We publish here a Small Catechism on the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff to Help the Understanding of Dogma, composed in Rome and published in Québec in 1876 with the imprimatur of the local bishop and the approval of the Very Reverend Master of Sacred Apostolic Palace. This catechism was dedicated by its author to the Most Holy Father, Pope Pius IX.

In these times when many dogmas are abused by the conciliar authorities, it seems that many no longer have a clear notion of the dogma of papal infallibility. May this little catechism help each of us.

Our Lady of Joy Mission

I - WHAT IS THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AND ALSO WHAT IT IS NOT

1- Do you understand what the infallibility of the Pope is and also what it is not?

By the grace of God, I believe I understand this and that I am able to refute all the errors spread by the enemies of infallibility.

2- Very good! - But first what is this infallibility? - Does that mean that the Pope is impeccable?

No, of course not. - The Pope, child of Adam, like us, can have his faults and make mistakes. It is the Pope’s word that it is about and not his conduct.

3- And every word that comes out of the Pope's mouth, do we have to receive it as an oracle?

No. - The word of the Sovereign Pontiff, whatever his authority, and whatever respect it deserves, is however infallible only when he teaches as Pope.

4- You mean when he speaks ex cathedra. But when does the Pope speak, precisely, as Pope ex cathedra (from his pulpit)?

The pulpit (cathedra) signifies “the teaching of the master”. - The Pope speaks ex cathedra when, in his capacity as master and universal pastor of all Christians, with his sovereign and apostolic authority, he defines some doctrine concerning faith or mores for the entire Catholic Church. Pontifical infallibility is therefore the privilege that the Roman Pontiff received from God not to be able to make mistakes when he speaks ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals.

5- Where does it come from that, in this case, the Pope cannot teach error instead of truth; in other words, that it is infallible?

He is infallible because God assists him, because the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, assists him, according to the promise made to Peter and, in him, to his successors.

6- So the Pope has the same infallibility as the Church?

Precisely. - The Pope, even alone, in his capacity as master and universal teacher, has the same infallibility that Jesus Christ gave to his Church for the teaching of faith and morals.

7- So, when the Pope has made a definition, it must be held to be infallible, we can no longer touch it, nor reform it?

Yes; the definitions of the Pope, made of his sole sovereign and apostolic authority, are therefore by themselves immutable; there is no need to wait for the consent of the Church to be certain of their truth, and therefore they cannot be reformed.

8- But, in the absence of this consent, could it happen that, on the one hand, we see the Pope, and on the other the Church?

No. — We will never see the Pope teaching a doctrine on the one hand and all the bishops teaching the opposite on the other. And so disappears this scarecrow of isolated infallibility, as they say, personal and separate. Always the Catholic Episcopate, under the influence of the Holy Ghost who assists the Church, will adhere to the judgment passed by the Pope of his infallible authority. The edifice will always remain, yes, always united with the foundation; but to be supported by him and not to support him.

9- So we will have two infallibilities: the collective infallibility of the teaching Church and the personal infallibility of the Pope?

To speak exactly, Infallibility is one in principle, which is the assistance of the Holy Ghost; one in its end which is the universal good of all the faithful. Only the subject in whom she resides, can be either the head of the Church alone, or this same head to whom, while remaining subordinate, the Catholic Episcopate unites to form the teaching Church. And so, we have as a double organ by which God makes us hear his voice: the teaching Church, or the Pope with the Catholic Episcopate dispersed or united in Council; and the Pope alone, speaking ex cathedra, as universal Doctor, with his sole apostolic authority.

This second part of the Catechism on the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff clearly shows that the dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is not new in the Church. It is simply the definition of a truth still held in the Church.

This truth is very useful to know, because if the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff was something new, then the history of the Church could not give us any clues as to how we should understand the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff.

On the contrary, since this truth has always been believed in the Church, then by looking at the history of the Church, we will better understand what the Church means by the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff.

Our Lady of Joy Mission

II- THE DEFINITION IS NEW; THE DOGMA IS NOT NEW

The Infallibility of the Pope united with the bishops, or the Infallibility of the Church, is an old dogma and has always been accepted; but is not this infallibility of the Pope, independent of the consent and the authority of the bishops, a new dogma, as it is claimed?

The definition is new the dogma is not and cannot be new. The dogma is as old as the Gospel, where it is said: - that Jesus Christ establishes Peter as the foundation of the Church and universal Shepherd: - that he prayed that his faith never falters: - that he gave the privilege of confirming his brothers in the faith.

