Denzinger EN 2597
[From the Epistle, "Deessemus nobis," to the Bishop of Motula, Sept. 16, 1788]
2598 1500a It is not unknown to us that there are some, who, attributing too much to the authority of the secular princes, and captiously interpreting the words of this canon [see n. 982], have undertaken to defend this: That, since the Tridentine Fathers did not make use of this form of speaking, "to ecclesiastical judges alone," or, "all matrimonial cases,"-- they (the Tridentine Fathers) have left to lay judges the power of at least invest) gating matrimonial cases which are of pure fact. But we know that even this sophism and this false kind of quibbling are devoid of all foundation. For the words of the canon are so general that they embrace and comprise all cases. Moreover, the spirit or purpose of the law extends so widely that it leaves no place for exception or limitation. For if these cases pertain to the tribunal of the Church alone for no other reason than because the marriage contract is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, then, just as this notion of the sacrament is common to all matrimonial cases, so all these cases ought to pertain to the ecclesiastical judges alone.
[Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794]
[A.Errors about the Church *
[From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]
2601 Dz 1501 1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"-- heretical.
2602 Dz 1502
2. The proposition which states "that power has been given by God to the Church, that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls"; if thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry and of rule is derived from the COMMUNITY of the faithful to the pastors,--heretical.
[ Decree de fide( on faith), sec. 8]
2603 Dz 1503 3. In addition, the proposition which states "that the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head," if it is so explained that the Roman Pontiff does not receive from Christ in the person of blessed Peter, but from the Church, the power of ministry, which as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church he possesses in the universal Church,--heretical. *
[ Decree de fide, sees. 13, 14 ]
2604 Dz 1504 4. The proposition affirming, "that it would be a misuse of the authority of the Church, when she transfers that authority beyond the limits of doctrine and of morals, and extends it to exterior matters, and demands by force that which depends on persuasion and love"; and then also, "that it pertains to it much less, to demand by force exterior obedience to its decrees"; in so far as by those undefined words, "extends to exterior matters," the proposition censures as an abuse of the authority of the Church the use of its power received from God, which the apostles themselves used in establishing and sanctioning exterior discipline--heretical.
2605 Dz 1505 5. In that part in which the proposition insinuates that the Church "does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion; in so far as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power, not only of directing by counsel and persuasion, but also of ordering by laws, and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments" [from Benedict XIV in the Brief, "Ad assiduas," of the year 1755, to the Primate, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Kingdom of Poland ],--leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical.
[ Decree de ord., sec. 25 ]
2606 Dz 1506 6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church, -- schismatic, at least erroneous.
2607 Dz 1507 7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,--leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
2608 Dz 1508 8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,--leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous.
2609 Dz 1509 9. The doctrine which states, that "the reformation of abuses in regard to ecclesiastical discipline ought equally to depend upon and be established by the bishop and the parish priests in diocesan synods, and that without the freedom of decision, obedience would not be due to the suggestions and orders of the bishops,'' * --false, rash, harmful to episcopal authority, subversive of hierarchic government, favoring the heresy of Aerius, which was renewed by Calvin [cf. Benedict XIV De Syn. dioc.(concerning diocesan synods), 13. 1].
[From the Episcopal Convocation. From the Epistle to the Vic. For. From the Oration to the Synod, sec. 8.
From session 3.]
2610 Dz 1510 10. Likewise, the doctrine by which parish priests and other priests gathered in a synod are declared judges of faith together with the bishop, and at the same time it is intimated that they are qualified for judgment in matters of faith by their own right and have indeed received it by ordination,--false, rash, subversive of hierarchic order, detracting from the strength of dogmatic definitions or judgments of the Church, at least erroneous.
Oration to the Synod, sec. 8 ]
2611 Dz 1511 11. The opinion enunciating that by the long-standing practice of our ancestors, handed down even from apostolic times, preserved through the better ages of the Church, it has been accepted that "decrees, or definitions, or opinions even of the greater sees should not be accepted, unless they had been recognized and approved by the diocesan synod,"-- false, rash, derogatory, in proportion to its generality, to the obedience due to the apostolic constitutions, and also to the opinions emanating from the legitimate, superior, hierarchic power, fostering schism and heresy.
