|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As the health of Pope Francis deteriorates to critical condition and the Church prepares to brace for another interim sedevacante between pontiffs, all are now asking what the next conclave will be like, who among the cardinals are the most likely to be elected and, once elected, what dramatic changes the new pope will bring to the Church. However, the question of whether the Chair of Peter currently is and has been vacant, even prior to Francis going to his eternal reward, still appears to hang in the balance. We have seen one argument that Francis is certainly not the true pope because he teaches heresy, put forward by Dr. John Lamont and Dr. Edmund Mazza, and another claiming that he certainly is the true pope because all the bishops adhere to him as such, set down by Fr. Brian Harrison (here and here), Matt Gaspers, and Robert Siscoe.[1] When two contrary arguments stand at such an impasse, are we limited to simply “agree to disagree” because of our immovably held convictions, or are we reduced to a tedious balance of historical contingencies to see which of the positions outweighs the other in likelihood? Rather than submit to such a hostile harmony or a poise of probability, I propose to overturn the original argument as laid out by Dr. Lamont and to bolster that set forth by Fr. Harrison: to show that Francis is and has been the true pope of the Roman Catholic Church and, if one accepts the likely opinion that “no true pope is a notorious heretic,” to manifest that his heresy is not notorious. Whether or not Francis dies today, tomorrow, in a month or a year, the conclusion that here follows could determine not only our understanding of whether the papacy of Francis was and remains legitimate, but potentially that of any future or past pope of the Roman Church who happens to teach heresy that appears manifest.
Now, if Fr. Harrison’s conclusion is true, “that Francis is the true pope is certain,” what kind of certainty would this be? Could it be moral certainty which excludes all prudent fear of the opposite, or could it be absolute certainty which excludes all possible fear of the opposite? If the former, then it would be conviction, indeed, but a certainty that could be overcome by an eventual proof to the contrary, but if the latter, then it would be completely invincible, unable to be overcome by any argument, in a word, “infallible.” I propose to show that Fr. Harrison’s conclusion is in fact infallible and is to be held as of the faith, de fide tenenda. If this proves to be the case, then one could not withhold belief that Francis is the true pope without being excluded from full communion with the Catholic Church (I hasten to add here, however, that I am not placing a judgement on the souls of pious Catholics who have argued the contrary, since I am not their judge). However, before we manifest this conclusion, let us briefly recall Dr. Lamont’s original argument against Francis as pope.
ARGUMENT I: That Francis is not the true pope.
Major premise: No true pope is a notorious heretic.
Minor premise: But Francis is a notorious heretic.
Therefore, Francis is not the true pope.
Our intention here is to overturn the conclusion of this argument and at least one of the premises, in this case, the minor premise. Now, if we set the first statement “No true pope is a notorious heretic” together with the hypothesis that “Francis is infallibly the true pope” to form a new syllogism, the conclusion that follows from these two premises will overturn the minor premise of the argument, just given above.
ARGUMENT II: That Francis is infallibly not a notorious heretic.
Major premise: No true pope is a notorious heretic.
Minor premise: But Francis is infallibly the true pope.
Therefore, Francis is infallibly not a notorious heretic.
This conclusion follows necessarily from the premises as laid down. The major premise is a probable, theological opinion that was taught for more than 700 years by many notable theologians, and which we assume here as certain for the sake of the argument. However, the minor premise will need to be explained since it is not evident to all.
Proof of Minor: That Francis is infallibly the true pope.
1. (a) The universal teaching* of all bishops who are in full communion with the Holy See regarding all matters of faith, whether of “theological faith” concerning Church dogma or of “ecclesiastical faith” concerning dogmatic facts, is infallible (the term “dogmatic fact” is used by theologians for any matter that holds a necessary, logical or historical relationship with Church dogma, and without which Church dogma cannot be rightly held).[2] (b) But the identity of the reigning pontiff is a matter of ecclesiastical faith, for the dogma of papal infallibility and all dogmatic definitions declared or ratified by his authority cannot be rightly held by theological faith without the identity of the reigning pontiff who holds such authority being first held by ecclesiastical faith.[3] Thus, the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops regarding the identity of the reigning pontiff is infallible. 2. But that Francis is the reigning pontiff is the universal teaching of all bishops who are in full communion with the Holy See (the excommunicated archbishop Viganò and the few other sedevacantist bishops outside of full communion being excluded). Therefore, that Francis is the true reigning pope is infallible.
This conclusion can finally be converted to, “Francis is infallibly the true pope.” Hence, if we assume as certain the opinion that “no true pope is a notorious heretic,” it necessarily follows from these two statements that “Francis is infallibly not a notorious heretic.”