Now, it is obvious that if the decisions of the Pope needed to be examined and confirmed by the bishops, the foundation, instead of supporting the edifice, would be supported by him; - the pastor, instead of guiding and feeding the sheep, would be led by them; - Peter, instead of confirming his brothers, would be confirmed by them in his faith.

Dogma is therefore as old as the Gospel itself.

But in the past, was this infallibility also recognised by the Church?

It has always been recognised in a more or less express way, both in its teaching and in its practice. The Popes have given their definitions, as infallible, immutable and without appeal; the Holy Fathers, Bishops, the whole Church has always venerated the infallible authority of the chair of Peter in the teaching of his successors, although it was not yet defined as a dogma of faith.

Why then did the Church not define this infallibility of the Pope earlier?

Earlier, there was no need: it is nowadays that this definition has become appropriate. This dogma (like that of the Immaculate Conception of Mary) went through three distinct phases. First, it has been accepted for centuries, especially in practice, simply, without discussion or research. Then came a period of doubts and controversies, of opposition within the very bosom of the Church, on the part of the faithful who were called Gallicans: but the Church, with an energy mixed with sweetness, never ceased to push back this error anyway and to clarify more and more the truth, until the moment when she believed she had to finally define it solemnly. - From now on, for all Catholics, it is a truth of faith.

But are not faith and faith always the same?

The sun is also always the same in itself; but, in relation to us, its light grows until noon. The infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff was always in itself a truth but, in relation to us, it gradually developed its light, until the Vatican Council, where it reached by its dogmatic definition the highest degree of its splendour. And, therefore, denying the infallibility of the Pope has always been a mistake, but it was not a heresy, as it would be today, because the Church had not sufficiently proposed it to our faith, as revealed truth from God, as it has just done in this Council, the first to meet since the great controversies rose on this subject.

But also this Vatican Council will be the last of the councils. Indeed, if it is of faith that the Pope is inherently infallible and can decide questions of doctrine from his apostolic authority alone, what is the use of new councils?

Councils may still be necessary for many reasons; but this necessity will never be absolute: and it should be so for the good of the Church. And, in fact, before this definition, the Popes, without a Council, when it was necessary, defined truths and condemned errors. And, especially in our days, where error runs and spreads with such rapidity, it is a great advantage that, in order to see it infallibly condemned and the truth proclaimed with the certainty of faith, we are not obliged to wait (how long, God knows) for the meeting of a Council or the assent of the Bishops dispersed from the whole Church, and that the voice of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Pastor and Universal Doctor, suffices.

Yet it is said that in this Council the bishops shed their authority to give the Pope a new authority?

A new authority? But the Council gave him absolutely nothing. This authority the Pope both had and exercised, and the whole Church recognised it in fact. The Council by its definition confined itself to solemnly recognising, as a dogma of faith, the infallible authority that Jesus Christ himself gave to the Pope. Nothing new was therefore given to the Pope, nothing taken from the divine authority of the bishops, either dispersed in their dioceses or gathered in Council. There is nothing new except the solemn definition of the old Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope.

III - WHAT SHOULD WE MEAN BY INFILLIBILITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS?

I would now like to know more precisely in which matters the Pope is infallible.

I have already told you: he is infallible in matters concerning faith and manners; just as it has always been said that the Church is infallible in the teaching of faith and morals, so is the Pope.

Very good; but with these words faith and morality, the meaning of which is so extensive, do we not run the risk of widening the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Church and of bringing it out of its own sphere?

This very assistance of the Holy Ghost who produces Infallibility, also makes it possible that it can never go out of its sphere, which would be the grossest of errors. How infallible is someone who misunderstands himself to the point of deciding more than he ought! How infallible is a doctor who cannot distinguish the subjects of his competence from those which escape him, or who, knowing it, arrogates to himself an infallible authority which he does not have!

The teaching of the Church has always been kept within the limits of faith and morals: here, fact can never be opposed to law.

Well! Let us see how, in fact, the Church and the Pope have exercised this divine authority in their teaching.

