom our Christ has placed the highest power of the priesthood, and
whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions. "To you," He said, "I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven" [Matt.
16:19] into which no one shall enter without the favor of the door--keeper. He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church" [Matt.
11:29]. Whoever, therefore, desires before God to be judged worthy of the dignity of the priesthood, since one reaches God with the support of Peter, on
whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded, <should> be "meek and humble of heart" [Matt. 11:29]. lest as a contumacious
disciple of him, whose <pride> he has imitated, he undergo the punishment of the teachers. . . .

5001 Since the circumstances demand, examine if you please, the decrees of the canons; you will find, what church ranks second after the church at
Rome, or what is third. In these (decrees) there appears a distinct order, so that the pontiffs of the other churches recognize that they nevertheless are
under one church . . . and share the same priesthood, and to whom they, preserving charity, should be subject because of ecclesiastical discipline. Indeed
this teaching of the canons has persisted from antiquity, and continues even at the present time, through the grace of Christ. No one has ever boldly raised
his hands in opposition to the apostolic supremacy, from whose judgment there may be no withdrawal; no one in this has been rebellious, except him who
wished judgment to be passed on himself. The above mentioned great churches preserve . . . their authority through the canons: the churches of
Alexandria and of Antioch [cf. n. 163, 436], having the knowledge of ecclesiastical law. They preserve, I say, the statutes of our elders . .. in all things
rendering and receiving an interchange of that grace which they know that they owe to us in the Lord who is our peace. But since the situation demands
it, it must be shown by documents that the greatest churches of the Orient in important affairs, in which there was need of greater inquiry, have always
consulted the See of Rome, and, as often as experience demanded, asked for its help. Athanasius of holy memory and Peter, priests of the church of
Alexandria, sought the aid of this See.* When the Church of Antioch was afflicted during a very long period, with the result that conferences because of
this were often held, it is clear that the Apostolic See was consulted, first under Meletius and later under Flavianus. According to its authority, after the
many things which were accomplished by our church, no one doubts that Flavianus received the grace of communion, which he would have lacked
forever if his writing had not gone forth hence upon this basis.* The emperor Theodosius of most kindly memory, thinking that the ordination of
Nectarius did not possess stability, since it did not take place in our way, sending from his presence members of his court together with bishops,
demanded that it be performed in this case by the Roman See, and that they direct it in the regular way, so as to strengthen the priesthood.* A short time
ago, that is under my predecessor of happy memory, Innocent, the Pontiffs of the Oriental churches, grieving that they were separated from the
communion of blessed Peter, through envoys asked for peace, as your charity remembers.* And at this time the Apostolic See without difficulty granted
all, obeying the Master who says: "And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your
sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. That we be not overreached by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices [2 Cor. 2:10 f.], that is, who
always rejoices at dissension. Since then, most beloved Brethren, I think that the examples which we have given suffice to prove the truth, although more
are retained in your own minds, without harm to our brotherhood we wish to meet your assembly, as you see by this letter which has been directed by Us
through Severus, a notary of the Apostolic See, most acceptable to Our heart, chosen from Our circle. Thus in agreement, as befits brothers, let not
anyone wishing to endure in our communion bring up again for discussion the name of our brother and fellow priest, Bishop Perigenas,* whose
sacerdotal office the Apostle Peter has already confirmed at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit, leaving no question about this for the future, and let there
be no objection to this, since he was appointed by Us during the space of that time in which the office was vacant. .

Appendix

St. Sixtus III, 432-440

ST. SIXTUS III, 432-440

The Incarnation *

["The formula of union" of the year 433, by which the peace between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Antiochenes was established,
was approved by St. Sixtus III]

5002 But how we know and speak regarding the Virgin Mother of God, and about the manner of the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God,
necessary not because of increase but for satisfaction, we have taken and possess from above, from the divine Scriptures as well as from the tradition of
the holy fathers, and we speak briefly, adding nothing at all to the faith of the holy Fathers, which was set forth at Nicea. For, as we have already said, this
suffices for all understanding of piety and for all renunciation of heretical perfidy. But we speak not presuming the unlawful, but by confession of special
weakness excluding those who wish to rise up against what we regard as beyond man.

5003 We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and of a body, born of the
Father before the ages according to the Godhead, but in the last days the same on account of us and on account of our salvation according to the
incarnation from the Virgin Mary, consubstantial with the Father, the same according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the
incarnation. For the unity of the two natures was made; wherefore, we confess one Christ, one son, one Lord. According to this unmingled unity we
confess the holy Virgin Mother of God, because the Word of God was made flesh and was made man, and by the conception united to Himself a temple
assumed from her. Moreover, we recognize the evangelical and apostolic voices about the Lord as men speaking with divine inspiration, joining these
sometimes as if spoken of one person, but sometimes separating them as if of two natures, and these indeed befitting God according to the Godhead of
Christ, but humbly teaching according to the incarnation.

Appendix

Urban IV, 1261-1264

URBAN IV, 1261-1264

The Object and Force of Rememorative Liturgical Action *

[From the Bull, "Transiturus de hoc mundo," August 11, 1264]

5004 For other things whose memory we keep, we embrace in spirit and mind; but we do not for this reason hold their real presence. In this
sacramental commemoration, however, Jesus Christ is present with us, under another form to be sure, but in His substance.

Appendix

Alexander VII, 1655-1667

ALEXANDER VII, 1655-1667

Gravity of Matter in Actions of Impurity *
[From the Response of the Holy Office, February 11, 1661]

5005 Whether a confessor is to be denounced for solicitation on account of scarcity of material?

Reply: Since in actions of impurity scarcity of matter is not present, and if it should be present, is not in the matter at hand, they have decided
that it should be denounced, and that a contrary opinion is not probable.
To the decrees of the Holy Office of February 11th 1661, Benedict XIV referred readers in the Constitution "Sacramentum Poenitentiae," of
June 1, 1741 (Docum. V in Cod. Iuris. Can.).

Appendix

Innocent XII 1691-1700

INNOCENT XII, 1691-1700

Matrimony as a Contract and a Sacrament *

[Reply of the Holy Office to Mission. Capucc., July 23, 1698]

5006 Whether matrimony between apostates from the faith and those previously rightly baptized, entered upon after the apostasy, publicly according
to the custom of pagans or Mohammedans, is truly matrimony and a sacrament.
Reply: If any agreement of dissolubility be at hand, there is no matrimony and no sacrament, but if none is at hand, there is matrimony and a
sacrament.