CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
FROM THE INCOME
OF A BEQUEST
MADE BY
BENNO LOEWY 1854-1919
The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.
http://archive.org/details/cu31924029359332
Contents
MaMYim^. The Vatican Council avt<l '.ts de^inHio*ts. tilO. Gilddsttfuc, The Va.tica>i decriJes iniliaV bearing en civii
Ma«ri<Mo-, The Vit-fcican decrees in -theif beafmg on eivU allegiance. ISIS".
Nevill-s. A few coynvnettts oh /Ic. filaotstonfi's eKfoS'tulation.
isnr.
A/ewwan. A letter adiressed to f<!s Grrace theDi/ke of Norfolk > Oh occasion of Mr. (Jla^istoBes »'«c<f»»t «^_
pp&t(jlat:iovi. IST5T
THE VATICAN COUNCIL
l^e.
LONDON: PBlNTKi) BF
SP0msV7OODB AND CO., NEW- HTJtKJi r B(iUAKE
AND PAELIAMBKT STIIHKT
THE YATIOAN COUNCIL
AND ITS DEFINITIONS:
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CLERGY
HENRY EDWARD ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTEE.
LONDON :
LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO.
1870.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I. The World and the Council.
External history of the Council, 2 ; The alleged indifference to the Council, 13 ; Internal history, 24 ; Protest of tlie Cardinal Presidents, 33 ; Definition by acclamation, 36 ; Definitions binding on all the faithful, 39.
CHAPTER II.
The Two Constitutions.
Analysis of the Constitution De Fide CathoHca, 43 ; Preparation for the definition of the Infallibility of the Eoman Pontiff, 51 ; Analysis of the First Constitution on the Church of Christ, 54 ; Six points of the definition of Infallibility, 57.
I. Meaning of the phrase loqui ex cathedrd, 58.
II. Faith and morals the object of Infallibility, 59 ; Five points of the Charter of the Church: 1. The perpetuity and universality of the mission of the Church as a Teacher of mankind. 2. The deposit of the Divine Faith and Law entrusted to the Church. §. The Church the sole interpreter of the Faith and of the Law. 4. The Church the sole Divine Judge over the reason and wiU of man. 5. The Perpetual Presence of our Lord with the Church, 59. The doctrinal authority of the Church not confined to matters of revelation, 67 ; Truths of Science, 67 ; Truths of History, 68 ; Dogmatic Facts, 68, 69 ; Minor censures, 73.
VI CONTENTS.
III. The efficient cause of Infallibility, 79 ; Witness of St. Ambrose, a.d. 397, 79 ; Witness of St. John Chrysostom, a.d. 407, 80 ; Witness of St. Augustine, a.d. 430, 80 ; Witness of St. Cyril, A.D. 444, 80; Witness of St. Leo, a.d. 460, 81; Witness of St. Gelasius, a.d. 496, 81 ; Witness of Pelagius II., a.d. 590, 81; Witness of St. Gregory the Great, a.d. 604, 82; Witness of Stephanus Dorensis, a.d. 649, 82 ; Witness of St. Vitalian, a.d. 669, 83.
IV. The Acts to which the divine assistance is attached, 86.
v. The extension of the Infallible authority to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church, 90.
VI. The dogmatic value of Pontificial acta ex bathedrd, 91.
CHAPTER III. The Terminology of the Doctrine of Infallibility.
Personal, 94, 112; Independent, 97,113; Separate, 98, 1 13 ; Absolute, 102, 113.
CHAPTER IV. Scientific History and the Catholic Rule of Faith.
Evidence of history, and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, 114; Cumulus of evidence for the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff undiminished by historical doubts, 116 ; Difficulties of human history, 119; The German Bishops at Fulda, 120; Heretical assumptions of 'scientific history,' 126; History im- properly called a science, 131 ; Definition of science, 131 ; ' Theology only improprie a science, 133; Modern Gnosticism, 135.
CHAPTER V.
Result of the Definition.
