RSS Amplifier

The Journal of American Reform · May 2, 2026

The Force of Encyclicals in Light of "Humani Generis" — Salaverri, 1952

Read inOriginalenesdefrptjaittr
0
Sign in to vote or save

American Reform · The Journal of American Reform

“Concerning the doctrinal force of the Encyclicals, the ‘Humani generis’ teaches us that they are interventions of the Magisterium of the Church itself, by means of which the living Magisterium exercises its ordinary office of sole authentic interpreter of the sources of revelation, to which theologians must adhere as a norm in their investigations, abandoning in particular those methods of exegesis foreign to the principles and norms of hermeneutics proposed in the Encyclicals, and endeavoring to confirm their teachings with theological arguments.”

Portrait (colorized) of Fr. Joachim Salaverri, distinguished Jesuit theologian and author of the Sacrae Theologiae Summa manuals

Beyond the singularly lucid exposition of Father Salaverri, S.J., which follows, interested Catholics will find helpful the treatments gathered below from other approved theologians. These essays address the Catholic Magisterium as such — its criteria for engagement and the forms by which it is exercised. Of particular interest, both Monsignor Fenton and Father Hürth give attention to the Papal Allocution, a form which many Catholics do not realize can, in certain circumstances, engage the Magisterium.

A special thank you is to be awarded to Mario Derksen and S.D. Wright for bringing the majority of these texts to the attention of the English-speaking public. For decades, these theological essays have been “lost to history,” yet they are invaluable for making sense of the present Crisis in the Catholic Church.

Now, without further ado, The Journal of American Reform is pleased to present Father Salaverri’s comprehensive study of Papal Encyclicals in light of the 1950 Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII.

Text: Universidad Pontificia Comillas. Miscelánea Comillas. Vol. 17. Santander: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 1952, pp. 136-71

JOAQUÍN SALAVERRI DE LA TORRE, S.J.

Professor of Theology at the Pontifical University of Comillas

Pius XII devotes a section of his Encyclical2 to instilling the necessity and obligation of adhering to the teachings of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium in general, and in particular dedicates a precious paragraph to the Magisterium of the Encyclicals, in which he says:3

Nor should it be thought that the matters proposed in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves demand assent, on the grounds that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For such matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, of which this also holds true: He who hears you, hears me (Lk. 10; 16); and most often the things which are proposed and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belong to Catholic doctrine for other reasons. And if the Supreme Pontiffs in their Acts expressly pass judgment on a matter previously controverted, it is obvious to all that such a matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, can no longer be considered a question open to free discussion among theologians.

These words of Pius XII suggest to us, regarding our subject, the following principal questions:

1.ª What are the Encyclicals?
2.ª The force or authority of the Encyclicals.
3.ª Do they attain the supreme category of infallible definitions?
4.ª The assent of the mind that is owed to the Encyclicals.

In the Acts of the Supreme Pontiffs the titles of Epistola Encyclica, Litterae Encyclicae, and simply Encyclica occur frequently. In the “Humani generis” Pius XII mentions explicitly only the designation Litterae Encyclicae, and does so up to eight times.4

What, then, are the Encyclicals?

Ἐγκύκλιος Ἐπιστολή = Epistola Encyclica, and Ἐγκύκλια Γράμματα = Litterae Encyclicae, are the names most commonly used to designate Letters in Greek and Latin, which translated into English mean: Circular Letters.5 The specific character of Circulars is expressed already at the outset, in the greeting to the recipients: “To the Venerable Brothers Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops.” Thus begin the first Encyclical of Benedict XIV in 1740 and the last of Pius XII in 1951.6 In a similar fashion, the Encyclical of Martin I of the year 649: “To the Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Abbots, Monks, Continents, and to the universal and holy fullness of the Catholic Church.”7

Saint Basil has aptly defined the epistle by saying that it is “the means by which people converse with those who are absent.”8 This conversational character between those absent is highlighted by Pius VII in his inaugural Encyclical of 1800, when he says that “nothing is sweeter and more agreeable to Us than to converse with You at least by means of this letter.”9

Saint Basil’s definition fits well the three principal classes of letters which Cicero distinguished within the epistolary genre: informative, familiar, and serious.10 The official letters of the Supreme Pontiffs are best understood under the category of serious epistles, by reason of the great resemblance they bear to those of a doctrinal character, proper to the philosophers in classical literature, and above all by reason of the authority that so greatly likens them to what the annals of the Roman Empire call “Epistolae Principis.” The classicist Brassloff tells us of these that they were a special and most frequent form of imperial Constitutions, and that jurists placed them on a par with the edicts and decrees of the Princes.11 Something similar may be said of the letters of the Roman Pontiffs, within the very broad scope of their threefold power — doctrinal, sacramental, and disciplinary — which by divine right belongs to them in the highest degree.

In the pontifical Acts the division of the Pontiff’s letters into classes is not consistent. In the treatise-writers of Canon Law, one may observe a variety of designations by which pontifical letters were known in ancient times.12 In the Middle Ages, with the Decree of Gratian, the common designation of Epistolae decretales was imposed to denote in general the letters of the Pontiff. In modern times, judging by the designations of the Bullarium Romanum and of the Acts of the Holy See, we observe a great variety, which canonists endeavor to reduce to several classes or principal groups.13

After the erudite work of Abbot Bencini, De Litteris Encyclicis dissertatio, published in 1728, the history of the Encyclicals that would satisfy the critical demands of our times has yet to be written. Mangenot, summarizing the history of the pontifical Encyclicals, affirms that “although it is true that the Popes from time immemorial used to address some of their apostolic letters to all of Christendom, they did not however call them Encyclicals. The first to bear that title is that of Benedict XIV at the beginning of his Pontificate in 1740.”14

It is true that before that date it is not so easy to find the express designation of Encyclical in ecclesiastical epistolary literature. Nevertheless, already in the first third of the fourth century (ca. 320), Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to all the other Bishops against Arius, and Saint Epiphanius calls those letters Encyclicals (Ἐπιστολὰς Ἐγκυκλίους) and tells us that some 70 of them were preserved in his time.15 In the middle of that same fourth century, the two “encyclical epistles” of Saint Athanasius are celebrated: one of 340 to all the Bishops of the World, protesting against the injustice of his deposition, and the other of 356 to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya combating Arianism.16

In the middle of the fifth century the so-called “Codex encyclicus” was very notable, of which Cassiodorus (ca. 544), Liberatus (ca. 563), and Evagrius (ca. 594) speak to us.17 It is a collection of 41 letters: one from Emperor Leo, another from Pope Saint Leo the Great, eight from particular Prelates, and thirty each signed by the Bishops of as many ecclesiastical provinces, in defense of the Council of Chalcedon.18 Concerning the Emperor’s letter, Evagrius tells us that “with these Encyclical Letters (Ἐγκυκλίοις Γράμμασιν), addressed to all the Bishops of the Roman World, he consulted them concerning the Council of Chalcedon.” And concerning that of Pope Saint Leo and the remaining 39, he attests that they were counted “among those called Encyclicals” (ἐν τοῖς καλουμένοις Ἐγκυκλίοις).19 On the same subject and in the last third of that same fifth century, Evagrius tells us how Timothy Aelurus counseled the usurping Emperor Basiliscus “to write Encyclical Letters (Ἐγκυκλίους Συλλαβάς) to all the Bishops of the world, condemning the Chalcedonian and the letter of Saint Leo.20 And Liberius attests that he did indeed write it and that he called it an Encyclical (quam appellavit Encyclicam).21

At the end of late antiquity or the beginning of the Middle Ages, of capital importance was the Encyclical Letter (Ἐπιστολὴ Ἐγκύκλιος) of Pope Saint Martin I, addressed “to the Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Abbots, Monks, Continents, and to the universal and holy fullness of the Catholic Church,” solemnly condemning the heresies known up to that time.22 It is preserved in Greek and Latin, and Saint Martin I himself mentions it in a letter to the Church of Carthage, calling it “Encyclica Nostra Epistola” (μετὰ τῆς Ἐγκυκλίω ἡμῶν Ἐπιστολῆς).23

We do not pretend to trace the full history of the origins and use of the Encyclicals; but let the foregoing data suffice to convince us that their use in the affairs of the Church, especially in the East, is very ancient.24

We have mentioned only some of those that expressly bear the title of Encyclicals. If, in accordance with the notion of Benedict XIV, accepted by all, we were to enumerate among the Encyclicals all the letters of the Popes addressed to all or part of the Catholic Episcopate, we would never finish counting them. To mention only those that had singular resonance in ancient times, the following could very well be called Encyclicals: the one that Saint Victor I wrote or proposed to write in the second century on the day of Easter;25 those of Saint Cornelius to the Bishops of Africa26 and those of Saint Stephen I against the re-baptizers27 in the third century; that of Saint Innocent I to the African Bishops against Pelagius;28 the most celebrated tractoria of Pope Saint Zosimus “per totum orbem missa” condemning Pelagianism;29 that of Saint Celestine against Nestorius;30 the two of Saint Leo the Great, with which he successively condemned Priscillianism and Eutychianism;31 that of Saint Gelasius I to the Bishops of Illyricum;32 of Pope Saint Hormisdas to all the Bishops of the East;33 that of Pelagius I addressed to the “universo populo Dei”;34 that of Saint Agatho to the Bishops congregated in Constantinople, against the Monothelites;35 that of Saint Gregory the Great to the four Patriarchs of the East,36 written “according to the ancient custom of his predecessors,” as his biographer John the Deacon advises us.37

In the modern era, let us note straightaway a certain coincidence with Saint Gregory the Great. The inaugural Encyclical of Benedict XIV deals with the obligations of the pastoral office, just as that of Saint Gregory;38 and in their inaugural Encyclicals Pius VII and Gregory XVI tell us that they write them following “a custom dating from the most ancient times,” which is the same as what we have just heard concerning Pope Saint Gregory.39

However, going through the Bullarium Romanum, we have not found the express designation of Encyclical in the pontifical letters of the modern era, up until Benedict XIV, in his already cited “Epistola Encyclica,” from the beginning of his pontificate in 1740.40 The reason for such an omission is given to us by Benedict XIV himself, in the preface he dedicates his Bullarium to the Doctors and students of Bologna. He says thus: “It was the perpetual custom of the Roman Pontiffs to write Encyclical Letters (Litteras Encyclicas) now to all the Bishops, now to those of some province, exhorting them to safeguard the Catholic faith and the observance or restoration of good customs. But in these latter times they did so by means of the Roman Congregations... Elevated to the Supreme Pontificate we have addressed Our Encyclical Letters (Litteras Encyclicas) to all the Bishops or to those of some Province... and in writing them we have sought to restore an ancient custom of Our Predecessors.”41 This unequivocal testimony confirms us in our opinion, that it is not Benedict XIV who is the introducer of the Encyclicals, as Mangenot leads one to believe, but rather the restorer of a usage that dates from the most remote times of the Church.42

Benedict XIV in his long Pontificate addressed himself many times by letter to the Bishops, whether of the whole world or of some province or nation, but in his Bullarium the title of Encyclicals is given explicitly only to seven: five of them addressed to all the Bishops of the world and the other two, one to the Bishops of Italy and another to those of France.43 In the preface to his Bullarium he encompasses all of them, as we have seen, under the designation of Litterae Encyclicae; yet in the Bullarium itself all are called “Epistola Encyclica,” except the one addressed to the Bishops of Italy which is called “Encyclicae Litterae.”44