2612 Dz 1512 12. The assertions of the synod, accepted as a whole concerning decisions in the matter of faith which have come down from several centuries, which it represents as decrees originating from one particular church or from a few pastors, unsupported by sufficient authority, formulated for the corruption of the purity of faith and for causing disturbance, introduced by violence, from which wounds, still too recent, have been inflicted, -- false, deceitful, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Roman Pontiffs and the Church, derogatory to the obedience due to the Apostolic Constitutions, schismatic, dangerous, at least erroneous.
[Oration to the Synod, sec. 2 in the note ]
2613 Dz 1513 13. The proposition reported among the acts of the synod, which intimates that Clement IX restored peace to the Church by the approval of the distinction of right and deed in the subscription to the formulary written by Alexander VII (see n. 1099 ),--false, rash, injurious to Clement IX.
2614 Dz 1514
14. In so far as it approves that distinction by extolling its supporters with praise and by berating their opponents,--rash, pernicious, injurious to the Supreme Pontiffs, fostering schism and heresy.
[ Appendix n. 28]
2615 Dz 1515 15. The doctrine which proposes that the Church "must be considered as one mystical body composed of Christ, the head, and the faithful, who are its members through an ineffable union, by which in a marvelous way we become with Him one sole priest, one sole victim, one sole perfect adorer of God the Father, in spirit and in truth," understood in this sense, that no one belongs to the body of the Church except the faithful, who are perfect adorers in spirit and in truth,--heretical.
[B. Errors about justification, Grace, the Virtues]
[Grace, sees. 4, 7: the sacraments in general, sec. 1; penance, sec. 4 ]
2616 Dz 1516 16. The doctrine of the synod about the state of happy innocence, such as it represents it in Adam before his sin, comprising not only integrity but also interior justice with an inclination toward God through love of charity, and primeval sanctity restored in some way after the fall; in so far as, understood comprehensively, it intimates that that state was a consequence of creation, due to man from the natural exigency and condition of human nature, not a gratuitous gift of God, false, elsewhere condemned in Baius [see n. 1001 ff.], and in Quesnel [see n. 1384 ff.], erroneous, favorable to the Pelagian heresy.
2617 Dz 1517 17. The proposition stated in these words: "Taught by the Apostle, we regard death no longer as a natural condition of man, but truly as a just penalty for original guilt," since, under the deceitful mention of the name of the Apostle, it insinuates that death, which in the present state has been inflicted as a just punishment for sin by the just withdrawal of immortality, was not a natural condition of man, as if immortality had not been a gratuitous gift, but a natural condition,--deceitful, rash, injurious to the Apostle, elsewhere condemned [see n. 1078 ].
[On Grace, see.10]
2618 Dz 1518 18. The doctrine of the synod stating that "after the fall of Adam, God announced the promise of a future Redeemer and wished to console the human race through hope of salvation, which Jesus was to bring"; nevertheless, "that God willed that the human race should pass through various states before the plenitude of time should come"; and first, that in the state of nature "man, left to his own lights, would learn to distrust his own blind reason and would move himself from his own aberrations to desire the aid of a superior light"; the doctrine, as it stands, is deceitful, and if understood concerning the desire of the aid of a superior light in relation to the salvation promised through Christ, that man is supposed to have been able to move himself to conceive this desire by his own proper lights remaining after the fall, -- suspected, favorable to the Semipelagian heresy.
2619 Dz 1519 19. Likewise, the doctrine which adds that under the Law man "became a prevaricator, since he was powerless to observe it, not indeed by the fault of the Law, which was most sacred, but by the guilt of man, who, under the Law, without grace, became more and more a prevaricator"; and it further adds, "that the Law, if it did not heal the heart of man, brought it about that he would recognize his evil, and, being convinced of his weakness, would desire the grace of a mediator"; in this part it generally intimates that man became a prevaricator through the nonobservance of the Law which he was powerless to observe, as if "He who is just could command something impossible, or He who is pious would be likely to condemn man for that which he could not avoid" (from St. Caesarius Serm. 73, in append., St. Augustine, Serm. 273, edit. Maurin; from St. August., De nat, et "rat., e. 43; De "rat. et lib. arb., e.16, Enarr. in psalm. 56, n. I),--false scandalous, impious, condemned in Baius (see n. 1504).
2620 Dz 1520 20. In that part in which it is to be understood that man, while under the Law and without grace, could conceive a desire for the grace of a Mediator related to the salvation promised through Christ, as if "grace itself does not effect that He be invoked by us" (from Conc. Araus. II, can. 3 [ v. n. 176]),--the proposition as it stands, deceitful, suspect, favorable to the Semipelagian heresy.