Before explaining how this argument bears upon our ecclesiastical communion, we must expound the premise, given above, that the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops regarding the identity of the reigning pontiff is infallible and is to be held as a matter of ecclesiastical faith (de fide tenenda), for this may not be immediately apparent to some and thus difficult to accept. Let us first lay it down as a new argument.
ARGUMENT III: That the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops on the identity of the reigning pope is infallible.
Major premise: The universal teaching of all Catholic bishops regarding matters of faith is infallible.
Minor premise: But the identity of the reigning pope is a matter of faith.
Therefore, the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops regarding the identity of the reigning pope is infallible.
This conclusion follows necessarily from the premises as laid down. Let us now examine each of them in detail to see why this conclusion follows. Our proof will be principally one of authority, relying upon the testimony of the supreme pontiffs and ecumenical councils.
Proof of Major: That the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops regarding matters of faith is infallible.
The dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium,taught that all bishops of the Catholic Church
proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed throughout the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on the one position as definitively to be held.[4]
This dogmatic text of Vatican II as well as that of Dei Filius,given at Vatican I, both teach that the Church’s infallibility covers all matters pertaining to divine revelation and the deposit of faith.[5] However, Pope Paul VI, who was the authoritative interpreter of Lumen gentium,makes it clear in his Declaration on Infallibility that it is a matter of “Catholic doctrine” that “the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which the deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded,”[6] which theologians call “dogmatic facts” for short.
Hence, Pope John Paul II promulgated a professio fidei in 1989 in which one is to make a testament of faith not only in what is taught in the words of divine revelation, but also in other matters of faith and morals that must be “firmly accepted and held.” He consequently made an addition to the Code of Canon Law, can. 750, in 1998, inserting a section that now reads,
Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith [i.e. dogmatic facts]; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions that are to be held definitively sets himself against the teachings of the Catholic Church.[7]
In his motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem that promulgated this addition to the Code, Pope John Paul II explained the need for this modification, namely the fact that certain truths of the faith (dogmatic facts) are not explicitly contained in divine revelation, but have a necessary connection with it.
[The] second paragraph of the profession of faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.[8]
In the official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio fidei that was promulgated a month later by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was presided over at the time by the future Pope Benedict XVI, it explains that
In the second proposition of the professio fidei . . . the object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area that are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith [i.e. dogmatic facts], even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. Such doctrines . . . can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “doctrine definitely to be held.” Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine on the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.[9]
Further on, the same Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio fidei explains the similarity and distinction between the assent of “theological faith” that is given to divinely revealed doctrine (de fide credenda) and that of “ecclesiastical faith” that is given to dogmatic facts which are related to dogma by either a historical or logical relationship (de fide tenenda).
There is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent that is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines to be believed as of the faith [de fide credenda]); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph [i.e. dogmatic facts], the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines to be held as of the faith [de fide tenenda]).[10]
Both kinds of doctrine are held by faith, but the first is held on God’s own authority, and so is properly termed “theological faith” by theologians, whereas the second is held on the authority of the Church, and is thus termed “ecclesiastical faith.”[11] But even though a particular dogmatic fact might not be formally defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Roman pontiff, yet
the doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium . . . as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the deposit of faith, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.[12]
We can see, then, that the infallibility of the universal, ordinary Magisterium of the Church extends not only to Church dogma, but also to dogmatic facts, upon which Church dogma necessarily depends. Furthermore, these dogmatic facts must be assented to with an assent of faith, not indeed of “theological faith” properly so called that only has divine revelation as its object, but of “ecclesiastical faith” in the authority of the Church and in the infallible and divine assistance given both to the Church’s universal, ordinary Magisterium, and also to the extraordinary Magisterium of the pope.
Proof of Minor: That the identity of the reigning pope is a matter of faith.