Bishops witnesses of the objective faith of the Church, 139 • Tradition of England, 140 ; Sir Thomas More, 141 ; Cardinal Fisher, 142 ; Cardinal Pole, 142 ; Harding, 143 ; Campian, 144 ; Nicholas Sanders, 145 ; Kellison, 145 ; Southwell, 147 ; Alban Butler, 148 ; Charles Plowden, 149 ; Bishop Hay, 151 ; Bishop Milner, 151 ; Predicted disasters irom the Definition, 152.
APPENDIX
I. The Latin Postulatum of the BiBhops for the Definition of the
Infallibility, 163; English Translation of the same, 167.
II. Letter of H. E. Cardinal Antonelli to Count Darn, 173.
III. Protest of the Cardinal Presidents, 181.
IV. Constitutio De Fide Catholica, 182 ; Translation of the same,
192 ; Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi, 204 ; Translation of the same, 211.
V. Eules laid down by Theologians for Doctrinal Definitions, 220.
VI. The Case of Honorius ; Note of the Archbishop of Baltimore on the question of Honorius, 223.
VII. Letter of the Grerman Bishops on the Council, 225.
THE VATICAN COUNCIL
AND
ITS DEFINITIONS.
CHAPTER I.
the wobld and the council.
Reverend and deak Brethren,
From the opening of the Council until the' close of the Fourth Public Session, when leave was given to the Bishops to return for a time to their flocks, I thought it my duty to keep silent. It was not indeed easy to refrain from contradicting the manifold errors and falsehoods by which the Council has been assailed. But it seemed for many reasons to be a higher duty, to wait until the work in which we were engaged should be accom- plished. That time is now happily come : and the obligation which would have hitherto forbidden the utterance of much that I might have desired to say has been by supreme authority removed.
To you therefore, Reverend and dear Brethren, I at once proceed to make known in mere outline the chief events of this first period of the Council of the Vatican.
2 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
I shall confine what I have to say to the three following heads :— First, to a narrative of certain facts external to the Council, but affecting the estimate of its character and acts; secondly, to an appreciation of the internal spirit and action of the Council; and thirdly, to a brief statement of the two dogmatic Constitutions published in its third and fourth Sessions.
First, as to the external history of the Council. As yet, no narrative, or official account of its pro- ceedings, has been possible. The whole world, Cath- olic and Protestant, has been therefore compelled to depend chiefly upon newspapers. And as these power- fully preoccupy and prejudice the minds of men, I thought it my duty, during the eight months in which I was a close and constant witness of the procedure and acts of the Council, to keep pace with the histories and representations made by the press in Italy, Germany, France, and England. This, by the watchful care of others in England and in Eome, I was enabled to do. In answer to an in- quiry from this country as to what was to be be- lieved respecting the Council, I considered it my duty to reply : ' Read carefully the correspondence from Rome published in England, believe the reverse, and you will not be far from the truth.' I am sorry to be compelled to say that this is, above all, true of our own journals. Whether the amusing blun- ders and persistent misrepresentations were to be charged to the account of ill will, or of want of com- mon knowledge, it was often not easy to say. Two things however were obvious. The journals of
THE WOELD AND THE COUNCIL. 3
Catholic countries, perverse and hostile as they might be, rarely if ever made themselves ridiculous. They wrote with great bitterness and animosity : but with a point which showed that they understood what they were perverting; and that they had obtained their knowledge from sources which could only have been opened to them by violation of dut3^ Their narratives of events which were passing under my own eyes, day by day, were so near the truth, and yet so far from it, so literally accurate, but so abso- lutely false, that for the first time I learned to under- stand Paolo Sarpi's ' History of the Council of Trent :' and foresaw how perhaps, from among nominal Catholics, another Paolo Sarpi will arise to write the History of the Council of the Vatican. But none of this applies to our own country. I am the less dis- posed to charge these misrepresentations, in the case of English correspondents, to the account of ill will, though they abundantly showed the inborn animosity of an anti-Catholic tradition, because neither corres- pondents nor journalists ever willingly expose them- selves to be laughed at. I therefore put it down to the obvious reason that when English Protestants un- dertake to write of an Oecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, nothing less than a miracle could preserve them from making themselves ridiculous. This, I am sorry to know, for the fair name of our country, has been the effect produced by English newspapers upon foreign countries. Latterly, how- ever, they seemed to have learned prudence, and to have relied no longer on correspondents who, hardly knowing the name, nature, use, or purpose of anything
B 2
4 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
about which they had to write, were at the mercy of such informants as English travellers meet at a table-d'hote in Rome. Then appeared paragraphs without date or place, duly translated, as we discov- ered by comparing them, from Italian and German newspapers. They were less amusing, but they were even more misleading. By way of preface, I will give the estimate of two distinguished Bishops, who are beyond suspicion, as to the truthfulness of one notorious journal.