[ Grace, sec. 11 ]
2621 Dz 1521 21. The proposition which asserts "that the light of grace, when it is alone, effects nothing but to make us aware of the unhappiness of our state and the gravity of our evil; that grace, in such a case, produces the same effect as the Law produced: therefore, it is necessary that God create in our heart a sacred love and infuse a sacred delight contrary to the love dominating in us; that this sacred love, this sacred delight is properly the grace of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of charity by which, when it is perceived, we act by a sacred love; that this is that root from which grow good works; that this is the grace of the New Testament, which frees us from the servitude of sin, makes us sons of God"; since it intimates that that alone is properly the grace of Jesus Christ, which creates in the heart a sacred love, and which impels us to act, or also, by which man, freed from the slavery of sin, is constituted a son of God; and that that grace is not also properly the grace of Jesus Christ, by which the heart of man is touched through an illumination of the Holy Spirit (TRID. sess. 6, C. 5 [see n. 797 ]), and that no true interior grace of Christ is given, which is resisted,--false, deceitful, leading to the error condemned in the second proposition of Jansen as heretical, and renewing it [see n. 1093].
[Faith, sec. I]
2622 Dz 1522 22. The proposition which declares that faith, "from which begins the series of graces, and through which, as the first voice, we are called to salvation and to the Church": is the very excellent virtue itself of faith by which men are called and are the faithful; just as if that grace were not prior, which "as it precedes the will, so it precedes faith also" (from St. August., De dono persev., c. 16, n. 41),--- suspected of heresy, and savoring of it, elsewhere condemned in Quesnel [see n. 1377], erroneous.
[Grace, sec. 8]
2623 Dz 1523 23. The doctrine of the synod about the twofold love of dominating cupidity and of dominating charity, stating that man without grace is under the power of sin, and that in that state through the general influence of the dominating cupidity he taints and corrupts all his actions; since it insinuates that in man, while he is under the servitude or in the state of sin, destitute of that grace by which he is freed from the servitude of sin and is constituted a son of God, cupidity is so dominant that by its general influence all his actions are vitiated in themselves and corrupted; or that all his works which are done before justification, for whatsoever reason they may be done, are sins; as if in all his acts the sinner is a slave to the dominating cupidity,--false, dangerous, leading into the error condemned by the Tridentine Council as heretical, again condemned in Baius, art. 40 [see n. 817, 1040 ].
2624 Dz 1524 24. But in this part, indeed, no intermediate affections are placed between the dominating cupidity and the dominating charity, planted by nature itself and worthy of praise because of their own nature, which, together with love of the beatitude and a natural inclination to good "have remained as the last outline and traces of the image of God" (from St. August., De spirit. et litt., c. 28); just as if "between the divine love which draws us to the kingdom, and illicit human love which is condemned, there should not be given a licit human love which is not censured" (from St. August., Serm. 349 de ear., edit. Maurin), -- false, elsewhere condemned [see n. 1038, 1297].
[On Penance, sec. 3]
2625 Dz 1525 25. The doctrine which in general asserts that the fear of punishment "cannot be called evil if it, at least, prevails to restrain the hand"; as if the fear itself of hell, which faith teaches must be imposed on sin, is not in itself good and useful as a supernatural gift, and a motion inspired by God preparing for the love of justice,--false, rash, dangerous, injurious to the divine gifts, elsewhere condemned [see n. 746], contrary to the doctrine of the Council of Trent [see n. 798, 898], and to the common opinion of the Fathers, namely "that there is need," according to the customary order of preparation for justice, "that fear should first enter, through which charity will come; fear is a medicine, charity is health" (from S. August., In  epist. Io. c Io. 4,9; in Io. evang., tract, 41,10; Enarr. in psalm. 127,7; Serm. 157 de verbis Apost, 13 161; de verbis Apost. 8; Serm. 349 de caritate, 7).
[Baptism, sec. 3]
2626 Dz 1526 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,--false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
[C. Errors] about the Sacraments, and First about the Sacramental Form with a Condition Attached
[Baptism, sec. 12]
2627 Dz 1527 27. The deliberation of the synod which, under pretext of clinging to ancient canons in the case of doubtful baptism, declares its intention of omitting mention of the conditional form, -- rash, contrary to practice, to the law, to the authority of the Church.