In order to understand how the identity of the reigning pope as taught by the Church is infallible, we must see not only that the Church is infallible in matters of ecclesiastical faith (i.e. dogmatic facts), but also understand that the identity of the reigning pope is a matter of such ecclesiastical faith and so also a dogmatic fact. But Pope Martin V gives us such an understanding in his bull Inter cunctas,promulgated in 1418 andwhich was directed against the heretical followers of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. Hus was condemned at the Council of Constance and burned at the stake for holding, among other heresies, that “it is not necessary to believe [non oportet credere] that any particular Roman pontiff is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him to salvation.”[13] In contradiction to this thesis, Pope Martin V demanded that
Any person who is suspected of upholding the aforementioned articles [of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus] or caught doing so is to be interrogated in accordance with the manner written below . . . whether he believes [utrum credat] that the canonically elected pope at the time in question, after the proclamation of his own name [eius nomine proprio expresso], is the successor of the blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.[14]
This canon appears sufficiently universal to bind assent, and those who deny it would also appear to be subject to the same condemnation as Wycliffe and Hus. It is also important to note that this canon does not ask that the heretic be interrogated as to whether he makes a probable assent to a likely opinion, nor that he make an agreement to some morally certain proposition or fact, for these things are only held in proportion to man’s natural powers, which can err. Neither does the decree require that anyone make an act of faith that some man is the supreme pontiff, but without further determination. Rather, the decree demands whether the heretic believes that this particular man, whose name is given, is the pope of the Catholic Church. Hence, John of St. Thomas, in his Cursus Theologicus, explains that these words of Pope Martin V
do not speak of the truth of that proposition in common, namely whether anyone who is legitimately elected is the supreme pontiff, but of him in particular who is pontiff at that time, by expressing his proper name, as for example, Innocent X. And the pontiff commands that the one suspected in his faith be interrogated about him whose proper name is given, whether he believes that such is the successor of Peter and the supreme pontiff. Therefore, this pertains to the act of believing, not to an inference or to a moral certitude, for neither of these is believing.[15]
That the identity of the reigning pope is a matter of faith is also clear from the fact that he is, in virtue of his office as supreme teacher, the Church’s visible and living rule of faith. That the pope is such a rule is another way of expressing his charism of infallibility, which is a “charism of truth and of never-failing faith . . . conferred upon Peter and his successors,” and which is exercised when the Roman pontiff “speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.”[16] Commenting on this charism of infallibility, John of St. Thomas explains that
When something is a rule of faith and is proposed as such to the faithful, it is no less believable by faith that it is a true and legitimate rule than that what is determined by it is de fide. As for example, when some book is proposed as canonical, just as what is contained in it is de fide, so also is it de fide that that book is canonical and received from God by revelation. Similarly, when something is defined by a legitimate council or pope, not only is that which is defined de fide, but also that it is a true and legitimate definition binding one to believe. . . . Therefore, in a similar way, when someone is proposed as an infallible rule of faith, it is definable that he is the legitimate pontiff and legitimately elected. The reason for this is that when something is defined, it is de fide that it is legitimately defined. Thus, that its definition is legitimate both can and ought to be de fide.[17]
If it is true that the Church can teach infallibly on matters of faith, it necessarily follows that it can also teach infallibly regarding the identity of the person proposed to the Church as the infallible rule of faith. In other words, if any pope is capable of demanding that the entire Church believe something as infallible and de fide, then it must be infallible andheld as de fide that any pope first enjoyed such a charism, otherwise we would not be bound to hold as infallible and de fide what he may eventually teach ex cathedra.[18] Hence, John of St. Thomas continues,
It is impossible that the Church err in accepting any rule of faith, whether it be the definition of a council, some canonical book, or some tradition, and that by accepting it as a rule of faith, it not be de fide that it is a true and legitimate rule. Therefore, it is also impossible that the Church err in accepting the supreme pontiff in particular, if indeed it accepts him as a supreme and living rule in proposing things of faith. . . . But the pontiff proposes things to be believed as a rule of faith and as judge, determining what is to be believed; and so, by his authority, a man is obliged to believe. Therefore, it is necessary that the faithful be certain that he who defines and rules things of faith has the authority to rule and define them, for otherwise, if it should happen that one doubts regarding the authority that he has here in defining some particular, one cannot be certain that the things defined remain de fide.[19]
The Church, then, is able to teach infallibly that this particular man is the pope de fide tenenda precisely because he is accepted by the whole Church as the living, supreme rule of faith, who is consequently able to declare on mattersas de fide credenda. And he is this supreme, unfailing rule in virtue of the promise made to St. Peter and to all his successors (cf. Mt. 16:18-19, 28:20; Lk. 22:32).[20] The identity, therefore, of the reigning pontiff has a necessary and direct relationship with divine revelation and with the dogma of papal infallibility, and it is thus a dogmatic fact. Because of this, we are absolutely bound to hold by ecclesiastical faith that the man universally accepted by the Church as supreme pontiff is the true successor of Saint Peter and so holds the charism of infallibility.[21]
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNION
What are the consequences of this argument with regard to one’s communion with the Catholic Church? If one rejects the conclusion that “Francis is infallibly not a notorious heretic,” given in ARGUMENT II above, one must reject either the major or minor premises from which it necessarily follows. Dr. Lamont accepts the major premise as certain, that “no true pope is a notorious heretic,” but he rejects the minor premise, “Francis is infallibly the true pope.” Since he rejects this, he must also reject either one or both of its supporting premises. He apparently accepts the second supporting premise, namely the fact that “all Catholic bishops teach that Francis is the true pope,” and so he must necessarily reject the first supporting premise, that “the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops regarding the identity of the reigning pontiff is infallible.” But if one rejects this premise, then one must reject, in turn, at least one of the supporting premises standing under it, either that “the universal teaching of all bishops who are in full communion with the Holy See regarding matters of faith is infallible,” or else that “the identity of the reigning pontiff is a matter of faith,” which were both manifested as Church doctrine in ARGUMENT III above. Hence, rejecting either one of these propositions would put one at odds with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as taught at the Council of Constance, the Second Vatican Council, and by Popes Martin V, Paul VI, and John Paul II, and would therefore place one outside of full communion.
