# Petri Privilegium/III/Appendix 5

Layout 2
V.
RULES LAID DOWN BY THEOLOGIANS FOR DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS.
Question.—What are the characters and marks whereby we may know whether a proposition can be submitted to the authoritative judgment of the Catholic magisterium, or in other words, whether a proposition be definable as de fide?
Answer.—In the answer distinction was made between that which was sufficient in order to come to a definition, and that which was not necessary for that purpose.
With respect to that which was not necessary, the following four points were established unanimously.
1. It is not necessary, that antecedently there should not have been a variety of opinions in the Catholic Church, and that all should have agreed in that which is to be defined.
This is manifest from the ancient controversy long ago decided on re-baptism, although many bishops held the opposite opinion. This is also confirmed by the practice of the church, which many times has permitted the profession of opposite opinions, provided there has been a willingness to submit to any decision that might be made. This practice supposes that points may be defined, about which Catholics have been permitted to think and dispute freely.
2. It is not necessary that no writers of authority should be cited for an opinion contrary to that which is to be defined. This is manifest from the history of the dogmas successively defined; and in this place it will be sufficient to observe, that the Council of Trent (sess. vi. can. 23) did not hesitate to affirm as the faith of the church, that the most Holy Virgin Mother of God had never committed any even venial sin, although it is certain that grave doctors and Fathers wrote otherwise.
3. It is not necessary to cite texts, either implicit or explicit, from Holy Scripture, since it is manifest that the extent of ​revelation is greater than that of Holy Scripture. Thus, it has been defined, for example, that even infants may and ought to be baptized, that Christ our Lord is wholly contained and received under one species of the most Holy Eucharist, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, although theologians do not produce texts either implicit or explicit from Scripture in which such dogmas are taught.
4. Lastly, it is not necessary to have a series of fathers and testimonies reaching to apostolic times, in order to prove that such a proposition belongs to apostolic tradition. With respect to this, it was observed, that the assertion of such a necessity rests upon false hypotheses, and is refuted by the most palpable facts.
The false hypotheses are,
a. That all doctrine preached from the beginning has been committed to writing by the fathers.
b. That all the monuments of antiquity have come down to us.
c. That the entire object of faith has always been distinctly conceived and formally expressed;
d. That subsequent tradition may differ from the preceding;
e. That it cannot be legitimately concluded from the fact that a doctrine is held in any age, that the same doctrine was never denied by the majority, and that it was at least implicitly believed by the greater number.
The facts that refute such a necessity are manifold, but it suffices to mention the definition of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of the Lateran Synod under Martin I. or the dogmatical letters of St. Leo and St. Agatho, in which appeal is made to the faith of the fathers and to tradition, and where there appears to be no anxiety to produce testimonies of the first three centuries, on the contrary, authors are quoted, who in those times were of recent date.
Having thus laid down by common agreement that which was not necessary, they passed on to discuss what was sufficient in order that an opinion should be defined as an article of faith.
The five following characters were proposed and decided upon as being sufficient.
I. A certain number of grave testimonies containing the controverted proposition.
This after thorough discussion was unanimously acknowledged to be a sufficient character, and it was said that to deny it would be going against the councils, the dogmatic bulls of pontiffs, and the economy of the church itself. Thus with a certain number ​of such, testimonies referred to in the acts of the councils, it is easily seen how the fathers proceeded to a definition at Ephesus against Nestorius, in the sixth council against the Monothelites, and in the seventh against the Iconoclasts.
II. One or more revealed principles in which is contained the proposition in question.
Upon this also the consultors were unanimous, and they moreover said that the production of such principles would be equivalent to a virtual and immediate revelation. Thus, from the revealed principle that Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man, it follows as revealed that Jesus Christ has two wills: also, in the revealed principle that God is One and the Divine Persons three, and that all in God is one except where the relation of origin intervenes, it is also revealed that the Holy Ghost can only proceed from the Father and the Son as from one principle of spiration.
III. The intimate nexus of the dogmas, or, what is the same thing, that a proposition must be believed to be revealed, from the denial of which the falsity of one or more articles of faith would necessarily and immediately follow.
The consultors were unanimous on this point, agreeing that such a character was equivalent to a virtual and immediate revelation. Thus, when it is established that some sins are mortal, and that not every sin is incompatible with a state of grace, it necessarily follows that the distinction between mortal and venial sins is a revealed doctrine. So also from the fact that the Sacraments produce their effect ex opere operato and that Jesus Christ is the primary minister of them, it follows as virtually and immediately revealed, that the effect of the Sacraments does not depend upon the virtue or malice of the secondary minister.
IV. The concordant testimony of the existing episcopate.
The consultors with regard to this were again unanimous, and it was said that to deny the sufficiency of this character was to contradict the promises of our Lord, and the constant practice of the fathers in proving the articles of faith. Thus, Irenæus, Tertullian, Augustine, and Fulgentius, in order to put an end to controversies, considered it sufficient to ascertain the faith of the Sees and more especially of the chief ones.
V. The practice of the Church.
That this point would afford sufficient evidence to proceed to a definition, was likewise unanimously affirmed by the consultors.