THE REQUISITES FOR AN INFALLIBLE PONTIFICAL
DEFINITION ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION
OF POPE PIUS IX
One hundred years ago, petitions for the definition of the
doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception as divinely re­
vealed Catholic dogma were pouring in upon the Holy See. The
movement had become powerful during the reign of Pope Gregory
XVI, who died on June 1,1846. It continued and increased under
the rule of Pope Pius IX, who succeeded to the papal throne on
June 16 of that same year. Soon after his election, the new Pontiff
asked twenty prominent theologians, taken from the ranks of
both the diocesan and the regular clergy, to study the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception and to submit to him in writing their
individual judgments as to its definability. Then, on February 2,
1849, from Gaeta, where he had retired because of the sedition in
Rome, he,wrote to the bishops of the Catholic Church to ascer­
tain their teaching and the belief of their flocks on the matter of
the Immaculate Conception. When well over nine-tenths of the
Catholic episcopate had signified their own belief and that of
their flocks in this prerogative of Our Lady, Pope Pius IX ap­
pointed a special commission, chosen from among the theologians
who had already been consulted on the matter of the Immaculate
Conception, to investigate the question even more profoundly
than had previously been done.
Cardinal Fomari was named president of this special commis­
sion. Serving under him were Prosper Caterini, himself destined
soon to be called to the cardinalatial dignity, Canon Audisio,
Fathers John Perrone, Charles Passaglia, and Clement Schrader,
of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Mariano Spada, O.P., and Fr. John
Baptist Tonini, O.F.M. Conv. Fr. Tonini died before the actual
sessions began, and his place was taken by his fellow Conventual,
Fr. Angelo Trullet.
This Commission met for the first time on May 8, 1852. This
first session was given over to matters of organization and pro­
cedure. In its second and third sessions (May 19, and June 8,
1852), the commission devoted itself to the expression of the prin­
ciples governing the definability of any doctrine as revealed
Catholic dogma, stating first what is not necessary, and then
376

.

REQUISITES OF POPE PIUS IX

377

ί
what must be considered as sufficient for an infallible pontifical
definition. In view of the fact that the Church’s position with
regard to the doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption into heaven is
today almost exactly the same as its stand on the teaching of the
Immaculate Conception was in 1852-53, these pronouncements
|
on the nature of dogmatic progress should be of great interest to
J
our priests and seminarians.
j
At its second session, that of May 19, 1852, the commission
i
agreed unanimously on the accuracy of four principles, stating
i
the qualities with which a doctrine need not be endowed in order
to be defined as revealed Catholic dogma.
(1) The fact that there have been conflicting teachings on this
subject within the Catholic Church in the past, or, the fact that all
have not heretofore agreed on this teaching, does not render a doctrine
incapable of definition.1 Bishop Augustine de Roskovâny’s Latin
rendering of the Italian summary of the commission’s Ada makes
it clear that the members adduced the example of the rebaptism
controversy in support of this thesis. They also pointed to the
I
fact that controversialists on opposing sides of a theological dis­
pute habitually express their willingness to abide by a decision of
the Church, thus, in the eyes of the members, expressing their
belief that the Catholic Church can pronounce and define even
in a matter which has hitherto been discussed freely within its
i
own schools.
1
(2) The fact that even authoritative writers can be quoted in op;
position to a teaching does not render that teaching incapable of
(definition. The members of the commission claimed that this
principle is shown as valid through the examination of the history
I
of almost any defined dogma. In particular, however, they point­
ed to the example of the Council of Trent, which proclaimed the
Church’s belief in the absolute immunity of Our Lady from all
actual sin and imperfection in the face of previous denial of this
truth even on the part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

I
I

I
s

’In this article I have generally followed the Latin version of the Italian
resume of the Acta of this commission published in Bishop Augustine de
«ekoriuiy’s Beata Virgo Maria in Suo Conceptu immaculata ex Monumentis
Oaniunt Secularum Demonstrata (Budapest, 1874), Vf, 13-19. Brief summaries
« these theses will also be found in Cardinal Manning's The Vatican Council
Its Definitions. A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy (New York: D. and J.
hadKer, 1871), pp. 240 B., in Bishop Malou’s L’Immaculée Conception de la
Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi (Brussels, 1857), pp. 351 ff., .and
o the brilliant article by Fr. Charles Baliê, “De defînibilitate assumptionis
“· Virginis Mariae in caelum,” in Antonianum, XXI, I (Jan. 1946), 20 ff.

