“Whatever the Roman Pontiffs Shall Hand Down”: Leo XIII, and the Demand to Surrender Judgment in Advance

Denzinger part 58

Among the many claims made by Pope Leo XIII in his 1885 encyclical Immortale Dei, reproduced in Denzinger 1866–1888 under the heading The Christian Constitution of States, one statement deserves particular attention because it reaches far beyond the immediate question of Church and State. In Denzinger 1880, Leo XIII declares:

“And so in such a difficult course of events, if Catholics give heed to us, as they ought, they will easily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as of action. And, indeed, in forming opinion, it is necessary to comprehend and hold with a firm judgment whatever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down, and to profess each publicly as often as occasion demands.”

He then continues:

“And specifically regarding the so-called liberties so sought after in recent times, it is necessary for everyone to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to have the same opinion as that held by it.”

This is the claim that must be examined.

The question is not whether Christians should listen respectfully to those who teach them, nor whether the Church should preserve sound doctrine against error. Scripture certainly commands believers to respect faithful teachers, to hold fast the apostolic faith, and to reject doctrines contrary to the gospel. The question is much more fundamental. Where does the New Testament teach that Christians must form their opinions according to whatever successive Roman Pontiffs have taught and shall teach in the future, and that they must possess the same opinion as the Apostolic See?

The most striking words are not merely “have handed down.” They are “and shall hand down.”

The Catholic believer is apparently required to place his judgment under the authority of teachings that have not yet even been pronounced. He cannot know in advance precisely what a future pope will teach, what historical circumstances will exist, what arguments will be employed, or whether a later pope will qualify, reformulate, or develop what an earlier pope said. Nevertheless, according to Denzinger 1880, the believer must be prepared beforehand to hold with firm judgment whatever the Roman Pontiffs “shall hand down.”

This is not the language of testing all things by a revealed standard already given. It is the language of advance submission to an office.

Yet this is not how the New Testament directs believers to approach claims of religious authority.

Paul writes:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”— 1 Thessalonians 5:21

John commands:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.”— 1 John 4:1

Luke commends the Bereans because:

“They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”— Acts 17:11

Most strikingly of all, Paul says:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”— Galatians 1:8

Paul does not exempt himself from examination merely because he is an apostle; how much less, then, should later bishops of Rome, who are not apostles and never possessed the unique foundational commission of the Twelve, be placed beyond examination or correction.

Paul does not say that believers must hold with firm judgment whatever he or another future apostle might subsequently pronounce. Instead, he places even himself beneath the authority of the gospel already delivered. If Paul himself were to preach another gospel, his apostolic position would not make the false gospel true.

This establishes an entirely different principle from that found in Denzinger 1880. In Scripture, the message does not become true because an officeholder teaches it. The teacher is faithful only insofar as he remains faithful to the truth already revealed.

Paul therefore warns:

“That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written.”— 1 Corinthians 4:6

The Christian conscience belongs first to God. The apostles themselves declared:

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”— Acts 5:29

The issue is therefore unavoidable. When Leo XIII says that Catholics must “hold with a firm judgment whatever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down,” by what scriptural authority does he require such advance submission?

Christ said:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”— John 10:27

He did not say, “My sheep must form their opinions according to whatever the Roman Pontiffs shall hand down.”

Christ said:

“If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.”— John 8:31

He did not say that discipleship consists in having the same opinion as the Apostolic See.

Christ prayed to His Father:

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”— John 17:17

The believer is sanctified by God's truth. The crucial question throughout the entire Denzinger series must therefore remain the same: Has the doctrine in question been demonstrated from the Word of God, or is the authority of the ecclesiastical institution being used as the reason why the doctrine must be believed?

The Apostles Never Required Believers to Accept Unknown Future Teachings in Advance

There is an important distinction between receiving apostolic doctrine and surrendering one's judgment beforehand to whatever an institutional successor may subsequently teach.

The apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, personally commissioned by Him and foundational to the Church:

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”— Ephesians 2:20

A foundation is laid once. The apostles did not present themselves as the beginning of an endless succession of men who could continually add new objects of required belief. Jude instead writes of:

“The faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”— Jude 3

Paul speaks of the gospel that had already been preached and received:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand.”— 1 Corinthians 15:1

John likewise directs believers backward to what had been heard “from the beginning”:

“Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning.”— 1 John 2:24

This is precisely why Denzinger 1880 raises such a serious question. Leo XIII does not merely command Catholics to preserve what Christ and His apostles delivered. He demands firm adherence to whatever Roman Pontiffs “shall hand down.”