The restorative impulse of Benedict XIV does not appear to have taken effective hold in his six immediate successors; given that the Acts of their Pontificates, in the 73 years during which they governed the Church, published only seven Epistles bearing the designation of Encyclicals.45

With Gregory XVI, from 1831 onwards, the designation of Encyclical appears frequently and as a matter of course. Of those thus expressly designated, the following are known to us: from Gregory XVI, 16; from Pius IX, 33; from Leo XIII, 48; from Pius X, 10; from Benedict XV, 12; from Pius XI, 30; and Pius XII has published 22. There are, then, 185 letters from the 14 Pontiffs, from Benedict XIV to our own days, that are expressly designated with the title of Encyclicals. All except two are addressed primarily, and most often exclusively, to the Bishops. The two curious exceptions are: one of Pius IX, which is addressed to the Superiors General of the religious Orders,46 and the other of Benedict XV to the Doctors and students of Letters and Arts on the occasion of the Dante Centenary.47

Of the 63 prior to Leo XIII, all are titled “Epistola Encyclica,” except two “Litterae Encyclicae:” one to the Bishops of Italy, by Benedict XIV,48 and the other to the entire Episcopate by Pius VII.49 Of those of Leo XIII, 39 are called Epistolae and only 9 Litterae Encyclicae. In contrast to those of Pius XI, 23 are Litterae and only 7 Epistolae Encyclicae. Of Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, one half are Epistolae and the other Litterae Encyclicae. In Leo XIII the designation of Epistola still prevails, yet he also made considerable use of that of Litterae Encyclicae; however, no reason for such a distinction appears in his usage, since his great doctrinal Encyclicals, addressed to the entire Episcopate, are found equally in one group as in the other. Thus, for example, among the Epistolae Encyclicae are found the “Aeterni Patris,” the “Immortale Dei,” the “Satis cognitum,” etc.; and among the Litterae Encyclicae we find the “Libertas,” the “Rerum novarum.” the “Providentissimus Deus,” etc.

After Leo XIII and especially from Pius XI onwards, a clear distinction already appears between the Epistolae and the Litterae Encyclicae, since those destined to all the Bishops of the world and dealing with dogmatic or pastoral themes of greater importance are called Litterae, while the title of Epistola Encyclica is given to those addressed to part of the Episcopate, such as the Mit brennender Sorge to the German Episcopate, or to those dealing with matters of lesser importance or of a transitory character, such as the eleven Epistolae Encyclicae that Pius XII addressed to the entire Episcopate, ordering prayers for some need of the Church.

The Encyclicals addressed to all the Bishops of the Catholic world are called universal, and they may be disciplinary or doctrinal, according to whether they develop as their principal intent a theme of discipline or of doctrine. What Pius XII tells us in the “Humani generis” concerning the Encyclicals, we note that he says it expressly and without exception of the Litterae Encyclicae,50 and therefore it is to be understood above all of those Encyclicals which in our own days bear that specific designation, that is to say, of those which are universal and develop a theme pertaining either to the faith or to good morals.

Concerning the doctrinal force of the Encyclicals, the “Humani generis” teaches us that they are interventions of the Magisterium of the Church itself, by means of which the living Magisterium exercises its ordinary office of sole authentic interpreter of the sources of revelation, to which theologians must adhere as a norm in their investigations, abandoning in particular those methods of exegesis foreign to the principles and norms of hermeneutics proposed in the Encyclicals, and endeavoring to confirm their teachings with theological arguments.51

Concerning itself in particular, the “Humani generis” tells us that it is an intervention of the Magisterium of the Church to warn of and ward off the danger, in which philosophers and theologians presently find themselves, of departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error. And for this reason it gravely warns that only those who religiously accept and scrupulously observe the norms of doctrine set forth in the same Encyclical, taking care not to transgress the limits established therein, can exercise the office of teaching in ecclesiastical institutions with a good conscience.52

Having before us the historical panorama of the Encyclicals which we have just sketched, we may now enter as onto familiar ground to examine the doctrinal force that belongs to the Encyclicals. We cannot proceed a priori, but rather we must ascertain what the mind of the Supreme Pontiffs is concerning these their doctrinal documents.53

A not insignificant indication of the force of the Encyclicals is found in the prominent place they are constantly assigned in the Collections of pontifical documents. Setting aside Collections lacking in authenticity, we shall focus solely on the authentic collection of the Pontifical Acts, which beginning in 1909 started to be published during the Pontificate of Pius X.54 We observe in it that under the general heading of Acta Summi Pontificis, these classes and in this order of documents are comprised: Litterae Encyclicae, Epistolae Encyclicae, Litterae Apostolicae, Constitutiones Apostolicae, Motu proprio, Litterae Apostolicae and Epistolae. Of these, those that have the characteristic epistolary form, with the salutation to the recipients at the beginning and the closing blessing at the end, are the Litterae Encyclicae, the Epistolae Encyclicae, the Epistolae Apostolicae, and the Epistolae. The rest have, rather, the peculiar form of decrees.

Among all pontifical documents, first place is therefore accorded to the Litterae Encyclicae and second to the Epistolae Encyclicae. This is the norm, because on a few occasions, owing to the particular nature of the subject matter, this order was altered: as in the first four years of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, years 1909 to 1912, the Apostolic Constitutions were placed before the Encyclicals, and in volumes 36, 40, and 41, corresponding to the years 1944, 48, and 49, the decretal Letters of canonization of Saints were placed before the Encyclicals. But in volume 42, of the year 1950, the decretal Letters of Canonizations have once again been placed after the Encyclicals. Only by reason of its singularly paramount importance, the Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissimus Deus,” in which the Assumption was defined, is placed in this last volume before the Encyclical “Humani generis.”

Benedict XIV, whose merits as the restorer of the Encyclicals we have highlighted, points out the principal characteristics from which the force of the Encyclicals may be deduced. Fixing upon the author, the recipients, the purpose, and the subject matter, he tells us that “the Encyclical Letters have been the means of which the Roman Pontiffs have perpetually availed themselves to urge the Bishops of the world, or those of some Province, to the maintenance of the Catholic Faith and to the observance or restoration of good customs”55 ... “In the conviction that the letters which the Pope himself writes to the Bishops must carry greater weight than those written by others, even with the authority of the Pontiff, by reason of the greater pontifical benevolence that the epistles of the Pope himself to the Bishops, united to him by the bond of fraternity, signify.”56

Benedict XIV tells us, then, of the Encyclicals, that their author is the Supreme Pontiff as such, the recipients are the Bishops united to him by the bonds of fraternity, the subject matter is the sacred deposit of dogma and morality, the purpose is the inviolable maintenance of the faith and Christian customs, their authority is greater than that of the other documents of the Holy See, their significance is one of singular benevolence of the Pope towards the Bishops. From which we may conclude concerning the force of the Encyclicals, that they are documents of the supreme and universal Magisterium of the Church, on grave matters, of singular authority among the ordinary magisterial acts of the Holy See.

This conclusion is further explained and completed by the teachings of other Pontiffs. Thus, considering in the first place the relationship that necessarily exists between the author and the recipients of the Encyclicals, we note that by means of them the Supreme Pontiffs purpose to fulfill that mandate received by Christ in Saint Peter, of “Confirming the Brethren” (Lk. 22, 32). Pius VII states this expressly in his inaugural Encyclical: “To write you this letter, Venerable Brothers, the obligation of that office which is Our proper and principal duty, entrusted and declared by those words: ‘Confirm thy Brethren,’ vehemently exhorts and urges Us; since in this most wretched and turbulent age, as never more so, Satan combats us all to sift us as wheat” (Lk. 22, 32).57

The first Encyclical of Gregory XVI abounds in the same ideas, when it woefully affirms: “We can truly say, Venerable Brothers, that in this hour the power of darkness prevails to sift as wheat the children of election... For this reason the principal aim of our efforts and of our assiduous vigilance is to safeguard the sacred deposit amidst so great a conspiracy of perverse men, who strive to combat and destroy the faith... We write to you, therefore, Venerable Brothers, so that, clad in the shield of faith, you may strive to fight strenuously the battles of the Lord; since it falls to You principally to stand firm, as a bulwark, against every haughtiness that rises up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10, 5).58

The same purpose, of confirming the Brethren in the Episcopate, is expressed by Saint Prosper of Aquitaine. Referring to the tractoria of Pope Zosimus against the Pelagians, a true Encyclical, since he tells us it was written “ad totius orbis Episcopos” (D. 134), he characterizes it by affirming that with it the Pope “ad impiorum detruncationem, gladio Petri dexteras omnium armavit Antistitum.”59

This power of confirming his Brethren, of which the Encyclicals are an exercise, makes manifest to us plainly that the Encyclicals are acts of supreme authority of the Magisterium, of that primatial power which Christ granted exclusively to Peter over the other Apostles when He said to him: “Confirm thy Brethren” (Lk. 22, 32). Or expressing the same thought in the words of Benedict XIV, the Encyclicals are magisterial acts of the supreme power proper and exclusive to “the Vicar of Christ on earth,” “the Prince of the Apostles,” “the Pastor of Pastors,” that is to say, “of him to whom Christ entrusted the charge of feeding, not only the lambs of his flock, but also the sheep, that is, the Bishops of the world, called to share in the solicitudes of that pastoral office, the fullness of which has been entrusted by God to the Pope in those words: Pasce agnos meos, pasce oves meas” (Jo. 21, 15-17).60 The same sentiment concerning the Encyclicals is expressed at every turn by the Roman Pontiffs in their own up to our own days, as Pius IX in the “Amantissimus humani generis,” Pius XI in the “Casti connubii,” and Pius XII in the “Summi Pontificatus.”61

The Encyclicals of which we speak are not, therefore, mere doctrinal expositions addressed to the Bishops of the world, with the sole, albeit most noble, purpose of spreading and defending Christian truth and morality, as were, for example, the Encyclicals of Saint Alexander and Saint Athanasius;62 but rather acts of true and strict supreme power of the universal Magisterium, which personally belongs to him who, as successor of Saint Peter in the Primacy, is the sole Vicar of Christ on earth.

The conclusion we have just reached in view of the relationship in which the Author and the recipients of the Encyclicals are presented to us, is confirmed and grounded upon examining the primordial purpose for which the Popes write them. That purpose is expressed in clarifying terms by Saint Leo the Great, when he gives us the reason why he wrote his celebrated epistle to Flavian and the other Bishops of the Synod of Chalcedon, and it is, “ut per totum mundum una sit fides et una eademque confessio.”63 Such is, in a word, the primordial purpose of the doctrinal Encyclicals: the unity of faith and doctrine throughout the entire Church.

After a careful examination of the deepest motives that have led the Popes to communicate their thought to all the Bishops of the world, one arrives at the conviction that apostolic zeal for the unity of doctrine throughout the entire Church is the most powerful reason that has inspired the great doctrinal Encyclicals, from those of Saint Leo the Great in the middle of the fifth century up to the “Humani generis” of Pius XII in 1950 and the “Sempiternus Rex” just recently published.