378

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

(3) In order that a doctrine be definable, it is not necessary that
there should be explicit, or even implicit, testimony to this doctrine in
Sacred Scripture, since it is certain and manifest that the scope of
revelation is wider than that of Scripture. In support of this principie, the members of the commission appealed to the dogmas of
infant baptism, of the real and complete presence of Our Lord
under each of the Eucharistic Species, and of the Procession of
the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one prin­
ciple.
(4) In order to show that the doctrine to be defined belongs to
Tradition, it is not necessary to adduce a series of Fathers and of
of other witnesses reaching back to apostolic times. The “Tradition"
to which the members of Pope Pius’ commission referred was the
divine Apostolic Tradition, which, together with the Sacred
Scripture, is a source of supernatural public revelation. In formu­
lating this fourth principle, the members of the commission took
cognizance of the fact that the early monuments of tradition,
among which the patristic writings are to be numbered, do not
state the entire content of that divine teaching which was de­
livered to the Church by the apostles.
According to the commission, anyone who denies this fourth
principle must logically reject one of the following five truths.
(A) Not all of the doctrine entrusted to the Church as the
content of divine public revelation was immediately, at the very
outset of the Church’s life, set down in writing by the Fathers.
(B) Not all of the ancient monuments of divine apostolic tradition (the writings and inscriptions of the early Christians) have
survived until our time, even though the tradition itself has survived and is just as perfectly possessed, guarded, and taught by
the infallible Church today as it was in apostolic times.
(C) Although the whole content of divine public revelation
has always been guarded and presented infallibly by the Church,
it has not always been, in its entirety, distinctly conceived and
formally expressed.
(D) A doctrine proposed as a part of the divine apostolic tradition by the true Church of Jesus Christ at any one period in its
history cannot possibly be in opposition to what has been taught
as divinely revealed by the Church at an earlier time.
(E) A doctrine proposed at any time within the true Church of
God as a part of divine public revelation must, by reason of the

’
j

<
j

j
s
j
1
|

I
ί
ί
«
j
j
|
1
j

t
J
|

REQUISITES OF POPE PIUS IX

379

divine assistance promised and given to the Church, have been
taught in the past at least in an implicit manner by the majority
of the ecclesia docens. Moreover, such a teaching could never
have been denied by a majority of the authentic teachers within
the Church.
The commission appealed directly for verification of its fourth
principle to the procedure of the Councils of Ephesus and Chal­
cedon, to the Lateran Council of 649, under St. Martin I, and to
the dogmatic letters of Popes St. Leo I and St. Agatho. The
commission found that all of these authorities appealed to the
faith of the Fathers and of Tradition, while making no effort to
cite sources from the first three Christian centuries. At the same
time it noted that they all appealed to texts which, in relation to
their teaching, were quite recent.
In formulating and explaining this fourth principle, the com­
mission of Pope Pius IX took into careful account both the con­
tinuity and the progress of Catholic dogma. The entire content
of divine public revelation was handed over to the Church by the
apostolic college. This entire deposit of faith has been taught
and guarded infallibly by the visible Catholic Church since its
beginning, and will be so taught and guarded until the end of the
world. At the same time, however, there has been, and, with
God’s help, there will continue to be, a definite advance in the ap­
preciation of this body of divine truth within the Church. Teach­
ings which, in earlier ages, were proposed and taught in an in­
choate and comparatively indistinct manner have been brought
out and stated explicitly in later periods. Both analysis and syn­
thesis have played their parts in this dogmatic progress, which,
however, always has been, and ever will be, an advance in the
understanding and appreciation of the same one body of truths
revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and preached in and to
His Church by His apostles.
Hitherto the commission had fixed its attention on marks not
needed to show that a certain proposition is capable of receiving
an infallible pontifical definition. Now it turned to the considera­
tion of those characteristics which are sufficient to qualify a doc­
trine as definable. Five of these characteristics were indicated.
(1) There must be a certain number of solemn testimonies
directly pertinent to the proposition in question. The commission
asserted that no one could deny the principle other than by flying