Of all the foreign sources from which the English newspapers drew their inspiration, the chief, perhaps, was the ' Augsburg Gazette.' This paper has many titles to special consideration. The infamous matter of Janus first appeared in it under the form of articles. During the Council, it had in Rome at least one English contributor. Its letters on the Council have been translated into English and published by a Pro- testant bookseller, in a volume by Quirinus.
I refrain from giving my own estimate of the book, until I have first given the judgment of a distin- guished Bishop of Germany, one of the minority opposed to the definition, whose cause the 'Augsburg Gazette ' professed to serve.
Bishop Von Ketteler, of Mayence, publicly pro- tested against ' the systematic dishonesty of the cor- respondent of the "Augsburg Gazette." ' ' It is a pure invention,' he adds, ' that the Bishops named in that journal declared that Dollinger represented, as to the substance of the question (of infallibility), the opinions of a majority of the German Bishops. ' And this, he said, ' is not an isolated error, but part of a system
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 5
which consists in the daring attempt to pubhsh false news, with the object of deceiving the German public, according to a plan concerted beforehand.' . . . ' It will be necessary one day to expose in all their nakedness and abject mendacity the articles of the " Augsburg Gazette." They will present a formid- able and lasting testimony to the extent of injustice of which party men, who affect the semblance of supe- rior education, have been guilty against the Church.' * Again, at a later date, the Bishop of Mayence found it necessary to address to his Diocese another public protest against the inventions of the 'Augs- burg Gazette.' 'The " Augsburg Gazette," ' he says, ' hardly ever pronounces my name without appending to it a falsehood.' * It would have been easy for us to prove that every Roman letter of the " Augsburg Gazette " contains gross perversions and untruths. Whoever is conversant with the state of things here, and reads these letters, cannot doubt an instant that these errors are voluntary, and are part of a concerted system designed to deceive the public. If time fails me to correct publicly this uninterrupted series of falsehoods, it is impossible for me to keep silence when an attempt is made, with so much perfidy, to misrepresent my own convictions. ' f
* The Vatican, March 4, 1870, p. 145.
t The Vatican, June 17, 1870, p. 319. ' The Archbishop of Cologne has condemned a pretended Catholic journal in which the dogma of the Infallibility is attacked, and the proceedings of the Council misrepresented and vilified. The sentence of the Archbishop on this matter derives the greater weight from the fact of his having, as he states, formed part of the minority in the memorable vote of July 13. The Arehbishop says : " The clergy of this Diocese are
6 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
Again, Bishop Hefele, commenting on the Roman correspondents of the ' Augsburg Gazette ' says : ' It is evident that there are people, not Bishops, but
aware that a weekly paper, the Rheinischer Merkur, constantly attacks, in an odious manner, and with ignoble weapons, the Holy Church, in the person of its lawful chiefs the Pope and the Bishops, and in its highest representative the (Ecumenical Council ; so that men's minds are disturbed, and the hearts of the faithful alienated from the Church. It also openly advocates the abolition,, by the secular authority, of the Church's liberty and independence. I therefore hold it to be my duty, in discharge of my pastoral office, to expose the anti-Catholic character of the said paper; not because I regard it as of any greater importance than those other more noisy organs of the press which are the exponents of hatred against religion, but simply because the paper above-named pretends to be Catholic. It is on that account that, as Catholic Bishop of this city, I feel called upon to denounce the falsehood of the assumption of the name of Catholic by a journal which is labouring to overthrow the unity of the Church by separating Catholics from that rock on which she is founded. This declaration is also due from me to those my Eight Reverend Brethren in the Episcopate who belonged with me to the minority in the Council. The journal in question assumes to be the exponent of the sentiments of that minority, but it never was in any way, directly or indirectly, recognised by it or any of its members ; it has been, on the contrary, repeatedly blamed and denounced. Wherefore I exhort all the Eev. Clergy of the Arch- diocese to be mindfiil of their duty as sons of the Catholic Church ; and not countenance in any way whatsoever, either by taking it in or reading it, the journal above-named, which outrages our holy Mother, rejects her authority, and desires to see her enslaved. I also exhort you on all fitting occasions to warn your flock» of the dangerous and anti-Catholic character of that journal, so that they may be^ dissuaded from buying or reading it, and may escape being deluded by its errors. I had resolved to order an instruction to be given from the pulpit upon the more recent decisions of the Council, and especially upon the infallible teaching of the Pope, and tc explain therein the true sense of the Dogma ; and thus to remove the prejudices that have been raised against it, as if it were a nove] doctrine or one in contradiction to the end of the Church's con- stitution, or to sound reason ; and to meet generally the objections raised against the validity of the Council's decision." '