If, on the other hand, anyone were to accept the minor premise of ARGUMENT II, that “Francis is infallibly the true pope,” then at least one of the original premises given by Dr. Lamont in ARGUMENT I must be set aside. Either the major premise must go, namely the probable theological opinion that “no true pope is a notorious heretic,” or the minor premise must go, namely the personal opinion of Dr. Lamont that “Francis is a notorious heretic.” For one cannot accept both of these opinions, their necessary conclusion that “Francis is not the true pope,” as well as the universal, infallible teaching of all Catholic bishops that “Francis is the true pope.”
If one rejects this universal teaching of the bishops and clings to both of the premises of ARGUMENT I, then one is forced to conclude that the entire Catholic Church and all her bishops has adhered to a false head. And from this it would follow that Christ’s promise, that “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Mt. 16:18), has indeed proven false and that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church established by God. But if we accept as true that the universal Magisterium of the bishops is infallible, and that the identity of the reigning pontiff is to be held as de fide, and yet still reject Francis as pope, then we are forced to argue that the multitude of bishops who accept Francis as pope are not true bishops, but only those several sedevacantist bishops who deny him. Hence, if we reject Francis as pope, we are forced to conclude that Christ rejects the Catholic Church. The Church, therefore, as a whole, would be defectible and would have indeed fallen away, and from this grim conclusion we are presented with another argument.
ARGUMENT IV
Major premise: If Francis is not the true pope, then Christ has abandoned the Catholic Church, for Christ has manifestly abandoned any church if all its bishops adhere to a false head as pope. But all bishops in communion with the Holy See adhere to Francis as pope and head of the Catholic Church.
Minor premise: But Christ has not abandoned the Catholic Church. (Cf. Mt. 16:18, 28:20).
Therefore, Francis is the true pope.
It is against faith to believe that Christ has abandoned the Church, however, it is not against faith nor against the indefectibility of the Church that a validly reigning pope would teach heresy in his ordinary Magisterium. And so, if we would still hold the legitimate and ancient opinion that “no true pope is a notorious heretic,” we must reject that Francis’s heresy has risen to the status of notoriety that would remove him from office. But if we would rather firmly hold to the personal, probable opinion that “Francis is a notorious heretic,” then we must reject the ancient theological opinion that “no true pope is a notorious heretic” and accept the necessary consequence that a notorious heretic could in fact still be the pope.
Even though we are bound to accept Francis as the supreme pontiff and so preserve our ecclesiastical communion with the bishops of the world, it is not immediately apparent nor do I propose which of the two probable opinions named above we must choose and which we ought to reject; that is a matter for others to discern. But we cannot hold both of them while still remaining in communion with the Catholic Church.
Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
* When referring in this essay to the infallible “universal teaching” or the infallible “universal magisterium” of the bishops, this is understood in all cases to be the infallible “universal and ordinary Magisterium” of the bishops.
[1] The strengths and weaknesses of the main arguments of Fr. Harrison and Dr. Lamont where weighed in a previous post here: https://onepeterfive.com/certain-truth-or-mere-probability-reply-to-lamont-and-harrison/ Dr. Lamont’s original argument was posted here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/10/what-are-consequences-of-franciss.html
[2] A dogmatic fact would be, for example, that the Council of Trent was ecumenical, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is canonical, that Pope Pius IX was the true pope and so possessed the charism of infallibility. None of these propositions are Church dogma, but infallible Church dogma necessarily depends upon them. They must, therefore, also be held as infallible. On dogmatic facts as being held by ecclesiastical faith, see epecially Van Noort, Sources of Revelation, v. 3 (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1961), pgs. 211-213, 265-268. On the infallible nature of dogmatic facts, see Vatican II, Lumen gentium § 25 (Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012], § 4149); Pope Paul VI, CDF, Declaration on infallibility, § 3 (Denzinger § 4536); Pope John Paul II, Motu proprio: Ad tuendam fidem, § 3-4 (Denzinger § 5066); Code of Canon Law, can. 750 § 2, which are all cited and explained below.