[The Eucharist, sec. 6]
2628 Dz 1528 28. The proposition of the synod in which, after it states that "a partaking of the victim is an essential part in the sacrifice," it adds, "nevertheless, it does not condemn as illicit those Masses in which those present do not communicate sacramentally, for the reason that they do partake of the victim, although less perfectly, by receiving it spiritually," since it insinuates that there is something lacking to the essence of the sacrifice in that sacrifice which is performed either with no one present, or with those present who partake of the victim neither sacramentally nor spiritually, and as if those Masses should be condemned as illicit, in which, with the priest alone communicating, no one is present who communicates either sacramentally or spiritually,--false, erroneous, suspected of heresy and savoring of it.
[The Eucharist, sec. 2]
2629 Dz 1529 29. The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: I) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith [see n. 877, 884], and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith [see n. 997]; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,--dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics.
[The Eucharist, sec. 8]
2630 Dz 1530 30. The doctrine of the synod, by which, while it professes "to believe that the oblation of the sacrifice extends itself to all, in such a way, however, that in the liturgy there can be made a special commemoration of certain individuals, both living and dead, by praying God specially for them," then it immediately adds: "Not, however, that we should believe that it is in the will of the priest to apply the fruit of the sacrifice to whom He wishes, rather we condemn this error as greatly offending the rights of God, who alone distributes the fruit of the sacrifice to whom He wishes and according to the measure which pleases Him"; and consequently, from this it derides "as false the opinion foisted on the people that they who give alms to the priest on the condition that he celebrate a Mass will receive from it special fruit"; thus understood, that besides the special commemoration and prayer a special offering itself, or application of the Sacrifice which is made by the priest does not benefit, other things being equal, those for whom it is applied more than any others, as if no special fruit would come from a special application, which the Church recommends and commands should be made for definite persons or classes of persons, especially by pastors for their flock, and which, as if coming down from a divine precept, has been clearly expressed by the sacred synod of Trent (sees. 23, c. I De reform; BENED. XIV, Constit. "Cum semper oblatas," sec. 2),--false, rash, dangerous, injurious to the Church, leading into the error elsewhere condemned in Wycliffe [see n 599].
[The Eucharist, sec. 5]
2631 Dz 1531
31. The proposition of the synod enunciating that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine services and ancient custom that there be only one altar in each temple, and therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom,--rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, especially in the Latin Church.
2632 Dz 1532 32. Likewise, the prescription forbidding cases of sacred relics or flowers being placed on the altar, -- rash, injurious to the pious and approved custom of the Church.
Ibid., sec. 6]
2633 Dz 1533 33. The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,--rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.
[Penance, sec. 7]
2634 Dz 1534 34. The declaration of the synod by which, after it previously stated that the order of canonical penance had been so established by the Church, in accord with the example of the apostles that it was common to all, and not merely for the punishment of guilt, but especially for the disposition to grace, it adds that "it (the synod) recognizes in that marvelous and venerable order the whole dignity of so necessary a sacrament, free from the subtleties which have been added to it in the course of time"; as if, through the order in which without the complete course of canonical penance this sacrament has been wont to be administered, the dignity of the sacrament had been lessened,--rash, scandalous, inducing to a contempt of the dignity of the sacrament as it has been accustomed to be administered throughout the whole Church, injurious to the Church itself.
[Penance, sec. 10, n. 4]
2635 Dz 1535 35. The proposition conceived in these words: "If charity in the beginning is always weak, it behooves the priest, in obtaining an increase of this charity in the ordinary way, to make those acts of humiliation and penance which have been recommended in every age by the Church precede; to reduce those acts to a few prayers or to some fasting after absolution has already been conferred, seems to be a material desire of keeping for this sacrament the mere name of penance, rather than an illuminating and suitable means to increase that fervor of charity which ought to precede absolution; indeed we are far from blaming the practice of imposing penances to be fulfilled after absolution; if all our good works have our defects always joined to them, how much more ought we to fear lest we admit very many imperfections into the very difficult and very important work of our reconciliation"; since it implies that the penances which are imposed, to be fulfilled after absolution, are to be considered as a supplement for the defects admitted in the work of our reconciliation, rather than as truly sacramental penances and satisfactions for the sins confessed, as if, in order that the true reason for the sacrament, not the mere name, be preserved, it would be necessary that in the ordinary way the acts of humiliation and penance, which are imposed as a means of sacramental satisfaction, should precede absolution,-- false, rash, injurious to the common practice of the Church, leading to the error contained in the heretical note in Peter of Osma [see n. 728; cf. n. 1306 f.]
