secondly, a definition of the Infallibility of the Church, embodied in its immemorial and universal praxis, of which the stability of the faith of Peter, both in his See and in his Successor, is the primary and necessary condition. And as in the history of the Immaculate Conception a series of Pontifical prohibitions rendered less probable and less tenable the opposing doctrine, till the former prevailed and was solemnly defined, so with the infallibility of the Church and its Head.
First. In 1479 the proposition 'that the Church of the City of Rome may err,' was condemned in Peter de Osma by the Archbishop of Toledo as heretical; and this condemnation was confirmed in a bull by Sixtus IV.[1]
Secondly. The Articles of 1682 have been censured by Innocent XI., Alexander VIII., Innocent XII., and Pius VI., in the condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia.
Lastly. The proposition 'that the authority of the Roman Pontiff over Œcumenical Councils, and of his infallibility in questions of faith, is futile, and has been often refuted,' was condemned in 1688 by Alexander VIII.
We will first take so much evidence as the narrow limits of this Letter will allow, of the statement that, from the beginning of Christianity down to the times immediately preceding the Council of Constance—that is, for fourteen hundred years—the doctrine of the stability of the faith of Peter in his See and in
- ↑ Aguirre, Defensio Cathedræ S. Petri, tract, i. disp. xv. 45; and Roskovány, Romaims Pontifex, &c., tom. i. 630. Neitria. 1869.