To mention only a few from the modern era, we shall content ourselves with recalling the “Mirari vos” and “Singulari Nos” of Gregory XVI on the religious indifferentism of his time,64 the “Qui pluribus” and “Quanta cura” of Pius IX on the rationalism, naturalism, and secularism of the contemporary age,65 the “Aeterni Patris,” “Diuturnum Illud,” “Immortale Dei,” “Satis cognitum,” “Libertas,” “Rerum novarum,” “Providentissimus Deus” and others of Leo XIII, in which with admirable depth and elegance he addressed all the great problems affecting the faith and Christian customs of our century;66 the “Pascendi” of Pius X, uncovering the deepest roots of that true cancer of our faith which we call Modernism;67 the “Spiritus Paraclitus” of Benedict XV on the Sacred Scriptures;68 the “Studiorum ducem,” “Divini illius Magistri,” “Casti connubii,” “Quadragesimo anno,” “Ad Catholici sacerdotii” and “Divini Redemptoris” of Pius XI, comparable to those of Leo XIII by reason of the depth and gravity of the problems of our times that are addressed and illuminated therein;69 the “Summi Pontificatus,” “Mystici Corporis,” “Divino afflante Spiritu,” “Mediator Dei,” “Humani generis” and “Sempiternus Rex” of Pius XII, which develop themes of burning relevance affecting the most intimate aspects of the life of the Church in our own days.70

This rapid survey makes manifest the apostolic solicitude with which the Vicars of Christ, faithful to their sacred duty as guardians of the faith, have raised their august voice in timely fashion to guide all the Bishops and faithful of the world in all doctrinal questions of some importance that arise for the believer in the course of the ages.

And they have done so thus, conscious of the duty incumbent upon them to procure above all and before all else the most perfect unity of doctrine in the Church, as Gregory XVI beautifully explains to us when he says: “You must work and watch assiduously, Venerable Brothers, so that the deposit of the faith may be kept inviolate... The judgment of sound doctrine and the governance and administration of the universal Church belong to the Roman Pontiff... Proper to each Bishop is most faithful adherence to the Chair of Peter, in order to religiously safeguard the sacred deposit... Our duty it is, Venerable Brothers, to lead our sheep only to those pastures that are wholesome for them and are immune from even the faintest shadow of infection.” And burning with zeal for unity, he breaks forth into this exhortation: “Agamus idcirco in unitate spiritus communem nostram, seu verius, Dei causam, et contra communes hostes pro totius populi salute, una omnium sit vigilantia, una contentio.”71 It is not easy to find phrases that more fervently express the most noble aspiration to doctrinal unity which the Pontiffs purpose to obtain by means of their Encyclicals.

Nor is it to be wondered at that the Popes show themselves so zealous in obtaining that unity, given that, according to what the Vatican Council teaches us, the unity of the Episcopate and, through it, the unity of all believers, are precisely the entire raison d’être of the Primacy instituted by Christ: “So that the Episcopate itself might be one and undivided, the Vatican tells us, and so that through the Priests united mutually among themselves, the multitude of all believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion, the eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, making Peter Superior of the other Apostles, established in him the perpetual and visible foundation of both unities” (D. 1821). Unity is therefore the most essential, proper, and characteristic function of the Primacy; it is the primordial and central purpose of the very primatial constitution of the Church. It is therefore not surprising that after the Vatican, Leo XIII should have dedicated exclusively one of his finest Encyclicals, the “Satis cognitum,” to explaining and articulating in all its details the rationale and the foundations of that unity.72

This being so, it is understandable that the Popes through their Encyclicals strive to guide the Bishops doctrinally and require of them that they abide by the doctrines proposed to them in those Encyclicals: “We have written these Encyclical Letters so that as often as you celebrate your Synods and instruct your diocesans in the sacred doctrines, you may propose nothing that is foreign to Our thinking — nihil omnino alienum proferatur ab iis sententiis quas superius recensuimus —, and We earnestly admonish you to ensure with all diligence that no one in your Dioceses dare to teach otherwise by word or by writing.”73 And for identical reasons, Pius XI, in his Encyclical “Mortalium animos,” after proposing the immutable principles of the true unity of the Church, admonishes the Bishops to guard against the fallacies of the so-called “Ecumenical Movement,” and counsels them that “by word or in writing each one of them should bring to the faithful people the principles and reasons proposed in the Encyclical, so that Catholics may know what they ought to think and do in a matter of such capital importance as that of those who attempt in some way to obtain the union of all Christians in a single body.”74 The Popes do not limit themselves to exhorting to unity in any manner whatsoever, but rather require that that unity be made effective, with the Bishops accepting and following, as a norm, the teachings given to them in their Encyclicals; and this they do, as Pius XI advises in the cited passage, “conscious of their apostolic office.”

From all of which the true doctrinal force of the Encyclicals of the Popes is immediately deduced. For if the Encyclicals, as we have seen, are acts of the Pontiff by which he purposes to fulfill his obligation of making effective the unity of doctrine throughout the entire Church, and if, on the other hand, the charge of realizing that unity is proper, characteristic, and exclusive to him who in the Church holds the supreme primatial power; it necessarily follows that the Encyclicals, in the intention of the Popes, are acts proper and characteristic of their supreme doctrinal power, as Leo XIII has expressed it in dense and clear language in these words: “Cum regendae Ecclesiae Catholicae, doctrinarum Christi custodi et interpreti, Dei beneficio praepositi simus, auctoritatis Nostrae esse iudicamus, Venerabiles Fratres, publice commemorare quid a quoquam in hoc genere oficii catholica veritas exigat:” a phrase in which the saying of Saint Augustine lives in its full meaning: “Deus in Cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis.”75

In accordance with the thinking on the unity of doctrine which we have expounded up to this point, and briefly expressing the sense of the words of Benedict XIV and Pius XI which we have just cited, we may well affirm that the Encyclicals are organs of doctrinal cohesion among the members of the Episcopal College and its Head, since by means of them the Popes promote, orient, and unify the ordinary Magisterium of all the Bishops of the world.

This idea suggests to us another aspect of interest for deepening our knowledge of the doctrinal force of the Encyclicals, namely their relationship with the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Well known is the doctrine proposed by Pius IX and defined by the Vatican on the supreme authority that corresponds to that universal and ordinary Magisterium.76 The foundation of such high authority is the formal promise of divine assistance to the apostolic College and to its successor the Episcopal College until the consummation of the ages.77 The act of magisterium of the College as such is the expression of a formal consent of the members of the College among themselves and with the Head. The formal adherence of the other Bishops to what the successor of Peter teaches is so essential that without it the magisterial act of the College as such cannot even be conceived. Now, for that consent and adherence to exist formally, it is required above all that the Bishops know the mind of the Pope. And since the most usual means by which the Pope expounds his thinking on matters pertaining to faith and morality are precisely the Encyclicals, hence their doctrinal force, inasmuch as they are the key and the most reliable exponent of what the Bishops of the entire world teach unanimously, in formal consonance with the teachings of the Pope.

Apart from this relationship, which links them to the universal and ordinary Magisterium of which the Vatican speaks,78 the Encyclicals, considered in themselves, are moreover formal acts of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Pope himself. They are acts of the universal Magisterium, because they are expressly addressed to all the Bishops of the Catholic world. They are acts of the ordinary Magisterium, because the “Humani generis” tells us so explicitly in these words: “The matters proposed in the Encyclical Letters are teachings of the ordinary Magisterium, of which this also holds true: He who hears you, hears me.”79

They are in truth acts of the ordinary Magisterium both by the form and by the intention with which the Encyclicals are written. The form is that of a true pastoral letter, by which the Pope, as Pius XII pointed out, “exercises the ministry of the word, which is the foremost of his duties as successor of the Apostles.”80 Hence the style of true letters, or written conversations, proper both to the Encyclicals and to the Pastoral Letters of the Bishops to their diocesans.

Comparing the form of the Encyclicals with that of conciliar decrees and constitutions or with that of ex Cathedra definitions, one readily perceives the difference in tone that exists between the acts of the ordinary Magisterium and those of the solemn Magisterium. The form of conciliar decrees and ex Cathedra definitions is that proper to the “solemne iudicium”: concise, incisive, definitive, in which every word is precisely measured, and ordered to settle, with an unappealable verdict, the question they decide. The Encyclicals, by contrast, being quite sparing in concise definitions and strict condemnations, employ rather the fuller form of one who proposes a doctrine or analyzes an error, with an exposition of principles, the marshaling of evidence, a detailed presentation of causes, a deduction of consequences, and an indication of remedies — all of it interwoven, as occasion demands, with fatherly exhortations to perseverance in traditional truth and to wariness against dangerous novelties.

In solemn definitions the form is more properly that of a judicial sentence; in Encyclicals, on the contrary, it is that of a doctrinal exposition. It suffices, for example, to compare the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei of Pius VI with the Encyclical Pascendi of Pius X,81 to perceive most clearly the difference we are speaking of — even though both documents share the aim of refuting a large number of dogmatic errors: the Auctorem fidei those of the Synod of Pistoia, and the Pascendi those of Modernism. Encyclicals are not properly speaking sentences of the Judge, but rather the instructions of the Father, who sets forth his thought, illuminates, guides, grounds in truth and guards against error, with the spirit and the hope of persuading and moving all to follow him.

This characteristic form of the ordinary Magisterium is what the Pontiffs deliberately seek and intend in their Encyclicals. Their authors very frequently give us notice of this within them, but it is made unequivocally manifest by Pius XI in Casti connubii,82 when he says: “By reason of Our office as Christ’s Vicar on earth, and supreme Pastor and Teacher of souls, We believe Ourselves obliged to raise Our apostolic voice, in order to ward off, insofar as lies within Us, and to preserve the flock entrusted to Us from poisoned pastures. And so, Venerable Brethren, and through you to the universal Church of Christ, We have decided to speak to you of the nature of Christian marriage, of its dignity, of the advantages and benefits that flow from it to the family and to human society itself, of the errors contrary to this most important chapter of evangelical doctrine, of the vices adverse to conjugal life, and finally, of the principal remedies to be employed.”

In these words of Pius XI we also find clearly expressed the two essential and characteristic marks of Encyclicals, which are as it were the summary of all we have set forth regarding their doctrinal force: the first is the fullness of authority from which they proceed and which they bear — which is what Pius XI means when he says that he writes his as “Vicar of Christ on earth, supreme Pastor and Teacher of souls”; the second is the expository and hortatory form proper to the ordinary Magisterium. With which is sufficiently explained by what Humani generis says of Encyclicals, when it notes that “although through them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium, nevertheless the things proposed in Encyclicals are teachings of the ordinary Magisterium, to which the saying of the Master also applies: He who hears you hears me“ (Lk. 10:16).83 That is to say, Encyclicals are not of themselves definitions ex Cathedra of the supreme Pastor and Teacher of the Church, but rather acts of the ordinary Magisterium of that same supreme Pastor and Teacher.

What we have just concluded raises for us a further unavoidable question: Are Encyclicals infallible or not?

First of all, we must acknowledge the facts that historical research compels us to accept. Among the letters that are truly encyclical in character from the Popes of the early and early medieval periods, there are some that bear all the marks of infallibility. After the diligent and thorough study of the most reliable sources carried out by Fr. Carlos Silva-Tarouca, professor of Ecclesiastical History at the Gregorian University,84 we must admit as infallible at least the following Encyclicals: the celebrated tractoria of St. Zosimus, written “to the Bishops of the entire world”85 in which he defined against Pelagius and Caelestius the Catholic dogma on the necessity of divine grace;86 that of St. Celestine I, addressed to the Eastern Bishops assembled at Ephesus, condemning Nestorius;87 the two of St. Leo the Great, successively condemning Priscillianism and Monophysitism;88 the two of St. Gelasius, one to the Eastern Bishops on the two natures of Christ, and the other to the Bishops of Illyricum on the faith to be professed;89 that of Pope St. Hormisdas, sent for all the Bishops of the East to subscribe;90 that of Pelagius I, addressed “Universo populo Dei,” containing the profession of faith of the Catholic Church;91 that of St. Gregory the Great, on the obligations of the pastoral office and on the faith to be professed, addressed to the Patriarchs of the East;92 the great “Epistola Encyclica” of St. Martin I, addressed to all the bishops and to “the universal and holy fullness of the Catholic Church” against all heresies and especially against the Monothelites;93 that of St. Agatho, to the Emperor and to the Bishops gathered in Constantinople, defining the Catholic faith likewise against the Monothelites;94 that of Adrian II to the Bishops of the Eighth Ecumenical Council, asking them to subscribe to it, as they indeed did, condemning all heresies and in particular the Iconoclasts and Photius.95 We have mentioned no fewer than twelve Encyclicals from among those published by the Popes in the early and early medieval periods, up to the beginnings of the Schism of the Eastern Churches initiated by Photius, all of which we believe must be held as truly infallible.