The direction of authority has changed.

Scripture repeatedly directs believers back to Christ, the apostolic gospel, and the Word already given. Denzinger directs the believer forward towards pronouncements not yet made by future holders of an ecclesiastical office.

A Catholic defender may respond that future popes do not invent revelation but merely guard, interpret, and develop the apostolic deposit. That is the official Catholic claim, and it should be represented fairly. However, merely asserting that a future teaching belongs to the apostolic deposit does not prove that it does. The very question under dispute is who possesses the authority to determine whether a doctrine really comes from Christ and the apostles.

If the answer is that the Roman Magisterium itself determines what belongs to apostolic tradition, and Catholics must accept that determination because the Roman Magisterium possesses the authority to determine it, the argument becomes circular.

The Church is said to possess authority because Christ gave it authority. How is the nature and extent of that authority established? By the Church's own interpretation of Scripture and tradition. Who possesses the final authority to interpret those sources? The Church itself. Who must accept that interpretation? The faithful, because the Church says that Christ gave it that authority.

At no point may the institution itself be subjected to an authority above itself, because the institution claims final authority over the interpretation of the very sources by which its own authority must supposedly be demonstrated.

That is precisely why the Bereans matter. They did not accept Paul's preaching merely because Paul claimed apostolic authority. They:

“searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Luke calls them “more noble” for doing so.

“Have the Same Opinion as the Apostolic See”

Leo XIII goes beyond requiring respectful attention to papal teaching. He says:

“It is necessary for everyone to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to have the same opinion as that held by it.”

The official Vatican text of Immortale Dei confirms the substance of this language: regarding the controversial liberties of that age, Catholics were told to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See and “have the same mind.”

This raises another fundamental problem. Truth is not created by unanimity with Rome. A Christian cannot make the Apostolic See the final measure of his conscience unless it can first be demonstrated that Christ gave that see such universal authority.

The New Testament does not teach that every believer throughout the world must have the same opinion as the bishop of Rome.

Paul rebuked Peter openly:

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”— Galatians 2:11

Paul did not say that because Peter was Peter, the other apostles and believers were required to have the same opinion as he did. Peter's conduct was judged according to the truth of the gospel:

“But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel...”— Galatians 2:14

The standard was not the officeholder.

The standard was the truth.

Even if one argues that Peter was not teaching ex cathedra in Galatians 2, the passage still establishes an essential principle: an apostle's office did not place his conduct or judgment beyond examination. Peter could be wrong. Peter could influence others wrongly. Peter could be resisted publicly when he did not walk uprightly according to the gospel.

The New Testament repeatedly places Christ above every human leader:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”— 1 Corinthians 3:11

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”— 1 Timothy 2:5

“And he is the head of the body, the church.”— Colossians 1:18

The believer's faith does not rest upon possessing the same opinion as an ecclesiastical see. It rests upon Christ.

What Leo XIII Required Catholics to Believe and What Rome Later Taught

The tension becomes more serious when the subject of Denzinger 1880 is considered. Leo XIII was specifically discussing what he called the:

“so-called liberties so sought after in recent times.”

The surrounding section had already declared that unrestricted freedom of thinking and publicly expressing one's opinions was not to be numbered among the rights of citizens. It also argued that states could not simply disregard religious duties or place different religions upon the same footing. Leo XIII then insisted that Catholics must stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See concerning these liberties and “have the same opinion as that held by it.”

Yet in 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued Dignitatis Humanae, which declared:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.”

It defined this freedom as immunity from coercion by individuals, social groups, or human powers and said that this right should be recognised in constitutional law as a civil right.

The contrast is impossible to ignore.

In 1885, Catholics were told to distrust the “so-called liberties” of the age, stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and possess the same opinion as Rome. In 1965, the Catholic Church solemnly declared religious freedom to be a right founded upon the dignity of the human person and stated that this right should receive constitutional recognition as a civil right.

This must be stated carefully.