380

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

in the face of the constant procedure of the Oecumenical Councils,
of the dogmatic letters of the Pontiffs, and, indeed, of the whole
economy of the Church. There was a direct appeal to the action
of the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, of the Third Council
of Constantinople against the Monothelites, and of the Second
Council of Nicaea against the Iconoclasts.
(2) A proposition is capable of being defined if there can be
found one or many revealed principles containing this proposition.
At this point the commission observed that the placing of such
“principles” served only to bring out virtual and immediate revel­
ation. Thus, it asserted, from the revealed principle that Jesus
Christ is perfect God and perfect man, it follows that the fact
that He has two wills is revealed. In the same way, from the re­
vealed principles that there is one God and that there are three
divine persons, and that in God everything is one except for re­
lations of origin, it follows that the doctrine to the effect that the
Holy Ghost could not procede from the Father and the Son other
than from one principle of spiration is revealed.
This statement, like the ones before it, represented the unani­
mous teaching of the members of the commission. It is distinctly
worthy of note that the commission taught without reservations
the definability of a proposition which had been known in pre­
vious times only through the light of virtual revelation. It did not,
of course, go into the distinction upon which the stand of theolo­
gians like Schultes and Tanquerey is based. These writers claim
that a properly theological conclusion, that is, one which has
been known and has been knowable only by means of a real pro­
cess of reasoning from revealed principles could never be defined
as a dogma of divine Catholic faith. The commission of 1852 made
no effort to determine whether or not the proposition contained
in revealed principles might be inferred by a process of reasoning
in the strict sense of the term.
(3) A proposition is capable of being defined if it shows a neces­
sary connection with dogmas. In other words, a proposition ought
to be accepted as revealed when from the denial of this proposition
there follows by logical and immediate necessity the denial of one or
more revealed principles. Such a connection, according to the
unanimous teaching of the commission, is equivalent to imme­
diate virtual revelation. As examples of the use of this principle,
the members of the commission pointed to two Catholic dogmas,

REQUISITES OF POPE PIUS IX

381

that which tells us of the existence of a real difference between
mortal and venial sins, and that which expounds the truth that
the effects of the sacraments do not depend upon the good or the
bad character of their secondary ministers. Only by holding the
distinction between venial and mortal sins as something revealed
can a man assent to the fundamental Christian teachings which
tell us that there actually are sins unto death, and that there are
sins not incompatible with perseverance in the life of divine grace.
Only by holding it to be revealed truth that the effects of the
sacraments do not depend upon the good or the bad character of
the secondary minister can a man logically believe that these
sacraments produce their effects ex opere operato and that Jesus
Christ is the primary minister of the sacraments.
Once again, it is of interest to see that the commission did not
hesitate to ascribe the character of definability to a proposition
which had hitherto been known in the light of immediate virtual
revelation. The proposition judged as definable in the light of
this third principle is just as truly a theological conclusion as is
that which is explained in the previous statement In both cases
the proposition which is held to be definable is something known
by a process of reasoning. In the one case, the reasoning is con­
sidered under the form of a syllogism, in the other, under the
form of a dilemma.
(4) A proposition may be defined as Catholic dogma if it is
Preached as a part of divine public revelation in the concordant teach­
ing of the actual episcopate. The members of the commission held
unanimously that no one could deny this principle without call­
ing into question the promises of Our Lord Himself, and without
rejecting the standard constantly used by the Fathers in demon­
strating the articles of faith. The commission pointed to the ex­
amples of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, and Fulgentius, all of
whom considered a theological question to have been settled once
they had ascertained the teaching on this point of the various
Sees of Christendom, and particularly that of the principal one
among them.
In proposing this point, which, incidentally, played a great
role in the definition of the Immaculate Conception, and which
may play a similar part in a forthcoming definition of Our Lady’s
Assumption, the commission took cognizance of the fact that the
Catholic Church is infallible in its teaching always. The teaching