Regarding pontifical Encyclicals in general, and those of the modern and contemporary period in particular, two extreme opinions emerged and were debated at the beginning of the present century. Some authors, stressing above all the marked difference of form — which we have noted — between ex Cathedra definitions and Encyclicals, the former being concise and definitive, the latter broad and expository, concluded that only ex Cathedra definitions were infallible. Others, on the contrary, laying greater emphasis on the testimonies by which the Popes declare that they write their Encyclicals in the exercise of the “fullness of their apostolic authority,”96 maintain that Encyclicals are likewise infallible.

Fr. Choupin, one of the principal proponents of the restrictive view, tenaciously defended the position that the Pope was infallible only in the solemn or extraordinary exercise of his Magisterium, that is, when he defines ex Cathedra, deciding and settling absolutely some question of faith or morals with a definitive judicial sentence.97

The other extreme opinion, defended principally by Monsignor Perriot,98 affirmed at the outset that all doctrinal encyclicals — such as many of those of Leo XIII and the Pascendi of Pius X — were true ex Cathedra definitions. Subsequently, sheltering himself above all behind the authority of Cardinal Billot,99 he conceded that, strictly speaking, Encyclicals were not ex Cathedra definitions, but that, nevertheless, they were certainly infallible in everything they directly and principally teach.100

The Common Opinion of Theologians. First of all, they agree in affirming that the infallible act of the Pope is not of itself tied to any particular form; and so, for example, Clement VI defined infallibly the doctrine that the Armenians were to believe in a simple Epistle;101 Pius VI condemned infallibly the Pistoians in an Apostolic Constitution;102 Pius IX defined infallibly the privilege of the Immaculate Conception in an Apostolic Letter;103 and Pius XII solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption in an Apostolic Constitution.104 The accessory character of a Bull does not affect the internal nature of the document. It is a canonical formality with which some documents of singular importance are clothed, both those that are merely disciplinary and those that are doctrinal.105

The second point on which theologians agree is a necessary consequence of what we have just set forth. It is that the Popes may freely make use of Encyclicals for their ex Cathedra definitions, as did St. Leo the Great and St. Martin I in the definitive Encyclicals we have already mentioned.106 The disputes among theologians over the supreme force of certain Encyclicals, for example, over the “Quanta cura” of Pius IX, do not bear upon this question of principle or of right, which all consider settled; they bear solely upon the question of fact: whether that Encyclical, together with the celebrated Syllabus that accompanies it, is or is not — in fact — an infallible definition?107 Likewise it could be admitted that there are ex Cathedra definitions interspersed within Encyclicals: the condemnation of Lamennais by Gregory XVI in his “Singulari Nos;”108 the proscription of Modernism as a compendium of all heresies, made by Pius X and confirmed as a “solemn” judgment by Benedict XV;109 and the condemnation of the abuses of matrimony made by Pius XI in “Casti Connubii,” which Fr. Vermeersch defended as a true ex Cathedra definition.110

The third point, finally, on which the authors also agree, is that Encyclicals are not usually in fact the means directly employed to propose solemn judgments or definitions ex Cathedra; but rather to set forth the teachings of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Popes. And this view is made his own and expressly confirmed by “Humani generis”, when it says: “Although the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium through Encyclicals, nevertheless the things proposed in them are teachings of the ordinary Magisterium.”111 From this it follows that the ordinary Magisterium as such is not the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium proper to Ecumenical Councils and to definitions ex Cathedra. Does it further follow from this that the ordinary Magisterium thereby excludes infallibility? Here is a further question that has not hitherto been decided, although it is without doubt of particular interest.

The words of “Humani generis” just cited offer us a good basis for what we believe to be the solution of the problem. As recently as 1905, Bainvel, in his valuable treatise on the Magisterium, wrote: “It is not established whether Encyclicals are acts of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.”112 In our own day, theologians commonly regard Encyclicals as documents of the ordinary Magisterium,113 and the authentic declaration of Pius XII confirms with his authority the same doctrine. Given this solid foundation, can we simply apply to the Encyclicals the teachings of the Vatican Council regarding the ordinary Magisterium?

The Vatican definition, introduced into the schema de Fide catholica at the proposal of the Bishop of Ratisbon,114 reads as follows: “Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia, sive solemni judicio sive ordinario et universali Magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.”115 As its two Relators, the Primate of Hungary and the Bishop of Paderborn, expressly pointed out on behalf of the Deputation of the Faith, this paragraph deals directly with determining what is the material object of the faith that the faithful must profess, and is directed against those theologians who restrict what must be believed with divine faith solely to the truths openly defined by Ecumenical Councils, to the exclusion of all other truths which the teaching Church unanimously preaches and proposes as revealed by God.116

Now then, the Fathers of the Vatican introduced this paragraph into the Constitution de Fide, defined in Session III, before treating of the infallibility of the Pope, which they discussed in the Constitution de Ecclesia and defined in Session IV. They did not therefore intend to touch upon, either directly or indirectly, the question of the personal Magisterium of the Pope, as became evident on the occasion of an amendment proposed by the Bishop of Havana. He wished to clarify what was to be understood by ordinary Magisterium, and said: “What is that ordinary Magisterium of the Church, mentioned in the proposed paragraph, if not the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, head of the Church and Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ?”117

This interpretation alarmed other Fathers of the Council, who rightly observed that, if it were understood in that way, the paragraph could not be admitted into the Constitution de Fide, because it would mean smuggling in obliquely and without discussion the principal question of papal infallibility, which had been reserved to be treated subsequently in the Constitution de Ecclesia.118 To dispel all ambiguity, the Bishop of Paderborn, on behalf of the Deputation of the Faith, declared: “I declare that it was in no way the intention of the drafting commission to touch upon the question of pontifical infallibility in this paragraph, either directly or indirectly.”119 And when the discussion resumed some days later, he repeated the same declaration, emphasizing that no one should think that this passage concerned the infallible Magisterium of the Apostolic See, but that it was to be understood of the “ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world,” in accordance with the Apostolic Letter “Tuas libenter” of Pius IX.120

According to these testimonies, it is manifest that the Vatican expressly equates with the solemn and infallible judgment of Ecumenical Councils the proposition of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church, when it attributes to it the same supreme force of imposing an absolute obligation of Catholic faith. It merely sets aside the question of the authority of the ordinary Magisterium of the Popes, so as not to prejudge a question that was to be treated subsequently, but it neither denies nor prejudices it. Now then, Pius XII tells us without any qualification of pontifical Encyclicals that they are acts of the ordinary Magisterium and that they of themselves demand the assent of the mind; we may legitimately conclude, therefore, that in them all those affirmations which impose an absolute obligation of Catholic faith are to be held as infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium.

The analysis of the Vatican definition of pontifical infallibility leads us necessarily to an identical conclusion. What the Vatican most properly defined was that the infallibility of the Pope is the same as that of the Church: “ea infallibilitate pollere qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam instructam esse voluit.”121 The Relator Vicente Gasser, Bishop of Brixen, explained very carefully to the Fathers of the Council the meaning of the definition, which is to proclaim the complete equality of the infallibility of the Pope and the infallibility of the Church. Equality of nature, in that both are immune from error, not only in fact but also by right, that is, with the impossibility of erring. Equality of cause, in that in both it is the guardianship of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Equality of force, in that in both it is supreme and in the highest degree. Equality with respect to the object, so that the infallibility of the Pope extends entirely to the same range of truths, neither more nor less than the infallibility of the Church.122

Now if the Council primarily and directly set out to define the entire equality of the infallibility of the Church and that of the Pope, we must legitimately conclude that they are also equal in the manner in which they are exercised. If therefore the Church exercises her infallibility in two ways, one extraordinary and the other ordinary, we must admit that the Pope too can exercise it in those same two ways. Otherwise it would follow that the Pope’s power was, at least in the manner of its exercise, more restricted than that of the Church; which cannot be reconciled with the fact that the Pope is the one who holds in the Church the fullness of supreme power in all orders.123

It is true that the Vatican directly defined only the infallibility of the Pope in the solemn and extraordinary exercise of his supreme magisterium, by defining that he was infallible when speaking ex Cathedra; for the Church in her Code of Canon Law, after citing the Vatican definition, which commands us to believe what the Church proposes as revealed “sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio,” adds: “Solemne huismodi iudicium pronuntiare proprium est tum Oecumenici Concilii tum Romani Pontificis ex Cathedra loquentis.”124 The ex Cathedra definition, therefore, just like that of a Council, is a solemn judgment of the extraordinary Magisterium and as such stands in contrast to the ordinary Magisterium. But although the Vatican directly defined no more than the infallibility of the solemn ex Cathedra judgment of the Pope, we nonetheless believe, as we have indicated, that from the Vatican itself we can conclude the infallibility also of his ordinary Magisterium.

We disagree, therefore, with those authors who with Choupin restrict the infallibility of the Pope to the solemn judgments of his extraordinary Magisterium when speaking ex Cathedra. Nevertheless, our doctrine also differs from that of the other authors who, together with Billot and Vacant, defend the infallibility of all the direct and principal assertions of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Popes.125

We believe that Encyclicals do in fact contain infallible assertions and condemnations, but that they are not such by the mere fact of being affirmations or condemnations of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, but rather by virtue of the manifested intention of infallibility with which the Pope particularly proposes them.

Whether a teaching of the Pope or of the Church is or is not infallible depends in the final analysis on the intention of the authentic Teacher who proposes it. In the case of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, the intention to teach infallibly is patent and pervades the entire magisterial act, because it is the solemn dictum or judgment of the Teacher in the extraordinary exercise of his supreme doctrinal authority. Thus act the Ecumenical Councils in their decrees and canons, and the Pope when he defines ex Cathedra. In this case all the direct and principal assertions of the definitive decrees are infallible, and as such are recognized by all theologians,126 for being included under the preponderant intention of infallibility. And we say that all the direct and principal assertions are infallible, because what in such decrees “is inserted as a parenthetical clause, what is affirmed indirectly, what is adduced as illustration, explanation, or mere proof of the principal assertions, although it is true that it has great doctrinal force, is nevertheless not considered an infallible teaching,” in accordance with what Bellarmine and the common opinion of theologians teach.127

In the case of the Ordinary Magisterium, the prevailing intention is not to issue a peremptory judicial sentence with supreme authority in its highest degree; but rather that of instructing, guiding, confirming in the truth possessed and guarding against threatening error, in conformity with the normal and ordinary requirements that frequently arise. One who intends such things cannot be said to propose to have recourse to the exercise of his authority in its highest degree; and therefore the ordinary Magisterium does not of itself include the intention to teach infallibly, not even in all its direct and principal assertions, nor even when there is a continual repetition of the same teachings (¹²⁶ bis).