[3] That the identity of the pope must be held by faith can be seen from the declaration of Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Inter cunctas, § 24 (Denzinger § 1264). See the text and commentary on this canon by John of St. Thomas, explained below.
[4] Vatican II, Lumen gentium § 25 (Denzinger § 4149).
[5] Cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 3 (Denzinger § 3011); Pius IX, letter Tuas libenter (Denzinger § 2879).
[6] Pope Paul VI, CDF, Declaration on infallibility, § 3 (Denzinger § 4536).
[7] Code of Canon Law, can. 750, § 2.
[8] Pope John Paul II, Motu proprio: Ad tuendam fidem, § 3-4 (Denzinger § 5066).
[9] Pope John Paul II, CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei, § 6 (Denzinger § 5071). Original emphasis.
[10] Doctrinal Commentary,§ 8 (Denzinger § 5072).
[11] See Van Noort, Sources of Revelation, pg. 267: “In order to make a very clear distinction between divine and ecclesiastical faith (and also from a ‘religious assent,’ . . .) [many theologians] reserve the term ‘to believe’ for matters of divine faith, whereas for assents of an inferior kind they use the term: ‘to hold’ (tenere vs. credere). ”
[12] Doctrinal Commentary, § 9 (Denzinger § 5072). Original emphasis.
[13] Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6th, 1415, § 11: Decree of condemnation confirmed by Pope Martin V, February 22nd, 1418 (Denzinger § 1211).
[14] Pope Martin V – Council of Constance, Inter cunctas, § 24 (Denzinger § 1264).
[15] John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, v. 7-1, disp. 2, a. 2, de auctoritate summi pontificis, par. XIII, pg. 235. My translation.
[16] Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, ch. 4 (Denzinger §§ 3071-74).
[17] John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, v. 7-1, disp. 2, a. 2, par. XII, pg. 235.
[18] It is clear from Pastor aeternus, ch. 4 (Denzinger § 3071) that all popes enjoy the charism of infallibility and not just those who actually make an infallible declaration ex cathedra. That a pope possesses this charism precedes any infallible papal definition he might make. Hence, papal definitions are infallible because they are declared as such by the infallibly reigning pope, but he is the infallibly reigning pope not because he makes an infallible definition (this would be circular reasoning) but because he is adhered to as such by the Church in its universal, ordinary Magisterium.
[19] Idem, par. XIV, pg. 236.
[20] See Pastor aeternus, ch. 4 (Denzinger §§ 3066, 3070).
[21] For other theological authorities who teach that the identity of the reigning pope is a dogmatic fact and is to be held as de fide, see for example Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2009), pgs. 288-290; Van Noort, Christ’s Church (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957), pg. 153; idem, The Sources of Revelation, v. 3(Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1961), pg. 265; A. Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, v. 1, (New York: Desclee, 1959), pg. 146; Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, v. 1B (1955), bk. 2, ch. 3, a. 2; Hurter, S.J., Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium, v. 1(Libraria Academica Wagneriana: Innsbruck, 1891), tract. 3, de ecclesia, thesis lv, pgs. 302-5; Louis Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Iuridica Moralis Theologica, tom. V (Naples: Typis Agrelli, 1853) papa, a. 2, num. 67 – 71, pgs. 949-50; Joannis de Lugo, Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, v. 1 De virtute fidei (Paris: Vives, 1868), disp. 1, sec. 13, a. 5, pgs. 112-113; Collegii Salmanticensis, Cursus Theologicus, v. 11 (Paris: Palmé, 1879)tract. 17, de fide,disp. 4, dub. 1, pgs. 261-76; Franciscus Suarez, De triplici virtute theologica, v. 11(Venice: Coleti, 1742)disp. 5, de fide, sect. 8, n. 12, pg. 88; Domenico Palmieri, Tractatus de Romano Pontifice, 3rd ed. (Prati: Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1902) pgs. 222-223; Francisco Longo, Summa Conciliorum Omnium (Antwerp: Moreti, 1623), prael. 10, assert. 2, pgs. 119-22.