[Grace, sec. 15]
2636 Dz 1536 36. The doctrine of the synod, in which, after it stated that "when there are unmistakable signs of the love of God dominating in the heart of a man, he can deservedly be considered worthy of being admitted to participation in the blood of Jesus Christ, which takes place in the sacraments," it further adds, "that false conversions, which take place through attrition (incomplete sorrow for sins), are not usually efficacious nor durable," consequently, "the shepherd of souls must insist on unmistakable signs of the dominating charity before he admits his penitents to the sacraments"; which signs, as it (the decree) then teaches (sec. 17. "a pastor can deduce from a firm cessation of sin and from fervor in good works"; and this "fervor of charity," moreover, it prescribes De poenit. sec. 10) as the disposition which "should precede absolution"; so understood that not only imperfect contrition, which is sometimes called by the name of attrition, even that which is joined with the love with which a man begins to love God as the fountain of all justice [cf. n. 798], and not only contrition formed by charity, but also the fervor of a dominating charity, and that, indeed, proved by a long continued practice through fervor in good works, is generally and absolutely required in order that a man may be admitted to the sacraments, and penitents especially be admitted to the benefit of the absolution, -- false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, contrary to the safe and approved practice of the Church, detracting from the efficacy of the sacrament and injurious to it.
[Penance, sec. 10] n. 6]
2637 Dz 1537 37. The teaching of the synod, which declares concerning the authority for absolving received through ordination that "after the institution of dioceses and parishes, it is fitting that each one exercise this judgment over those persons subject to him either by reason of territory or some personal right," because "otherwise confusion and disturbance would be introduced"; since it declares that, in order to prevent confusion, after dioceses and parishes have been instituted, it is merely fitting that the power of absolving be exercised upon subjects; so understood, as if for the valid use of this power there is no need of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, without which the Tridentine Synod declares that absolution conferred by a priest is of no value,--false, rash, dangerous, contrary and injurious to the Tridentine Synod [see no. 903], erroneous.
[Ibid., sec. II]
2638 Dz 1538 38. Likewise, that teaching in which, after the synod professed that "it could not but admire that very venerable discipline of antiquity, which (as it says) did not admit to penance so easily, and perhaps never, that one who, after a first sin and a first reconciliation, had relapsed into guilt," it adds, that "through fear of perpetual exclusion from communion and from peace, even in the hour of death, a great restraint will be put on those who consider too little the evil of sin and fear it less," contrary to canon 13. of the first Council of Nicea [see n. 57], to the decretal of Innocent I to Exuperius Tolos [see n. 95], and then also to the decretal of Celestine I to the Bishops of Vienne, and of the Province of Narbon [see n. III], redolent of the viciousness at which the Holy Pontiff is horrified in that decretal.
[Penance, sec. 12]
2639 Dz 1539 39. The declaration of the synod about the confession of venial sins, which it does not wish, it says, to be so frequently resorted to, lest confessions of this sort be rendered too contemptible,--rash, dangerous, contrary to the practice of the saints and the pious which was approved [see n. 899] by the sacred Council of Trent.
[Penance, sec. 16]
2640 Dz 1540 40. The proposition asserting "that an indulgence, according to its precise notion, is nothing else than the remission of that part of the penance which had been established by the canons for the sinner"; as if an indulgence, in addition to the mere remission of the canonical penance, does not also have value for the remission of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for actual sins,---false, ras,, injurious to t to the merits of Christ, already condemned in article 19. of Luther [see n. 759].
2641 Dz 1541 41. Likewise, in this which is added, i.e., that "the scholastics, puffed up by their subtleties, introduced the poorly understood treasury of the merits of Christ and of the saints, and, for the clear notion of absolution from canonical penance, they substituted a confused and false notion of the application of merits"; as if the treasures of the Church, whence the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints,-- false, rash, injurious to the merits of Christ and of the saints, previously condemned in art. 17. of Luther [see n. 757; cf. n. 550 ff.].
2642 Dz 1542 42. Likewise, in this which it adds, that "it is still more lamentable that that fabulous application is meant to be transferred to the dead,"-- false, rash, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Roman Pontiffs and to the practice and sense of the universal Church, leading to the error fixed [cf. n. 729] in the heretical note in Peter of Osma, again condemned in article 22 of Luther [see n. 762].
2643 Dz 1543 43. In this, finally, that it most shamelessly inveighs against lists of indulgences, privileged altars, etc.,--rash, offensive to the ears of the pious, scandalous, abusive to the Supreme Pontiffs, and to the practice common in the whole Church.
Denzinger EN 2597