From this the difference that exists between the chapters of Councils and Encyclicals becomes evident; a difference which derives from the diverse magisterial intention that distinguishes the extraordinary Magisterium from the ordinary. For this reason we do not consider acceptable the procedure of Vacant and Billot, when they apply to papal encyclicals the criterion followed for interpreting the force of conciliar chapters, because this amounts to confusing or equating the documents of the Ordinary Magisterium with those of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

What, then, is the criterion that could be adopted for discerning in Encyclicals the infallible assertions from those that are not? We sincerely acknowledge the difficulty we have encountered in answering this question, due above all to the silence that authors generally observe on this particular point. It may well be that we do not hit upon the satisfactory answer, but we do not believe this diminishes the force of the reasons adduced in favor of our thesis: how many times in Theology and in the other sciences does this situation arise, which does not diminish the certainty of the demonstrated truths, but only serves to make manifest the limitation of human faculties or investigations!

In order to answer the question posed, we must first attend to the criterion which the Church proposes for discerning solemn definitions (CIC 1223,3). According to it, we may assume that no teaching is to be held as infallible unless it is openly established as such. In our case we venture to say in general that the criterion we are seeking must be the same as that which serves to discern in the ordinary Magisterium of the Episcopate its infallible affirmations from those that are not. But for this case theologians are no less sparing in their pronouncements. Nevertheless, Vacant proposes some criteria128 which might perhaps be applied, with the necessary modifications, to the documents of the ordinary Magisterium of the Popes.

The most secure and most universal criterion, to which we believe the others can be reduced, is in our judgment the following. In the Encyclicals, just as in the other monuments of the ordinary universal Magisterium, those assertions are infallible in which, at one and the same time, the obligation of absolute assent with which they must be received by all the faithful is unequivocally recalled, inculcated, urged, or simply announced. Affirmations thus proposed we say must be held as infallible, because it cannot be conceived that the supreme Magisterium of Christendom should affirm that obligation of absolute assent for the whole Church, without at the same time affirming, at least implicitly, with infallible authority, the very truth of the assertions it proposes.

Those who maintain that the Pope is infallible only in his ex Cathedra definitions may perhaps say, with Choupin, that assertions enunciated with the universal obligation of absolute assent are true ex Cathedra definitions. To avoid reducing the problem to a question of words, one could reply with Bellamy that if they wish to call so, it will be necessary to distinguish two classes of ex Cathedra definitions: some which are pronounced by solemn sentence of the extraordinary Magisterium and others which are enunciated simply in the proper form of the ordinary Magisterium.129 Or one can also reply with Billot, denying that in the second case there occurs properly what the Vatican calls an ex Cathedra definition, since no new doctrinal judgment intervenes, but rather what takes place is an instruction to the faithful on matters of faith or morals which are within reach of the common preaching of the Church.130

This observation of Billot seems to us very just, for to tell the truth, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church has been disposed by God to guard, defend, declare, and propose those things of faith and morals which are necessary or convenient for the common and ordinary moral and religious instruction of the faithful. For cases of exceptional difficulty and for those in which controversies of greater gravity intersect, it is rather the extraordinary Magisterium of Ecumenical Councils and the solemn ex Cathedra definitions of the Roman Pontiff that are called for.

In this assessment we are confirmed by the Vatican itself, when it points out the resources employed by the Roman Pontiffs in order to proceed to an ex Cathedra definition. It tells us that they “employ the most fitting means that the condition of the times and circumstances suggest to them, such as the convocation of Ecumenical Councils, the sounding out of the mind of the universal Church, the work of particular Synods and other expedients which divine providence affords them, in order to know with God’s help what doctrine is most in conformity with the Scriptures and the Apostolic Traditions, so as thus to define it.”131

All the preparation which must according to this precede an ex Cathedra definition presupposes that the doctrine in question is one of exceptional difficulty and importance, or one on which grave divergences exist. And for this reason the ex Cathedra definition, as the Relator on the faith explained at the Council itself, “is a direct and clear sentence by which it is intended to make known to all unequivocally what the mind of the Pope is on some doctrine, in such a way that all may know with certainty whether the Supreme Pontiff holds that doctrine as revealed or as heretical, as certain or as erroneous, etc.”132 Or as the same Relator on the faith explained on another occasion: “For an ex Cathedra definition there is required the manifested intention of defining a doctrine, that is, of putting an end to the fluctuation regarding it, by giving a definitive sentence and proposing it to be held by the universal Church. And this latter point is something intrinsic to every dogmatic definition.”133 To define according to this is to pronounce sentence, or to resolve a controversy, or to determine the degree of supernatural certainty of a doctrine of which this was not previously established.

The ordinary Magisterium, by contrast, is not for those exceptional and difficult cases, but for those in which the authentic teachers need to remind the faithful of the doctrines which are found in the common profession of faith of the Church. And thus there are attributed to the infallible ordinary Magisterium the Creeds of the faith which are prescribed for those who are to receive baptism; the catechisms in which a synthesis of the common doctrine of the Church is placed within the reach of all the faithful; the refutations of the grave and evident errors in matters of faith and morals which, through the ignorance of many or through the malice of some, occur at every turn; the declarations in which the grave obligation of embracing the doctrines solemnly defined by Councils or by the Popes is recalled.134 All these teachings require no special study nor present difficulty for the authentic Teachers, and yet, being the most fundamental doctrines of the Church, the ordinary Magisterium needs to propose and urge them upon the faithful with fullness of authority, that is, infallibly.

Nor does it constitute an obstacle that those doctrines may already be solemnly defined or evidently contained in the sources of revelation, for the ordinary Magisterium to propose them again also infallibly;135 just as it constitutes no obstacle that a doctrine may already have been defined by one Council for another Council to define it solemnly once more, should it be necessary. On the contrary, this very fact facilitates for the ordinary authentic teachers the fulfillment of their duty, of adapting with fullness of authority to the ordinary needs of the faithful the doctrines of the Church, whenever circumstances require it. And thus we believe one can understand what is said in “Humani generis”: “Most of the time the things that are proposed and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons belong to catholic doctrine.”136 If there is no difficulty in Encyclicals authentically proposing and inculcating a teaching which for other reasons belongs to Catholic doctrine, neither can there be any difficulty in their proposing it infallibly.

On this point the teachings of Pius XII are clear, and he expresses them in “Humani generis” in these words: “Nor should it be thought that the things proposed in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves demand assent;” and for this reason “if the Supreme Pontiffs in their Acts expressly pass judgment (data opera) on a matter previously controverted, it is manifest to all that such matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, can no longer be held as a subject of free discussion among theologians.”137 Hence the Pontiffs, in matters which in some way pertain to faith or to morals, of themselves demand the assent of the mind to the teachings of their Encyclicals, in such a way that the doctrines which they therein expressly propose cease to be a matter of free discussion.

This doctrine presents no difficulty after what we have set forth regarding the doctrinal force and the infallibility that belong to Encyclicals. In them, according to what has been expounded, four principal classes of magisterial affirmations can be distinguished: the first, those which by their content and form are true “solemn judgments” or ex Cathedra “definitions;” the second, those which, without having properly the solemn form of ex Cathedra definitions, are nevertheless truly infallible; the third, those which the authentic Magisterium of Encyclicals proposes directly and principally, though without the intention of imposing them infallibly; the fourth, finally, are those which are enunciated only indirectly and secondarily.

An example of an ex Cathedra definition included in an Encyclical and of the obligation of absolute assent it imposes may be the “Singulari Vos” of Gregory XVI, condemning the Indifferentism of Lamennais, when it says: “Of our own accord and with certain knowledge and using the fullness of apostolic power... we reprobate, condemn, and by reprobation and condemnation perpetually decree that this book (Paroles d’un croyant), which contains propositions respectively false, calumnious, rash, contrary to the word of God, impious, scandalous, erroneous, and already condemned by the Church principally against the Waldensians, Wycliffites, Hussites and other similar heretics, be held as such.”138 The Pontiff also claimed the corresponding absolute assent, expecting first from Lamennais “a declaration by which it would be made manifest to the Catholic world that he firmly and seriously accepted and professed the sound doctrine which We in our Letters proposed to all the Bishops,” and requiring afterwards “conclusive proofs that he followed solely and absolutely (unice et absolute) the doctrine of Our Encyclical Letters.”139

As an example of an infallible assertion of the ordinary Magisterium of Encyclicals there could serve that of the “Quanta cura” of Pius IX, in which it says: “We, conscious of our apostolic charge, and filled with solicitude for our most holy religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God... once more raise our apostolic voice, and with Our apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe and condemn each and every one of the perverse opinions and doctrines singularly mentioned in these Letters, and we wish and command that they be held by all the children of the Catholic Church as entirely reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”140

The mental assent owed to the affirmations of these first two classes is equally absolute and irrevocable, as befits a truth offered to the intellect without any possibility of error. It is the assent which infallibility, by its very nature, directly and immediately demands of right from those to whom those assertions are proposed.

What kind of assent do the affirmations of the third class claim? They are not assertions of the infallible Magisterium, therefore it cannot be said that they demand the absolute assent that is owed to infallibility alone; but they are direct and principal teachings of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, simply authentic, yet truly authentic, that is, possessed of true and strict, though not supreme, doctrinal authority. Consequently, the assent they demand is precisely that which strictly corresponds to the degree of authenticity or doctrinal authority with which they are proposed.

That the Popes claim a true mental assent for such teachings is certified to us clearly and conclusively by Pius XII in the words of the Encyclical we are commenting upon; lamenting in particular that some Catholics “neglect what the Roman Pontiffs set forth in their Encyclical Letters on the nature and constitution of the Church,” and that they “think that the doctrine, expounded a few years ago in the Encyclical ‘Mystici Corporis,’ which teaches that the Mystical Body and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing, does not oblige them.”141

With which the Pope does no more than inculcate anew the doctrine repeatedly proposed by his predecessors, and in particular by Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. Pius IX goes so far as to say that it is necessary that “Catholics submit to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and accept those chapters of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of theologians, are held as certain theological truths and conclusions.”142 Leo XIII above all emphasizes the firmness of judgment of the assent, when he says: “Catholics, if as is their duty they listen to Us, will easily see what their obligations are, both theoretical and practical. In their doctrinal opinions it is necessary that they maintain a stable judgment (iudicio stabili) and, when circumstances require it, openly profess also all the things that the Roman Pontiffs have taught or will teach in the future... abiding by the judgment of the Apostolic See and thinking as it thinks on each and every matter.”143 And in the most unequivocal manner Pius X affirms: “We proclaim above all that it is the obligation of all Catholics — an obligation which they must fulfill sacredly and inviolably in all circumstances of their life, both private and public — to hold firmly and to profess without fear the principles of Christian truth, proposed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, those above all which our most wise predecessor expounded in his Encyclical Letters ‘Rerum novarum.’”144 It is well known how Pius X himself urged under grave penalties the assent to his Encyclical “Pascendi.”145

There can be no doubt, therefore, about the fact that the Pontiffs demand the internal assent of the mind to all the teachings which they directly and principally propose in their Encyclicals, an obligation which Pius XII most opportunely confirms, adducing that grave admonition which the Vatican Council placed at the end of its dogmatic Constitution on the catholic faith: “We admonish all of the obligation they have to observe likewise the Constitutions and Decrees by which this Holy See has proscribed and prohibited perverse opinions and errors which more or less approach heresy.”146

Taking it then as established that the assent of the mind owed to the truths which infallible authority as such proposes is absolute and irrevocable, let us consider in particular the nature of the assent claimed by those assertions which the universal, simply authentic Magisterium of Encyclicals teaches directly and principally.