382

il

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

of the Church over the centuries, and the teaching of the Church
at any one period of its history, are both unerring statements of
the divinely revealed teaching. Thus if the episcopal college,
which is not the successor to but actually the continuation of the
apostolic college, teaches that such and such a doctrine is a part
of divine revelation at any one time in the Church’s history, we
may be perfectly assured that, by reason of the divine protection
and enlightenment given to the Church, that teaching is perfectly
correct, and the doctrine in question is perfectly capable of defi­
nition as a dogma of divine Catholic faith.
(5) A proposition is capable of definition when it is shown to be
a part of divine public revelation by the practice of the Church. The
members of the commission agreed that, in this principle, the
term “practice” referred to external acts of worship and of re­
ligion. They agreed that the only practice which could serve to
show the revealed character of a theoretical proposition upon
which the practice itself is based would have to be universal,
solemn, and mandatory. It would have to be universal practice,
belonging to the Church Catholic, and not simply to one See or
group of Sees. It would have to be solemn, in the sense that this
activity would have to be in some way joined to the actual wor­
ship of God in the Church. Finally, it would have to be manda­
tory rather than elective in the Church of God. Thus, according
to the commission, a practice within the entire Church, joined to
the public cultus within the Church, and imposed upon the faith­
ful by the commands of their legitimate ecclesiastical superiors
could be a sufficient sign that the theoretical proposition upon
which this practice depended was actually revealed by God.
To explain this fifth and last of their principles, the members of
the commission drew up and unanimously approved five theses.
First they indicated the basic and obvious fact that every practice
of the sort they had indicated is necessarily connected with some
theoretical proposition which informs and directs this practice.
Secondly they asserted that not every theoretical proposition
which informs and governs Catholic practice is necessarily one
which is contained in divine public revelation. In support of this
contention they showed that the question of baptism or non
baptism of a monstrous foetus would be governed by the theoret­
ical decision (from philosophical sources) as to whether or not
this particular being could be considered as human. They like-

■
I
i
?
r

V

wise appealed to the existence of certain liturgical feasts. The
feast of St. Michael depends, to a certain extent, upon the reality
of an apparition of the Archangel: that of the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross, upon the triumph of Heraclius:that of the Rosary,
upon a private revelation from Our Lady. Yet none of these
facts can be attested in the content of divine public revelation.
In its third explanatory thesis, the commission asserts that
there are unquestionably practices in the Catholic Church im­
mediately connected with theoretical truths which form a part
of the content of divine public revelation. In support of this
thesis the commission pointed to the axiom: ut legem credendi lex
statuat supplicandi. It also appealed to the procedure of the
Second Council of Nicaea, condemning the Iconoclasts and ap­
proving the use and the veneration of images as conformed to the
practice of the Church, to that of St. Basil, who used the doxology
employed by the faithful to show the divinity of the Holy Ghost,
to that of St. Jerome, who appealed to the practice of the Church
in proving the legitimacy of the cult of relics against Vigilantius,
and to that of St. Augustine, who established the doctrine on the
propogation of original sin on a proof drawn from the existence of
exorcism. The commission also mentioned the common procedure
of theologians, who employ the practice of the Church as one of
the loci theologici.
The fourth of the explanatory theses put forward by the commission asserts that there is a standard by which we can judge
whether or not the theoretical proposition upon which a practice
of the Church depends is a part of divine public revelation or not.
Such a criterion, according to the fifth and last thesis, may be
found either in the character of the proposition itself, or in the
testimony of credible witnesses. The commission mentions the
fact that certain propositions are such that, within the teaching
of the Church, they could have come from no source other than
that of divine revelation. An example of this type of proposition
is the teaching that St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the
womb of his mother. Others could be known naturally or by a
process of revelation, and their presence in the teaching of the
Church must be explained by some testimony outside of the
existence of the propositions themselves.
These were the principles in the light of which the special commission appointed by Pope Pius IX proceded to the considera-