Dignitatis Humanae expressly claimed that it left untouched traditional Catholic doctrine concerning the moral duty of individuals and societies towards the true religion. The standard Catholic response is therefore that Vatican II did not reverse previous doctrine but developed it by distinguishing religious liberty from moral relativism and by defining religious liberty principally as immunity from civil coercion.

However, that defence does not remove every difficulty. It makes the problem in Denzinger 1880 more acute.

What exactly were Catholics in 1885 required to believe with a “firm judgment”? How much of Leo XIII's condemnation of modern liberties was permanent doctrine, and how much consisted of historically conditioned prudential judgments? How could the ordinary Catholic know the difference when he was simultaneously told that he must stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See and “have the same opinion” as Rome?

The modern Catholic Church itself now admits that not every magisterial judgment is irreformable. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in Donum Veritatis that some magisterial interventions involve “contingent and conjectural elements,” that certain prudential judgments may contain deficiencies, and that the passage of time may reveal a need for genuine doctrinal progress. It even acknowledges that theologians may experience serious, well-founded difficulties in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

This creates a serious tension with the sweeping language of Denzinger 1880.

Leo XIII said:

“It is necessary to comprehend and hold with a firm judgment whatever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down.”

Yet the modern Catholic system itself distinguishes between irreformable and non-irreformable teachings and acknowledges that some non-irreformable magisterial judgments may contain deficiencies or contingent elements that become clearer only with time.

Therefore, the obvious question must be asked: Why should the Christian surrender his judgment in advance to a future papal teaching that the Church itself may later acknowledge was non-irreformable, historically conditioned, deficient in some respect, or in need of doctrinal development?

This is not a trivial objection. It strikes at the very wording of Denzinger 1880.

The Modern Catholic Teaching on Conscience Creates a Further Tension

The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

It also teaches that the Word of God is the light by which conscience must be formed.

Yet the present Code of Canon Law still requires what it calls a “religious submission of the intellect and will” even towards certain teachings of the Roman Pontiff or College of Bishops that are not intended as definitive acts.

Therefore, the fundamental tension has not disappeared.

On the one hand, the believer is told that conscience must be formed by truth and that a person must obey the certain judgment of conscience. On the other hand, the Catholic is required to submit intellect and will to authentic magisterial teaching even where that teaching has not been defined irreformably.

The central question therefore remains: What happens when a sincere Christian, after examining Scripture, history, the actual arguments presented, and even earlier magisterial statements, becomes convinced that a non-irreformable papal teaching is wrong?

The New Testament answer is that no human teacher stands above the revealed truth of God.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

“Try the spirits whether they are of God.”

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

“Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you... let him be accursed.”

The biblical emphasis is never upon advance intellectual submission to whatever a future ecclesiastical officeholder may teach. It is upon faithfulness to God, Christ, the gospel, and the revealed Word.

Can a Supreme Ruler Be Bound by Previous Popes?

This brings us to an even deeper question. The Roman Pontiff is not merely presented in Catholicism as a teacher among teachers. The current Code of Canon Law declares that he possesses:

“supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.”

It further states that he is always able to exercise this power freely, that no appeal or recourse is permitted against his sentence or decree, and that:

“The First See is judged by no one.”

At the same time, the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus declared that when the pope speaks ex cathedra under the defined conditions concerning faith or morals, his definitions are irreformable “of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.”

Therefore, according to Catholic doctrine, a later pope cannot simply reverse a genuinely infallible ex cathedra definition of an earlier pope. If the earlier definition was truly protected from error by divine assistance and is irreformable in itself, then every subsequent pope must remain bound by it.

This produces a profound tension between papal monarchy and papal infallibility.

Strictly speaking, the two ideas are not a formal logical contradiction merely because they exist together. A monarch can possess supreme governmental authority while still being constrained by a constitution, divine law, natural law, or other fundamental principles. Therefore, it would be too simplistic to say that the mere existence of limits automatically means the pope cannot be described as a monarchical ruler.

However, the Catholic system creates a far deeper problem.

The pope possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal power. No appeal is permitted against his decrees. The First See is judged by no one. Yet simultaneously, the pope is said to be bound by every previous genuinely infallible definition and incapable of legitimately contradicting it.

Who, then, decides whether a later pope has contradicted an earlier infallible teaching?

Who judges the man whom canon law says no one can judge?