Since the intellect is a necessary faculty and it is not possible for it to move to absolute assent except by the metaphysical evidence of the known object or by the infallible authority of the teacher, the authors ask: of what nature is the assent that is in fact required with respect to the doctrines which the authentic Teacher proposes with true doctrinal authority, but not with infallible authority?

The authors to whom “Humani generis” refers are of the opinion that, since the mysteries of the faith cannot be reached by us with adequately true notions, but only with merely approximative and therefore always changeable ones; and since in particular the notions of scholastic Philosophy have a purely relative force with respect to the system from which they have been taken; it follows that the Pontiffs cannot in any way claim to incline the opinion of the faithful toward one or another conception in matters where theologians hold divergent views. This opinion is expressly rejected by Pius XII; and therefore he claims for his Magisterium the right to impose as true in themselves and immutable the conceptions relating to the truths of the faith, and to decide between controverted opinions.147

The other authors, after the Vatican, unanimously maintain that to the doctrines directly and principally taught in Encyclicals there is owed not only the reverence of the so-called “obsequious silence,” but the true internal adhesion of the judgment.148 In the further determination of the conditions of that judgment some variety is noted.

The renowned theologian Schiffini, at the beginning of the present century, maintained that this judgment was merely a matter of opinion. According to this view, it would seem that it is both required and sufficient for the faithful to adopt as their own opinions those statements that the Pontiff sets forth in his Encyclicals. The same view we believe is expressed most recently, in July of 1951, by Fenton, of the Catholic University of Washington, in an article on the Ordinary Magisterium in “Humani generis.”149

Authors such as Franzelin, Billot, Choupin and others, following the doctrine which Franzelin calls “authority of ordinary doctrinal providence,” maintain that the Pope, in non-infallible teachings, does not claim to impose a doctrine as true or false, certain or erroneous, but only as safe or unsafe. Let us hear Choupin: “The meaning of a doctrinal decision, emanating from the authority of the supreme but non-infallible Magisterium, is the following: Given the circumstances of the present state of knowledge, it is prudent and safe to consider this proposition as true or certain... and on the contrary it is prudent and safe to consider this other proposition as false or erroneous.”150

The other authors, such as for example Palmieri, de Groot, Ch. Pesch and many others, teach that the judgment of adhesion that is required must be “firm and certain with certainty that is not metaphysical or absolute, but with true moral certainty;” and that the object of the assent is the very truth of the assertion, just as the Magisterium directly proposes it, namely, as true or false, as certain or erroneous, as safe or unsafe (tuta vel non tuta) etc.151

Some authors, such as Wilmers, Maroto, Lercher and others, refining this same doctrine further, add that the internal assent that is required is indeed firm and certain with moral certainty; but since it does not exclude the possibility of the contrary, because the authority demanding it is not infallible, it must be said that it is conditioned, namely, that it includes, at least implicitly, this condition: unless the contrary be decided by the competent authority of the Church, or demonstrated scientifically with evidence.152

To say a word about these opinions of Catholic doctors, we believe in the first place that to say the Pope in his Encyclicals intends no more than that the faithful adopt as their own the opinions he enunciates, would be to equate the authentic Magisterium of the Church with that of the various schools, which are accustomed to impose some opinions on their followers. But this is not the practice of the Church, which in doctrines that are truly matters of opinion among Catholics leaves its children full freedom of choice, as Pius XI emphasized in his Encyclical “Studiorum ducem” and as Pius XII repeats in “Humani generis.”153 On the other hand, that which is proposed in Encyclicals “data opera,” as “Humani generis” observes, ceases already to be a freely disputable question among theologians.154

In the second place, to say that the Pope in the direct, non-infallible affirmations of Encyclicals only claims that they be accepted, not precisely as true or false, but merely as safe or unsafe, does not seem sufficient to us, except for those cases in which the Magisterium expressly states that a doctrine is safe or unsafe. In such cases, since what the Magisterium formally teaches is precisely that, namely, that such a doctrine is safe or unsafe, the mental assent it thereby demands of the faithful cannot extend to more than that very thing which it authentically affirms.155

But the Magisterium of the Popes is not limited to proposing doctrines in their Encyclicals as safe or unsafe, but can also propose them and in fact frequently does propose them, as true or false, as certain or erroneous, as included in the deposit of faith or as necessary for the defense of the divine deposit, as dogmas of divine and Catholic faith, or as theological doctrines taught by the universal Church. The reading of doctrinal Encyclicals persuades us instantly of what we are saying. To go no further, it suffices to read the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi” of Pius XII,156 to find multiple examples of this formal variety with which the ordinary Magisterium of the Popes proposes its teachings to the assent of the faithful.

This being so, we see no reason that could justify that restriction of the scope of our assent, such that when the Pontiff teaches us for example that a doctrine is certain, we limit ourselves to affirming only that “given the present state of knowledge it is prudent and safe to consider that doctrine as certain.”157 To be consistent, those who defend this would also have to maintain that when the ordinary Magisterium proposes a doctrine as safe, we should affirm, not simply that it is safe, but that “given the present state of knowledge it is prudent and safe to consider such doctrine as safe” — which seems an incongruity.

The act of assent owed to the teachings of the Pope is no more than a judgment in which the truth of a proposition is affirmed by virtue of the doctrinal authority of the Magisterium that proposes it. If the proposition says: such a doctrine is certain, the assent demanded by the Church, if it is to be true assent, cannot but be a judgment in which it is affirmed that such doctrine is, not merely safe, but positively certain. And consequently when Pius XII in “Humani generis” tells us that “by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion can be proved with certainty,”158 the assent owed to that teaching must be a judgment in which what the Pope tells us is directly affirmed, and it would not be true assent if we were to restrict its content to affirming only that “given the present state of knowledge, it is prudent and safe to consider as true what the Pontiff affirms,” as the authors to whom we have been referring say is sufficient.159

When the Popes authoritatively propose a doctrine to the whole Church in their Encyclicals, it is because they wish that all the faithful think about it what they themselves think. This we believe follows unequivocally from what Clement XI taught, when, in reproving the Jansenist subterfuge of the so-called “obsequious silence,” he lamented and said: “They pronounce the words that the Church pronounces, but what the Church thinks they do not think.”160 Hence in authentically proposing a proposition, the Magisterium of the Church intends that the faithful simply accept what that proposition signifies.

The authority which the Pontiff holds over the minds of the faithful is properly magisterial authority, to which directly and properly belongs the right to demand of us that we make our own, not only the terms of his propositions, but the very meaning which they directly enunciate. And therefore we believe that to the principal teachings which the Encyclicals propose to us expressly and deliberately (data opera), there is owed an internal assent of the mind, consisting in an intellectual judgment that is morally certain, though not absolute but conditioned, by which we accept and make our own the very mind of the Pope.161 It is that sincere “sentire cum Ecclesia” which Saint Ignatius of Loyola explains in his Spiritual Exercises.162

This assent, lacking the supreme guarantee that belongs to infallibility, and being as we have said only morally certain and conditioned, may sometimes happen to be suspended. Under what conditions can this occur? Following the opinion of Straub and Schultes,163 we say that, if per accidens it should happen that an assertion of the ordinary Magisterium appears either certainly false, or contrary to an argument so solid that its force outweighs the weight of magisterial authority, then above all one must look carefully, lest anyone, preoccupied by love of his own opinion, deceive himself, for he is no less, but of himself more fallible than the authority from which such teaching emanates. But if, in spite of everything, the reasons against it are confirmed, leading to a true conviction, in such a case, since what is demanded of the mind is rational assent, it will be licit not only to doubt, but even to cease to consider the assertion in question as certain. Nevertheless, the presumption lies in favor of authority, and consequently its teachings must continue to be held as at least probable; but it will be possible and even necessary to represent respectfully to the Holy See the reasons that have arisen to the contrary, observing in the meantime a respectful silence, awaiting its decision on what it judges most fitting.

The formal reason or motive that specifies this assent is the true and genuinely doctrinal authority of the Pope. That the Pope possesses true doctrinal authority is evident to anyone who considers that the Pope holds the supreme and full authority of the Church, and that the authority instituted by Christ in the Church is, not merely for governing and sanctifying, but also for teaching the truth to the faithful. That this magisterial authority of the Pope is truly doctrinal is established for us by the fact that it has moral force to obtain the assent of the mind itself.

The merely human teacher, all the moral force he can have for imposing his doctrine on his disciples derives from the reasons with which he makes it accessible to the intelligence of his listeners; he does not have, therefore, of himself the moral force to oblige the disciple to intellectually assent to what he teaches. The Teacher instituted by Christ in his Church has of himself the moral force to oblige the disciple to submit his intelligence and give his intellectual assent to what the teacher teaches him, even without setting before him the reasons by which the doctrine taught might impose itself on the understanding by itself.

This is the truly doctrinal authority of the Pope, to which there corresponds the correlative obligation of the faithful, an authority and obligation that only he can give and impose who is the absolute master of all power and sovereign Lord even over the intelligence itself. The category of such authority is not formally divine, because it is truly participated, nor is it purely human, because it transcends the capacity and demands of pure nature; but it belongs to the supernatural order. Of it we can say, with due proportion, what the Vatican Council says of infallibility, namely, that it is “that perennial charism of truth and faith granted by God to Peter and to his successors in the primatial Chair.”164

To that supernatural category of the doctrinal authority of the Pope there corresponds on God’s part a proportionate protection, which sustains and guarantees it. It is what the Vatican calls “divine assistance,” promised by God so that he may holily guard and faithfully expound the deposit of faith, that is, the doctrine revealed by God and received by tradition from the Apostles themselves. That assistance of the Holy Spirit, as the Vatican also warns us, is not the revelation which positively discloses to man in some way new truths, nor is it the inspiration which makes man a true instrument through which God positively communicates his ideas; but it is rather a divine and watchful providence, of itself only negative, yet always disposed so that the Pope, availing himself of the means that circumstances afford him, may come to know those doctrines that are in conformity with revealed truth, and once known, may propose them fittingly for the obligatory acceptance of the faithful.165

The category of the magisterial authority of the Pope being so elevated, it is easily understood why he has been given the power to demand of rational man so great a sacrifice as the submission of his very intelligence.

Examining the doctrine of theologians concerning the virtue by which this act of assent pertains, we have found with surprising unanimity that it is the virtue of obedience.166 The same answer has been given to us formally or equivalently by the monuments of the Magisterium of the Church itself. According to this we can take it as common doctrine in the Church, that the internal assent to the teachings of the ecclesiastical Magisterium is an act of intellectual obedience, in which out of reverence for God we submit ourselves to the doctrinal authority of the Church, and for this reason the theologians are also accustomed to call it religious assent, because as Saint Thomas teaches: “ad religionem pertinet exhibere reverentiam Deo, in quantum est principium creationis et gubernationis rerum.”167

Summarizing the doctrine of “Humani generis” on Encyclicals, we believe it can be reduced to the following:

Doctrinal Encyclicals, in matters that in some way pertain to faith or morals, are authentic documents of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church which largely propose what for other reasons is usually called Catholic doctrine, and although they are not of themselves ex Cathedra definitions, they nevertheless demand of all the faithful a true internal assent of the mind.168

Encyclicals frequently contain unavoidable teachings, such as for example those relative to the nature and constitution of the Church, and when they deliberately (data opera) enunciate the Pope’s view on some controverted point, that doctrine ceases already to be a matter of free discussion among theologians, as for example the doctrine proposed in “Mystici Corporis” on the identity of the Mystical Body with the Roman Catholic Church.169

With Encyclicals the Popes draw the attention of the Episcopate to those points of doctrine that call for its special vigilance, warn the faithful against the errors that threaten faith or morals, propose those doctrines which theologians must take as criterion and orientation for rightly interpreting the sources of revelation and for cultivating theological science with sound judgment.170

Hierarchically arranging these teachings, we can say that the Supreme Pontiff clearly formulates a fundamental principle, of great theological importance; from it he immediately deduces a conclusion, fruitful in practical applications; from these the Pope himself finally draws the two most important applications.