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 7
having relations with the Council, who are not re- strained by duty and conscience.' * We had reason to believe that the names of these people, both German and English, were well known to us.
Now the testimony of the Bishop of Mayence, a^ to the falsehoods of these correspondents respecting Rome and Germany, I can confirm by my testimony as to their treatment of matters relating to Rome and England. I do not think there is a mention of my own name without, as the Bishop of Mayence says, the appendage of a falsehood. The whole tissue of the correspondence is false. Even the truths it narrates are falsified : and through this discoloured medium the English people, by the help of Quirinus and the ' Saturday Review,' gaze and are misled.
To relieve this graver aspect of the subject, I will add a few livelier exploits of our English correspond- ents. On January 14, an English journal announced that the Bishops were unable to speak Latin ; and that Cardinal Altieri (who laid down his life for his flock in the cholera three years ago), in whose rooms the Bishops met, ' was beside himself.' ' What is there,' the correspondent of another paper asked, ' in seven hundred old men dressed in white, and wearing tall paper caps?' 'The Oriental Bishops,' he says, ' refused to wear white mitres : ' reasonably', because they never wear them. ' The Bishop of Thun at- tacked the Bishop of Sura with a violence which threatened personal collision.' There is no Bishop of Thun. The same paper, July 7, says, ' I was posi- tively shocked, yesterday, at finding that the Roman * The Vatican, March 4, 1870, p. 145.
O THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
Catholic Hierarchy of my own country is a sham ; at least, so far as regards its territorial and independent pretensions. Every one of them, including the Archbishop, is in charge of a Vicar Apostolic, Cardi- nal Maddalena, titular Archbishop of Corfu, within whose diocese, it would appear, our island is situated.' This has more foundation in fact than the other state- ments, for until the Archbishop of Corfu could find a carriage, we used daily to go together to the Council. A leading journal, in May last, announced : ' At a recent sitting of the Council, Cardinal Schwarzenberg made a speech which created even a greater uproar than the former one of Bishop Strossmayer.' In this speech he defended Protesl^ants with such vigour that ' the presiding Legate, Cardinal De Angelis, interrupted the speaker, and a warm dispute between the two Cardinals ensued. The President strove repeatedly, but in vain, to silence the Cardinal with his bell : and at length the Bishops drowned his protest in a storm of hisses, in the midst of which the Car- dinal was carried from the tribune, half fainting with excitement, to his seat.' The Cardinal was indeed called to order, but no such tragedy was ever acted. ' The Papal authorities,' says another journal, ' have housed the Bishops with discriminating hospitality. Those who could not be absolutely trusted have been lodged with safe companions, in the propor- tion of one weak brother to half-a-dozen strong.' 'The Jesuits have had the manipulation of the flock and have done it well.' The distribution of the Bishops was made by the Government, and months before the Council opened, with as much
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 9
theological manipulation as the filling of a train from Paddington. Again, we hear on May 17, that ' Cardinal Bilio, the Prefect of the Depu- tation for Dogma, and author of the Syllabus, has passed over to the opposition.' When the Holy Father heard of this defection ' he was seized with faintness,' and told the Cardinal ' to go on a tour for the benefit of his health.' The ' Times ' at last con- fessed : ' To find out the truth of what is going on .... is diflicult beyond conception.' . . . ' Every day, even every hour, brings up its story, .... which, in nine cases out of ten, will prove an in- genious hoax.' Therefore nine-tenths of these his- tories are labelled ' hoaxes.' The ' Times ' adds : ' To pick one's way amidst these snares, without becoming the victims of delusions, is what no man can feel quite sure of.' A warning of which I hope the readers of newspapers will fully avail themselves. The ' Standard,' wiser than its fellows, said in Feb- ruary : ' It is a thousand pities that English corre- spondents should childishly swallow cock-and-bull stories of what never did and never could have occurred in the Council, and thus damage their own reputation for accuracy, as well as inferentially that of their colleagues.'