Who determines whether an apparent contradiction is a genuine contradiction, a development, a pastoral adjustment, a disciplinary change, a prudential judgment, or merely a difference in terminology?

The ordinary Catholic cannot finally decide, because the Magisterium claims authority to interpret its own teachings. A bishop cannot finally judge the pope, because the pope possesses primacy over the bishops. An ecumenical council cannot act independently of the pope, because under current canon law its decrees require papal confirmation to possess obligatory force.

Thus the same institution that claims irreformability also claims the final authority to determine whether change has occurred.

This creates an extraordinary accountability problem.

Suppose Pope A teaches a doctrine. Later, Pope B teaches something that appears inconsistent with it. The Catholic believer asks whether Pope A's teaching was infallible. The Magisterium answers. The believer asks whether Pope B contradicted Pope A.

The Magisterium answers.

The believer asks what constitutes legitimate development rather than reversal. The Magisterium answers. The believer asks who possesses final authority to interpret both popes. Again, the answer is the Magisterium itself.

The system becomes self-authenticating.

By contrast, the apostles constantly direct believers beyond themselves to the truth of God.

Paul did not say that his statements were irreformable simply because they came from Paul. He wrote under divine inspiration, but he simultaneously commanded believers not to accept another gospel even from himself.

Peter did not stand beyond correction. Paul withstood him to the face when he failed to walk according to the truth of the gospel.

John did not tell believers to accept every spiritual claim made by an authorised institution.

He said:

“Try the spirits whether they are of God.”

The Bereans were not condemned for examining apostolic preaching against Scripture. They were commended as noble.

The biblical pattern is therefore not an unaccountable monarch whose supreme authority interprets the boundaries of his own infallibility. The biblical pattern is Christ as the Head, the apostolic Word as the foundation, and every teacher accountable to the truth already revealed.

An Infallible Pope Cannot Be Free to Contradict an Infallible Pope

The difficulty becomes even sharper when papal succession is considered.

If Pope A makes a genuinely infallible definition, Pope B cannot contradict him. Neither can Pope C, Pope D, nor any later pope. The current pope is therefore not doctrinally sovereign over the entire past. He inherits a body of supposedly irreformable definitions which he is powerless to reverse.

This means that papal supremacy is necessarily limited by previous exercises of papal infallibility.

Again, this is not a formal contradiction if Catholic claims are carefully defined. Catholic theology would say that the pope has supreme power in governing the Church but does not possess power over revealed truth itself. He is the servant, not the creator, of revelation.

The real problem lies elsewhere. How can the faithful distinguish the immutable revelation from the changing ecclesiastical interpretation when the same institution claims final authority to define both?

This problem becomes especially visible whenever later teaching differs significantly in language, principle, or practical consequence from earlier teaching.

Religious liberty provides a particularly striking example. Leo XIII instructed Catholics to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See regarding the “so-called liberties” of modern society and to “have the same opinion” as Rome. Decades later, Vatican II declared religious liberty a right grounded in human dignity and demanded its recognition in constitutional law.

Catholic theology calls this development rather than contradiction.

But that answer itself depends upon accepting the Catholic Magisterium's authority to determine what counts as development rather than contradiction.

The institution claims the authority to teach. It claims the authority to determine the degree of authority possessed by its own teachings. It claims the authority to interpret earlier teachings. It claims the authority to explain later changes. It claims the authority to distinguish reformable from irreformable teaching. It claims that no appeal is permitted against the Roman Pontiff and that the First See is judged by no one.

The question is therefore no longer merely whether an individual pope can make a mistake.

The deeper question is whether Christ ever established this self-authenticating system in the first place.

Where in the New Testament did Christ say that the bishop of Rome would possess supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power over every Christian?

Where did Christ say that no appeal could be made against his decrees?

Where did Christ declare that the Roman See could be judged by no one?

Where did Christ teach that Catholics must possess the same opinion as that see?

Where did Christ command believers to hold with firm judgment not only what Roman Pontiffs had already taught, but whatever they “shall hand down” in future generations?

These claims cannot merely be proved by citing later papal decrees, councils, or canon law, because those are the very authorities whose legitimacy is under examination.

They must be demonstrated from Christ and the apostles.

Christ Never Demanded the Surrender of the Christian Mind to Future Popes

The New Testament demands obedience, but the object of ultimate obedience is God.