The basic principle refers to the magisterial authority that belongs to Encyclicals, and it is that they are an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the supreme Pontiff, of those to which that saying of the Master also applies: “He who hears you, hears me” (Lk. 10, 16).

The immediate conclusion which he deduces from this principle declares the correlative obligation to the authority enunciated, and it is that Encyclicals of themselves demand the assent of the faithful, even when the Pontiff does not exercise through them the Magisterium in its degree of supreme power.

The applications bear upon the objective scope or extension of the said authority and obligation. The 1st, more general, is made by the Pope by drawing attention to an important fact, which can serve as a criterion for evaluating the content of Encyclicals, and it is that most of the teachings proposed in them are already for other reasons among those that belong to Catholic doctrine, and therefore it is obvious that to them there extends before all else the full authority and obligation of Encyclicals.

The 2nd, more particular application, is that the authority and obligation of which we have been speaking extend furthermore to all those matters, relating to faith or morals, which the Pontiffs treat deliberately in their Encyclicals, even when they concern matters on which the views of authors differ; in such a way that if “data opera” the Pope enunciates his view on some question hitherto controverted, henceforth that doctrine ceases already to be a matter of free discussion among theologians.

The other things which “Humani generis” teaches us about Encyclicals, it may be said, are no more than concrete applications or obvious deductions from the teachings that precede.

In the light of all that we have set forth in our study, we believe it follows with sufficient clarity that what the Pope teaches in “Humani generis” on the doctrinal force of Encyclicals coincides with what was common doctrine among Catholic authors, thereby elevating to the category of authentic teachings the certain results of theological investigations. For the rest, it leaves open and free the field to the labor of researchers in all other points, in which the science of theologians has not yet reached full maturity and sufficient certainty.171

END.

Thanks for reading The Journal of American Reform! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!

As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (graphics) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting The Journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.

Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.

In addition to Substack, the home of The Journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:

X: @AmericanReform_

Telegram: @American_Reform

2

Act. Apost. Sed. 42 (1950) 561-578.

4

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 561, 567, 568, 570, 571.

5

DU CANGE, Glossarium mediae et infimae graecitatis, Ἐγκύκλια, 1, 347. In Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, Epistolae, 3, 280. SYKUTRIS, PAULYS-WISSOWA, Real-Encuclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband 5, 185-220: Epistolographie. E. MANGENOT, Dict. Théol. Cath. Encycliques, 5, 14-16. H. THURSTON, Cathol. Encyclop. Encyclical, 5, 413. R. NAZ, Dict. Droit Can. Encyclique, 5, 338. F. D. BENCINI, De Litteris Encyclicis dissertatio, (1728). Acc. Cat. Esp. Colección de Encíclicas (1948). Introd. pp. 13-33.

6

Bull. Rom. (ed. Prati), 25, 3; AAS 43 (1951) 497.

7

S. MARTIN I, M L 87, 119; I. HARDUIN, Conciliorum Collectio, 3, 933.

8

S. BASIL, Epist. 185, M G 32, 662.

9

PIUS VII, “Diu satis”, Bull. Rom. (ed. Prati), 35, 25.

10

M. T. CICERO, Epist. ad diversos, l. 2, ad Curionem, 4 (ed. Lemaire) 15, 60; Id. Epist. ad Quint. fratr. l. 1 (ed. Lemaire) 17, 547.

11

BRASSLOFF, Paulys-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. d. classis. Albertumswissenschaft, Epistula, 6, 204-210.

12

PH. MAROTO, Instit. Iuris Can. 1, n. 334-338.

13

G. MICHIELS, Normae generales Iuris Can. 1 (1949), p. 213-218; A. VAN HOVE, Commentarium Lovan. in C I C, I, 1 (1945). Prologue. n. 65-67.

14

E. MANGENOT, D T C. Encycliques, 5, 14.

15

S. EPIPHANIUS, Adv. haer. l. 2, 2, haer. 69, 4: M G 42, 209.

16

S. ATHANASIUS, M G 25, 221-240; 537-594.

17

CASIODORO, De Instit. div. litt. 11 et 23, M L 70, 1123 et 1138; LIBERIUS diac. Breviarium, 15, M L 68, 1018. EVAGRIO, Hist. ecles. l. 2, c. 9, M G 86, 2527-2532.

18

I. HARDUIN, Conciliorum Collectio, 2, 689-772.

19

EVAGRIO, Hist. ecles. M. G 86, 2527, 2532.

20

EVAGRIO, Hist. ecles. l. 3, c. 4, M G 86, 2596-2598, 2609 s.

21

LIBERIUS, Breviarium, c. 16 M L 68, 1019 s.

22

S. MARTIN I, Epistola Encyclica, I. Harduin, Conc. Coll. 3, 933-946. cf. M L 87, 119-135.

23

S. MARTIN I, Epistola ad Ecclesiam Carthaginensem, M L 87, 147.

24

The use of the Encyclicals in cases of exceptional gravity is confirmed by the fact of the Epístola Encíclica (Ἐγκύκλιος Ἐπιστολή) addressed by Photius, towards the year 867, “to the Archiepiscopal Thrones” championing “that it was no longer permissible to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but only from the Father” M G 102, 721.

25

M G 20, 490-507; P. COUSTANT, Epist. Rom. Pontif. 91-107.

26

P. COUSTANT, L. c. 123-195; cf. S. CYPRIAN, Ep. ad Antonian. M. L. 3, 763

27

DENZINGER, n. 46-47, see the notes; P. COUSTANT, L. c. 227-256.

28

S. INNOCENT I, Ep. 29: P. Coustant, L. c. 887-894; M L 20, 582-588.

29

Cf. C. SILVA-TAROUCA, Instit. Hist. Eccles. P. 2.ª, fasc. 1, p. 109-124. “Zosimus scribens ad totius orbis Episcopos” D. 134, 135.

30

Fragmentos en Arnobio, Conflictus, 2, 13: M L 53, 289 s.

31

S. LEO, Epist. 15, Ep. 28, M L 54, 677, 755.

32

S. GELASIUS, Corp. Script. Eccles. Latin, 35, Ep. 81: M L 59, 19.

33

DENZINGER, n. 171, see also the notes.

34

PELAGIUS I: M L 69, 399-400.

35

DENZINGER, n. 288: M L 87, 1165 ss.

36

S. GREGORY: M L 77, 468-479.

37

I. DIACONUS. S. Gregorii vita, l. 2, n. 3: M L 75, 88.

38

S. GREGORY: M L 77, 468-479; BENEDICT XIV: Bull. Rom. 25, 3-6.

39

I. DIACONUS, S. Gregorii vita, l. 2, n. 3: M L 75, 88; PIUS VII, “Diu satis,” 15 May. 1800: Bull. Rom. 35, 25; GREG. XVI, “Mirari vos,” 15 Aug. 1832: Acta Greg. XVI, 1, 169.

42

E. MANGENOT, D T C, 5, 14.

43

Bull. Rom. 25-28, Bullarium Benedicti XIV.

45

CLEM. XIII, CLEM. XIV, PIUS VI, PIUS VII, LEO XII, PIUS VIII: Bull. Rom. 29 ss.

50

AAS 42 (1950) 567, 568, 570, 571.

51

PIUS XII, “Humani generis:” AAS 42 (1950) 568-570.

52

PIUS XII, “Humani generis:” AAS 42 (1950) 564-578.

53

P. NAU, L’autorité doctrinale des Encycliques, La Pensée Cath. (1950) 15, 47-63; 16, 42-59.

54

Act. Apost. Sed. 1-43 (1909-1951).

55

Bull. Rom. 25, p. VIII.

57

PIUS VII, “Diu satis:” Bull. Rom. 35, 25.

58

GREGORY XVI, “Mirari vos:” Acta Greg. XVI, 1, 169, 170, 173.

59

PROSPER, Contra Collatorem, 27: M L 51, 271. On the celebrated tractoria of Zosimus and the meaning of the word tractoria, Coustant, Epist. Rom. Pontif. 650, 991-997; S. AUGUST: M L 33, 226; 43, 678; Dion. Exig. M L 67, 206 a.

60

BENEDICT XIV, “Ubi primum;” Bull. Rom. 25, 3.

61

PIUS XI, “Casti Connubii:” AAS 22 (1930) 540; PIUS XII, “Summi Pontificatus:” AAS 31 (1939) 418, 420, 447; PIUS IX, “Amantissimus humani:” A P IX, 3, 425.

62

S. ALEXANDER, cf. S. EPIFANIO, M G 42, 209; S. ATHANASIUS, M G 25, 221-240; 537-594.

63

S. LEO I, Epist. 33, 2: M L 54, 799.

64

GREGORY XVI, Acta Greg. XVI, I, 169, 433.

65

PIUS IX, Acta Pii IX, I, 4; III, 687.

66

LEO XIII, ASS 12, 97-115; 14, 3-14; 18, 161-180; 28, 708-739; 20, 593-613; 23, 641-670; 26, 269-292.

67

PIUS X, ASS 40, 593-650.

68

BENEDICT XV, AAS 12 (1920) 385-422.

69

PIUS XI, AAS, 15 (1923) 309-326; 22 (1930) 49-86; 539-592; 23 (1931) 177-228; 28 (1936) 5-53; 29 (1937) 65-106.

70

PIUS XII, AAS 31 (1939) 413-453; 35 (1943) 193-248; 297-326; 39 (1947) 521-595; 42 (1950) 561-578; 43 (1951) 625-644.

71

GREGORY XVI, Acta Greg. XVI, 1, 170.

72

LEO XIII, “Satis cognitum:” ASS 28, 708-739. The same doctrine is set forth more summarily by PIUS IX, already before the Vatican, in his Encyclical “Amantissimus:” Acta Pii IX, 3, 425.

73

BENEDICT XIV, “Vix pervenit:” Bull Rom. 25, 593, 5.

74

PIUS XI, “Mortalium animos:” AAS 20 (1928) 7; and in the “Quas primas:” “Vestrum postea erit, quidquid de Ch°. Rege colendo dicturi sumus, ad popularem intelligentiam et sensum accommodare;” AAS 17, 595.

75

LEO XIII, “Diuturnum illud:” ASS 14, 4. S. Agust. Ep. 105 n. 16: M. L. 33, 403.

76

PIUS IX, “Tuas libenter:” Acta Pii IX, 3, 642: D 1683. Conc. Vatic.: D 1792. Cf. J. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia, Sacrae Theol. Summa, I, 3, 552.

77

Mt. 28, 18; Io. 14, 16, 26; 16, 12, 13, cf. J. SALAVERRI, L c. n. 519-523.

78

Ses. III, cap. 3: D 1792.

