whoever believes the authority of the pope defining ex cathedrâ to be absolutely infallible, and does not believe in what he defines, without doubt errs in faith, and, should he obstinately persist in his error, would be a heretic. And I confidently assert that those who either deny the Roman Pontiff to have succeeded to Peter in authority of faith and teaching, or at least lay down that the supreme pastor of the Church can err in judgment on faith, bring into the Church what is pestilent and pernicious.'[1]
Toletus affirms: 'The Roman Pontiff, in his judgment on faith and morals, that is, while he judicially determines what is to be believed, or in morals what is to be done, cannot err. This conclusion is not one to be held (merely) as an opinion, but the opposite is a manifest error in faith, and Cano rightly says he does not doubt that, if it were proposed to a Council, it would be condemned as heresy.'[2]
Gonzalez sums up the doctrine of theologians as
- ↑ Censeo, qui absolute infallibilem esse Papæ ex Cathedrâ definientis auctoritatem, ac defmitis non credat, eum liaud dubie errare in fide; 'et si in errore obstinatus perse veret, hæreticum fore. Et fidenter assero, pestem eos Ecclesiæ, ac pernieiem afferre, qui aut negant Romanum Pontificem Petro in fidei doctrinæque auctoritate succedere, aut certe adstruunt, summum Ecclesiæ pastorem errare in fidei judicio posse.'—Macedo, Tessera Romana, quæst. v. art. 1.
- ↑ 'Romanus Pontifex in judicio fidei et morum, id est, dum determinat judicialiter credenda, aut per mores facienda, non potest errare. Non est ista conclusio opinative tenenda, sed opposita est error manifestus in fide: et dicit Cano bene, se non dubitare, si Concilio proponeretur, quòd damnaretur ut hæresis.'—Toletus, in Sec. Secund. S. Thom. quæst. 1, art. 10, contr. 8, concl. 15.