Another journal damaged something more than its reputation for accuracy, when, after having announced that the Roman Clergy, that is, the Parish Priests of Rome, had, all but eight, declined to petition in favour of the definition, it was again and again called upon to publish the fact that the Roman Clergy unanimously petitioned for the definition, in a form
10 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
SO explicit that the Clergy of England and Scotland afterwards adopted it as their own and presented it to the Holy Father. The newspaper in question was never pleased to insert the correction. But these are flowers plucked at random. I will now endeavour to give shortly a more con- nected outline of the Vatican Council, as drawn by the newspapers of the last eight or nine months ; and as their representations will be one day read up as contemporaneous records for a future history, I wish to leave in the Archives of the Diocese a contemporane- ous record of their utter worthlessness, and, for the most part, of their utter falsehood.
As the highest point attracts the storm, so the chief violence fell upon the head of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. On this I shall say nothing. Pos- terity will know Pius the Ninth ; and the world already knows him now too well to remember, except with sorrow and disgust, the language of his enemies. ' If they have called the master of the house Beelze- bub, how much more them of his household ? ' No one has this privilege above the Vicar of the Master; and it is a great joy and distinct source of strength and confidence to all of the household to share this sign, which never fails to mark those who are on His side against the world.
The Council was composed, at first, of 767 Fathers. We were told that their very faces were such as to compel an enlightened correspondent, at the first sight of them, to lament ' that the spiritual welfare of the world should be committed to such men.'
Then, by a wonderful disposition of things, for the
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 11
good, no doubt, of the human race, and above all of the Church itself, the Council was divided into a majority and a minority: and, by an even more beneficent and admirable provision, it was so ordered that the theology, philosophy, science, culture, in- tellectual power, logical acumen, eloquence, candour, nobleness of mind, independence of spirit, courage, and elevation of character in the Council, were all to be found in the minority. The majority was naturally a Dead Sea of superstition, narrowness, shallowness, ignorance, prejudice ; without theology, philosophy, science, or eloquence ; gathered from ' old Catholic countries;' bigoted, tyrannical, deaf to reason; with a herd of ' Curial and Italian Prelates,' and mere ' Vicars Apostolic'
The Cardinal Presidents were men of imperious and overbearing character, who by violent ringing of bells and intemperate interruptions cut short the calm and inexorable logic of the minority.
But the conduct of the majority was still more overbearing. By violent outcries, menacing gestures, and clamorous manifestations round the tribune, they drowned the thrilling eloquence of the minority, and compelled unanswerable orators to descend.
Not satisfied with this, the majority, under the pre- text that the method of conducting the discussions was imperfect, obtained from the supreme authority a new regulation, by which all liberty of discussion was finally taken from the noble few who were struggling to redeem the Council and the Church from bondage.
From that date the non-oecumenicity of the Council was no longer doubtful. Indeed, ' Janus ' had told
12 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
the world in many tongues, long before it met, that the Council would not be free. Nevertheless, the minority persevered with heroic courage, logic which nothing could resist, and eloquence which electrified the most insensible, until a tyrannous majority, deaf to reason and incapable of argument, cut discussion short by an arbitrary exercise of power ; and so silenced the only voices nobly lifted up for science, candour, and common sense.