They have embraced in their teaching everything that relates to the things that we must believe or practice in order to achieve eternal salvation. Above all, the articles of faith expressly revealed; then the truths more or less linked to Christian faith and morality and consequently to eternal salvation. Thus, in fact as in law, it is for the doctrinal authority of the Church or of the Pope (which is all one) to condemn not only the declared heresies, but also the errors which, more or less, affect faith and morals; consequently to condemn books, propositions, opinions which claim to be scientific, educational maxims, political principles which are in opposition to faith or morals; to condemn certain sects or societies as illicit or immoral, and on the contrary to approve religious orders as pious and good; to judge the truth of the virtues and to canonise the saints; to admit or reject certain doctrines which concern the general good, the rights and the discipline of the Church of Jesus Christ. All of this is linked to faith and morals and therefore falls under the Infallibility of the Church or the Pope.

But this is really excessive! ... And who then explains Infallibility in the doctrines relating to faith and manners?

The Church herself by her actions. Is it true, yes or no, that the Church, that the Popes believed themselves authorised to pass on all these subjects a judgment of infallible truth, and consequently an irrefutable sentence, which requires the assent of all the faithful? ? If the Pope has defined anything, in his capacity as universal teacher of the Church, the Pope has spoken with the special assistance of the Holy Ghost; therefore he did not exceed the limits of his authority; therefore the points he defined, all have some connection with revealed truths, with faith or morals.

But what if someone does not see this connection?

If anyone does not see this relationship so easy to see, let him blame his weak judgment and not the Pope. Otherwise the fault would have to fall on the Holy Ghost, who could not have assisted him. So instead of saying that the Pope talks about what does not concern him, the person should be careful not to talk about what he does not know. How many ignorant people these days speak theology while pretending to lecture the Pope!

It seems, however, that the Pope wants to advance on the free ground of science and reason; Would not he then be liable to take the wrong path and fall into error?

Rather, it is science and reason which penetrate into the domain of religion, faith, and morality, and come up against some of its dogmas. Then the Church and the Pope shout: "Back, reckless, step back, reckless! And so, when the Pope condemns some errors of reason and of so-called science, he always remains at his post in the field of Religion.

What will you say when the Pope, under the pretext of his infallibility, wants to enter even into politics? Are not independent?

Even independent of God, of morality, of justice? What a fine policy that would be! The Pope, as well as individuals, has the right to teach morality to nations and governments, to condemn false principles, even in politics, and also the erroneous maxims of our modern societies, when it concerns religion, that is to say, as we have repeated so often, faith and morals.

And then, with this infallibility, the Pope will one day be able to pass a sentence of deposition against an excommunicated sovereign, release his subjects from the oath of fidelity, and bring us back to the Middle Ages?

What has infallibility to do with the deposition of sovereigns? It is authority which was at stake and not Infallibility, when certain spiritual acts of the Pope (excommunication for example) produced spiritual and political effects admitted and recognized by princes and peoples, and passed into law public of Christian nations, Infallibility had nothing to do with it.

One thing is Infallibility, or if you prefer, authority in education, and another thing else is supreme authority in government. Infallibility is always the same; authority, although fundamentally also always the same, in its applications, in its extension to civil and political effects, in its mode, in its forms, depends on circumstances and times.

Those, then, who raise these political difficulties against Infallibility, confuse different things and times; and they do so on purpose to confuse the question and thus make Infallibility abhorrent to modern society. But society should keep silent: the Popes these days do not think of deposing the sovereigns ... It is the secret societies and the revolutions that take care of it, with the help of what they call the sovereignty of the people. So let us not get out of the question: that would take us too far. To tell the truth, after the catechism on Infallibility, it is still a whole catechism that we need on the authority of the Pope, about which we have, in our days, so very much unreasoned.

IV- HISTORICAL AND RATIONAL DIFFICULTIES

You explained to me well what the Infallibility of the Pope is and what it is not: what it embraces and what is outside of it, and you have solved some of the objections to it. - I want to submit a few more to you, to make sure that you are in a good position to respond to all the errors that are being propagated on this subject. - What would you say to someone who told you that God alone is infallible and that everyone is subject to error?

Certainly God alone is infallible by his nature: but it is precisely he, this infallible God who, according to his promises, assists his Vicar to preserve him from error, and communicate to him a ray of his infallibility. This is how God alone can work miracles; alone he sees the future; and yet countless saints, by a special gift, still worked miracles and prophesied.

All in good time! But the argument still remains that every man is subject to error and so must the Pope?

When he speaks like a man, yes; when he speaks like Pope, in the name of God, no! for then it is not the man, it is God who speaks through his mouth. We must always come back to this promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, of the Spirit of Truth, to understand that the Pope cannot fall into error when he teaches faith and morals to the Church.