■p
■F

* V*
4'

J
Ill]
J

Wi

iiiiiiil

384

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

tion of the definability of the doctrine of the Immaculate Con­
ception of Our Lady. In the last analysis, they are the principles
in the light of which the definability of the doctrine of the As­
sumption must also be considered. They take cognizance of the
definability of a theological conclusion, but they do not limit
themselves to the consideration of propositions which can be or
which must be deduced from existent dogmatic formulae by way
of syllogistic reasoning. Thus they give an extraordinarily com­
plete and perfect picture of that dogmatic progress and continu­
ity which is at once the characteristic and the glory of the
Catholic Church.
Joseph Clifford Fento.h.
The Catholic University of America,
Washington, D.C.

Primitive Protestantism

My readers, no doubt, will remember the exceeding joy and surprise
with which, at the close of my long search after Protestantism in the
first ages, I at length stumbled on a staunch Calvinist in the person of
Simon Magus. “Not by virtuous actions (said this heretic) but by
Grace is salvation to be attained.’’ It will also, perhaps, be recollected
that, from certain generous scruples, I then hesitated to take advantage
of such disreputable authority; and, though long foreseeing that my
Protestantism must be heretical descent, yet felt anxious, for the honor
of all parties, that it should be of some better breed. To say the truth,
too, I was not quite sure that this glimpse of genuine Calvinism might
not be, after all, but a chance sparkle, and that I should see nothing
more of it On passing on, however, from the Arch-heretic to the
numerous sects that sprung from him I found this feature of the parent
faithfully reproduced in all his offspring ; I found that they all, in some
point or other, anticipated the Reformed lights of Geneva and Wittemburgh; and that if I had, at once, designated Simon Magus as the fount
and wellspring of some of the most boasted of the Protestant doctrines, I
should have asserted no more than it was now in my power indisputably
to prove.
----- Thomas Moore in the Travels of an Irish Gentleman «1» Search of e
Religion (Baltimore: John Murphy Company, no date), p. 109.

]

j
j
|
J
j

j
|

|

Answers to Questions
MASS OR STIPEND?

Question: If for some reason a pastor does not celebrate the
Missa pro populo on a certain Sunday, can he subsequently fulfil
his obligation, or cancel it, by contributing a dollar to the church
funds?
Answer: The pastor would certainly not satisfy his obligation
or cancel it in this manner. It is the spiritual value of the Holy
Sacrifice that the Church requires the pastor to procure for his
people on certain days, and the monetary equivalent of the usual
stipend is utterly inadequate to compensate for the treasures of
grace of which the parishioners have been deprived when their
priest has failed to say one of the Masses incumbent on him by
reason of his office. However, if the pastor is lawfully impeded
from celebrating the Missa pro populo on a certain day, he can
give a stipend to another priest who is willing to say the Mass,
and thus the obligation is fulfilled (Can. 466, §1; 339, §4).
CUMULATIVE INVESTITURE IN THE SCAPULARS
Question: In the July issue of The American Ecclesiastical Re­
new, p. 63, it is stated that the faculty to bless and to impose the
five scapulars with a single formula includes the right to bless and
to impose any one of the five separately. Although the reason
adduced for this answer would seem to be valid—that the greater
power includes the lesser—does it not fail to take into account
the actual legislation of the Holy See regarding this matter?
Answer: Our correspondent is correct; the answer given in the
July issue does not take into consideration an explicit decree of
the Congregation of Indulgences, given Sept. 12, 1883. This
decree asserts that the faculty to bless and to impose four or five
scapulars with one formula of itself is not sufficient for the valid
blessing and imposition of the aforesaid scapulars, but it is neces­
sary in addition that there be had or obtained from the superior
of the respective order the faculty of blessing and imposing the

385