79

PIUS XII, “Humani generis:” AAS 42 (1950) 568.

80

PIUS XII, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, 1942, III, p. 355.

81

PIUS VI, Auctorem fidei: D 1501–1599; Pius X, Pascendi: D 2071–2109.

82

PIUS XI, Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 540.

83

PIUS XII, Humani generis: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

84

C. SILVA-TAROUCA, Inst. Hist. Eccles. P. IIª, fasc. 1, p. 86–190.

85

S. PROSPER OF AQUITAINE: D 134, 135.

86

C. SILVA-TAROUCA, l. c. p. 117–124.

87

C. SILVA-TAROUCA, l. c. p. 124–132.

88

S. LEO I, Epist. 15 and 28; cf. Epist. 88 and 91: ML 54, 677 and 755; 929 and 934; SILVA-TAROUCA, l. c. p. 136–148.

89

Cf. C. SILVA-TAROUCA, l. c. p. 154 f.

90

DENZINGER, n. 171; see the notes.

91

PELAGIUS I: ML 69, 399–400.

92

S. GREGORY M.: ML 77, 468–479; cf. SILVA-TAROUCA, l. c. 177–179.

93

S. MARTIN I, Epistola Encyclica: I. HARDUIN, Concil. Collect. 3, 933–940: M L 87, 119–135, 147.

94

DENZINGER, n. 288; M L 87, 1165 ss.

95

ADRIAN II: M L 129, 36.

96

GREGORY XVI: “deque apostolicae potestatis plenitudine,” Singulari Nos; Acta Greg. XVI, 1, 434; PIUS IX: “Nos apostolica Nostrae potestatis plenitudine confirmamus,” Qui pluribus: Acta Pii IX, 1, 12; PIUS XI: “pro suprema Nostra auctoritate et omnium animarum salutis cura,” Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 560: D 2240.

97

L. Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales du Saint-Siège, (1928), p. 15–37.

98

M. Perriot, L’Ami du Clergé (1903) 802–806, 865 ss.

99

L. BILLOT, De Ecclesia (1927), p. 656. Cf. P. VILLADA, El decreto “Lamentabili”: Razón y Fe 19 (1907) 154–165.

100

M. PERRIOT, L’Ami du Clergé (1908) 195–200.

101

DENZINGER, n. 570a–574a.

102

DENZINGER, n. 1501–1599.

103

PIUS IX, Litterae apostolicae “Ineffabilis Deus”: Acta Pii IX, 1, 595, 597, 618. The title of Encyclical given to it by Collectio Lacensis VI, 836, is not accurate.

104

PIUS XII, Constitutio Apostolica, “Munificentissimus Deus”: AAS 42 (1950) 753.

105

Cf. PH. MAROTO, Instit. Iuris Can. I, n. 338.

106

See notes 84 and 89. Cf. ASS 3, Appendix I, p. 62–64.

107

RINALDI, Il valore del Sillabo (1888); FRANZELIN, Études (Jul. 1889) 358; CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales du Saint-Siège (1928), p. 109–157, 187–415; MUNCUNILL, De Ecclesia, n. 715–721; DE GROOT, De Ecclesia, q. 16 a. 7; SCHULTES, De Ecclesia, a. 70; STRAUB, De Ecclesia, n. 999–1003; DUBLANCHY, D T C 7, 1704; SCHEEBEN, Dogmatik I, n. 510; DE GUIBERT, De Ecclesia, n. 364; VELLICO, De Ecclesia, p. 438; ASS 3, l.c. in note 105.

108

Acta Gregor. XVI, I, p. 434. Cf. p. 311.

109

BENEDICT XV, “Ad Beatissimi”: “Decessor Noster omnium haereseon collectum edixit esse et solemniter condemnavit”: AAS 6 (1914) 577.

110

DENZINGER, n. 2240. A. VERMEERSCH, Annotationes in Encycl. “Casti Connubi”: Per. Re Can. Mor. 20 (1931) 52-55; ID. Definitio infallibilis in Encyclica “Casti Connubii”: Div. Tom. (Piac) 35 (1932) 405-411; F. HÜRTH, Litt. Encycl. “Casti Connubiï”: Scholastik 6 (1931) 250; VELLICO, De Ecclesia, p. 441.

111

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

112

J. V. BAINVEL, De Magisterio vivo et Traditione (1905) n. 101, 6.

113

J. DE GUIBERT, De Ecclesia, n. 369.

114

MSI 51, 35; 53, 188, 221.

115

DENZINGER, n. 1792. Las vicisitudes de la discusión, véanse en MSI, 51, 35, 47, 216, 223, 224, 225, 229, 234, 235, 322, 336, 337.

116

IO. SIMOR, Primas Hungariae: MSI 51, 47; C. MARTÍN, Ep. Paderborn: MSI 51, 224 s.

120

MSI 51, 322; PIUS IX, “Tuas libenter”: DENZINGER, n. 1683.

121

DENZINGER, n. 1839; J. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia. n. 595, 599, 600.

122

V. GASSER, Ep. Brixinen; MSI 52, 1225-1227; J. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia, n. 599, 600, 704, 705.

123

J. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia, n. 645-649. Cf. E. DUBLANCHY, Dict. Théol. cath. 7, 1705; M. LABOURDETTE, Rev. Thom. 50 (1950) 38.

124

DENZINGER, n. 1792; Cod. Iur. Can. 1323.

125

L. CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales, p. 15-37; L. BILLOT, De Ecclesia, p. 656, VACANT, Etudes théologiq. sur les Const. du Conc. du Vatican, II n. 663; J. BELLAMY, La Théologie cathol. au XIX siècle, p. 233-242.

126

J. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia n. 906-908.

127

R. BELLARMINE, De Concil. et Ecclesia 1. 2, c. 12; J. B. FRANZELIN, De Traditione, th. 12, schol. 1, princ. 1, corol. 5.
(126 bis) We are currently proofreading of P. NAU, who maintains that that continuous repetition suffices; La Pensée Cathol. 19 (1951) 74-81.

128

VACANT, Etudes sur les Const. du Conc. du Vatic. II, n. 650-657

129

J. BELLAMY, La Théologie catholique au XIX siècle, p. 241.

130

L. BILLOT, De Ecclesia, p. 656; cf. M. RIQUET, Pouvoirs généraux de la Papauté: Tu es Petrus, Encyclopedie sur la Papauté, p. 54-59.

132

CL. 7, 474; MSI 52, 1316 ab.

133

CL. 7, 414; MSI 52, 1225 c.

134

VACANT, Etudes sur les Constit. du Conc. du Vatican, II, n. 651.

135

L. CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales, p. 19, cree lo contrario. Cf. E. DUBLANCHY, Infaillibilité du Pape, Dict. Théol. Cath. 7, 1705.

136

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

137

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

138

Acta Greg. XVI, 1, 434 a.

139

Acta Greg. XVI, 1, 311 a-b.

140

PIUS IX, “Quanta cura”. DENZINGER, n. 1699. L. LERCHER-SCHLAGENHAUFEN, De ecclesia, n. 513. Other examples E. DUBLANCHY, L. c. en la nota 134.

141

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 567, 568, 571.

142

PIUS IX, “Tuas libenter”: DENZINGER, n. 1684.

143

LEO XIII, “Immortale Dei”: DENZINGER, n. 1880.

144

PIUS X, “Singulari quadam”: AAS 4 (1912) 658.

145

PIUS X, Motu proprio “Praestantia Scripturae”: DENZINGER, n. 2114.

146

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 567.

147

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 564, 566, 568.

148

J. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia, n. 674-676.

149

S. SCHIFFINI, De virtutibus infusis (1904) 215; JOS. CLIFFORD FENTON, The “Humani generis” and the Holy Father’s Ordinary Magisterium: The Amer. Eccles. Rev. 125 (1951) 53-62.

150

J. B. FRANZELIN, De divina Traditione, (1896) th. 12, schol 1, princip. VII. L. BILLOT, De Ecclesia (1927) th. 19, 445 ss.; L. CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales (1928) 53-55, 83-95. CH. JOURNET, L’Elise du Verbe Incarné, pág. 481-428. J. M. CIRARDA, La asistencia del Espíritu Santo, Rev. Esp. Teol. 7 (1947) p. 61-69.

151

D. PALMIERI, De Rom. Pontifice, th. 32, schol. 2; DE GROOT, Summa de Ecclesia, a. 16 a 8; PESCH, Praelec, I. n. 521.

152

WILMERS, De Ecclesia, n. 241; MAROTO, Instit. Iur. Can. 1 (1919) 418; LERCHER, De Ecclesia, n. 499.

153

PIUS XI, “Studiorum ducem”: DENZINGER n. 2192; PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

154

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

155

BENEDICT XV, Decreto del Sto. Oficio: DENZINGER, n. 2183-2185.

156

PIUS XII, “Mystici Corporis”: AAS 35 (1943) 193-248.

157

Cf. L. CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales, p. 91.

158

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 562.

159

See cited in Note 149.

160

CLEMENT XI, “Vineam Domini”: Bulear, Taurinen. 21, 235.

161

Cf. SALAVERRI, De Ecclesia, n. 666.

162

S. IGNATIUS, Exercitia spiritualia, Regulae ad sentiendum cum Ecclesia.

163

A. STRAUB, De Ecclesia, n. 968 s.; R. SCHULTES, De Ecclesia, art. 67, v.

165

DENZINGER, n. 1836; J. M. CIRARDA, La Asistencia del Espíritu Santo a la Iglesia: Rev. Esp. Teol. 7 (1947) 47-78; CH. JOURNET, L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, p. 398, Speaking of the assistance that God dispenses to the Church in the infallible act, he compares it with the grace of predestination: “Just as the grace of predestination, without destroying man’s freedom or sparing him trials, infallibly leads him to salvation, so too the grace of divine assistance, without destroying the freedom of the jurisdictional power or freeing it from the obligation to investigate, consult, reflect, and pray, directs its actions and infallibly leads it to the ends assigned to it.”

166

DENZINGER, n. 1350, 1682-1684; cf. ASS, 3, Appendix I, pag. 62-64. S. BELLARMINE, Controversia gener. III. de Romano Pontifice, l. 4 c. 2; I. B. FRANZELIN, De traditione, th. 12, schol. 1, princ. 7, corol. 3; D. PALMIERI, De Romano Pontifice (1902) p. 710 s.; CH. PESCH, Praelectiones, I, n. 521; H. HURTER, Theol. dogm. compend. I, n. 511, 516; L. BILLOT, De Ecclesia (1927) p. 449; A. STRAUB, De Ecclesia, n. 967; R. SCHULTES, De Ecclesia, a. 67, § 5; L. CHOUPIN, Valeur des décisions doctrinales, p. 53; CH. JOURNET, L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, p. 424 ss.; PH. MAROTO, Inst. Iur. Can., n. 343, F.

167

S. TH. 2, 2 q. 81 a. 3.

168

PIUS XII, “Humani generis”: AAS 42 (1950) 568.

169

PIUS XII, “Human. gen.”: L. c. p. 568, 571.

170

PIUS XII, “Human. gen.”: L. c. p. 564, 567-570.

171

Principally those which we have indicated apropos of the infallibility in Encyclicals and of the criteria for discerning in them the infallible assertions from those that are not, and also those noted on the particular character and the proper object of the assent owed to the non-infallible teachings of Encyclicals.

Read the original on americanreform.substack.com ↗

Comments

Nothing yet. Say the first thing.

    Sign in to join the conversation.