But you yourself have granted that the Pope is not impeccable; in short, the Pope is a man and subject to all human weaknesses. Could it not therefore happen that by dictating a definition of faith or morality he allowed himself to be guided by some passion, or that he put caprice and lightness in his teaching?

No; for God, who has promised the Pope infallibility, can only allow out of passion, out of whim, out of study, that he never make an erroneous definition. We always come back to this point: infallibility does not depend on the virtue or the science of man; it depends on the assistance of God, who does not however exclude the study and research of Theology.

Very good: but there is no reasoning that can prevail over the facts. Your reasons are excellent: nevertheless history is there to show that, despite their infallibility, some Popes have fallen into error.

Have they fallen into error in giving the Church teachings on faith or morals! ... Oh! no! Never!! - This is the point. Everything that has been said and repeated about other falls, other Popes' misunderstandings, true or false, has nothing to do with the question at hand. Among all these definitions, emanating from the Popes, we are looking for a false definition, a definition concerning morality or faith which had to be retracted or reformed by its author himself, or by his successors or by the Church: we will not find it. You discover in history some feature which accuses the conduct of the Popes; but a fact, a single fact which goes against their infallibility in doctrinal definitions in matters of faith or manners, this fact is yet to be discovered and demonstrated. History therefore provides us with magnificent confirmation of the doctrine of infallibility recently defined by the Vatican Council.

V- PRACTICAL CONCLUSION

Now the definition is made. The only thing left for Catholics to do is bow; but was this definition good or bad? ... And first, was there a need to make it?

Not only was it needed, but it was a real need. After all the noise that had been made against the infallibility of the Pope, the definition of the truth was not only timely, it became absolutely necessary. And, even apart from that consideration, it was in many ways very timely and useful for the good of the Church. Before the definition, it could be discussed in good faith; but today the question of its desirability is decided, as well as that of its truth. The Council, assisted by the Holy Ghost, has spoken: who will dare to say that it has undoubtedly defined an important dogma revealed by God, but that it would have done more prudently to be silent and allow the error to spread?

However, this blessed definition has given rise to discord and contradictions. See the conduct of certain governments, see the sect of these new heretics who call themselves Old Catholics?

Too bad for them; it is their fault. It is only too true that scandals must occur to distinguish true Catholics from false ones. Other councils too and other definitions have raised even more violent contradictions, and even more formidable revolts. Jesus Christ was greeted in the Temple by the holy old man Simeon as a sign of contradiction: so it is with his Vicar here below. The fault is entirely with those who turn to their ruin a definition which, for them too, would have been an instrument of salvation if they had known how to bow humbly before her, instead of breaking their heads against the stone that Jesus Christ himself, for the good of his Church, laid down in its foundations.

Yes, Infallibility is a beautiful privilege for one who is charged with teaching the truth to the world: but it weighs heavily on those who must submit to its definitions.

Do not speak like this. It was not for his own benefit that the Pope received Infallibility, but for the good of the faithful. And is it not indeed an invaluable good for the world to have a pulpit of truth, an infallible authority which teaches it faith and morals?

So be it! But by giving so much relief to this infallible principle of authority, are you suppressing the freedom of science, the freedom of progress, the freedom of modern civilisation, the freedom of reason?

So leave all these freedoms there! This is the license and the license for the error. Does this license seem good to you? And is it not, on the contrary, a great good for science, for progress, for civilisation to have a living doctor, who, in the name of God, fights error and teaches the truth about all that touches on faith and morals. And certainly, that this has been solemnly defined, it is an immense advantage for faith and for reason, for individuals and for peoples, for the Church and for society as a whole.

I understand that the definition being carried, all that remains is to submit to the Pope's decisions out of love or by force.

For love, only for love! The obedience of Catholics to the teachings of the Pope must be whole, spontaneous, affectionate, filial. The definition of infallibility obliges us to thank God, who has given us an infallible Pastor in faith and in morality; to the gratitude towards the Council which made us better know this great blessing of God; to submission, to devotion, to love towards the Pope and the chair of Saint Peter, which is the chair of truth; finally, to a special love for Pius IX, the infallible Pontiff of the Immaculate Virgin, who, after having glorified Mary by defining her Immaculate Conception, saw the Vatican Council define papal infallibility.

These are the fruits that with the grace of God I hope to have gathered instruction that I heard about the Infallibility of the Pope.

Imprimatur : E. A. Archpus Quebecen.