It demands faith, but the object of saving faith is Christ.

It demands submission to truth, but Christ says:

“Thy word is truth.”

It commands believers to hear faithful teachers, but it also commands:

“Prove all things.”

It warns against false teachers, false apostles, false prophets, false Christs, deceiving spirits, and doctrines of devils. The existence of religious office is never presented as an automatic guarantee of truth.

Paul warned the Ephesian elders themselves:

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”— Acts 20:30

The danger would arise from within the leadership of the Church itself.

That is why the believer must remain anchored to Christ and the apostolic Word:

“And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace.”— Acts 20:32

Paul did not commend them to an institution that would infallibly settle every future controversy. He commended them to God and to the Word of His grace.

The same principle appears throughout Scripture. Isaiah declares:

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”— Isaiah 8:20

Jesus repeatedly asks:

“Have ye not read?”

The decisive appeal is to what God has spoken.

Denzinger 1880 moves in another direction. It requires Catholics to “hold with a firm judgment whatever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down,” and to “have the same opinion” as the Apostolic See.

That is a tremendous demand upon the Christian conscience, and such a demand requires tremendous scriptural proof.

It is not enough for a pope to say that Catholics must obey popes. It is not enough for a council approved by a pope to define the powers of the pope. It is not enough for canon law promulgated under papal authority to declare that the pope possesses universal power and can be judged by no one.

The question remains whether Christ taught it.

The apostles did not command Christians to submit their judgment beforehand to unknown future ecclesiastical pronouncements. They commanded believers to hold fast the gospel already received, continue in the apostolic doctrine, test all things, try the spirits, search the Scriptures, and refuse even an angel from heaven if another gospel were preached.

The Christian conscience is not sovereign over God, because man is not the creator of truth. Neither, however, is the Christian conscience the property of Rome.

It belongs to God.

The Christian Is Bound to Christ Before He Is Bound to Any Man

Denzinger 1880 reveals something fundamental about the Roman Catholic system. The controversy is not merely about whether Pope Leo XIII was correct concerning nineteenth-century political liberties. The deeper issue is the authority claimed over the Christian mind itself.

Leo XIII declared:

“It is necessary to comprehend and hold with a firm judgment whatever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down, and shall hand down.”

He further required Catholics:

“to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to have the same opinion as that held by it.”

The New Testament never places such a demand upon believers.

Scripture says:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

Scripture says:

“Try the spirits whether they are of God.”

Scripture praises those who:

“searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Scripture says:

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Scripture warns that even if an apostle or an angel from heaven should preach another gospel, that message must be rejected.

The difference could hardly be more important.

The New Testament does not teach Christians to believe whatever future religious rulers may hand down. It gives them the apostolic gospel already delivered and commands them to continue in it.

Nor does the combination of papal monarchy and papal infallibility solve the problem. It deepens it. A pope is said to possess supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority. No appeal is permitted against his decrees. The First See is judged by no one. Yet the same pope is supposedly bound by every previous irreformable definition and cannot contradict what an earlier pope has infallibly declared.

This may not constitute a formal logical contradiction if papal governance and doctrinal infallibility are defined in separate and carefully limited categories. Nevertheless, it creates a profound and unavoidable theological tension. The supreme ruler is bound by previous definitions, yet no earthly authority can finally judge him. The institution claims irreformability, yet the institution itself decides what was irreformable. It claims doctrinal continuity, yet it also determines what counts as legitimate development. It demands submission, while reserving to itself the final interpretation of the teachings to which submission is owed.

Christ established no such self-authenticating circle in the New Testament.

He said:

“If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”— John 8:31–32

The freedom Christ gives is not freedom from truth. It is freedom through truth.

The believer is not called to invent his own gospel, follow every private impulse, or reject faithful Christian teachers. He is called to remain in Christ, to abide in His Word, to receive the apostolic gospel, to test every claim, and to refuse to place any man above the authority of God.

The final question raised by Denzinger 1880 is therefore simple but decisive:

Did Christ command His sheep to hear His voice, or did He command them to surrender their judgment in advance to whatever future Roman Pontiffs might hand down?

The New Testament answers:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”— John 10:27

Christ is the Head of HIS Church.

Christ is the one Mediator between God and men.

Christ is the author and finisher of our faith.

Christ is the truth.