This done, the definition of new dogmas became inevitable, and the antagonism between the ultra- romanism of a party and the progress of modern society, between independence and servility, became complete.
Such is the history of the Council written ah extra in the last nine months. I believe that every epithet I have given may be verified in the mass of extracts now before me.
A leading English journal, ten days after the Defini- tion of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, with great simplicity observed, ' It is curious to compare the very general and deep interest taken by all intelligent ob- servers in the early deliberations of the Council with the equally mai'ked indifference to the culmination of its labours. Every rumour that came from Rome six or seven months ago was canvassed with great eagerness, even by men who cared little for ordinary theological disputations: while the proclamation of the astonishing dogma of papal infallibility has pro- duced in any but ecclesiastical circles little beyond a certain amount of perfunctory criticism.'
The main cause of this contrast isj of course,
THE WOKT.D AND THE COUl-fCIL. 13
not far to seek. The writer proceeds to assign the cause, and in so doing passes at once, with a gravity befitting the occasion, to a disquisition on Sir Wil- liam Hamilton's theory of perception, and on ' the gigantic gooseberry.'
Such is the earnestness and the sincerity with which English journals, even of high repute, have treated the subject of the CEcumenical Council.
Let me, also, assign the cause why the un-Catholic and anti-Catholic world took so clamorous an interest in the opening of the Council, and in the end affected so ill-sustained a tone of indifference. I know of no public event in our day the explanation of which is more transparent and self-evident. It is this.
When the Council assembled, it was both hoped and believed that the ' Roman Curia ' and the ' Ultramon- tane party ' would be checked and brought under by the decisions of the Bishops. A controversy had been waged against what was termed ' Ultramontanism,' or ' Ultra-Catholicism,' or ' Ultra-Romanism,' in Ger- many, France, and England. When I last addressed you I used the following words, which I now repeat, because I can find none more exact. They have been fulfilled to the very letter.
' Facts like these give a certain warrant to the as- sertions and prophecies of politicians and Protestants. They prove that in the Catholic Church there is a school at variance with the doctrinal teaching of the Holy See in matters which are not of faith. But they do not reveal how small that school is. Its centre would seem to be at Munich ; it has, both in France and in England, a small number of adherents. They
14 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
are active, they correspond, and, for tlie most part, write anonymously. It would be difficult to describe its tenets, for none of its followers seem to be agreed in all points. Some hold the infallibility of the Pope, and some defend the Temporal Power. Nothing ajDpears to be common to all, except an animus of opposition to the acts of the Holy See in matters out- side the faith.
' In this country, about a year ago, an attempt was made to render impossible, as it was confidently but vainly thought, the definition of the infallibility of the Pontiff, by reviving the monotonous controversy about Pope Honorius. Later we were told of I know not what combination of exalted personages in France for the same end. It is certain that these symptoms are not sporadic and disconnected, but in mutual un- derstanding, and with a common purpose. The anti- Catholic press has eagerly encouraged this school of thought. If a Catholic can be found out of tune with authority by half a note, he is at once extolled for unequalled authority and irrefragable logic. The anti-Catholic journals are at his service, and he vents his opposition to the common opinions of the Church by writing against them anonymously. Sad as this is, it is not formidable. It has effect almost alone upon those who are not Catholic. Upon Catholics its effect is hardly appreciable ; on the theological Schools of the Church, it, will have little influence; upon the Ecumenical Council it can have none.' *
Many publications had appeared in French, Eng-
* Pastoral on ' Tlie CEcumenical Council, 1869,' &c. pp. 132, 133.
lisL., and German, from which it became evident that a common purpose and plan of co-operation had been formed. Certain notorious letters published in France, and the infamous book ' Janiis,' translated into Eng- lish, French, and Italian, proclaimed open war upon the Council within the unity of the Catholic Church. This alone was enough, to set the whole anti-Catholic world on fire -with curiosity, hope, and delight. The learning, the science of the intellectual freemen of the Roman Church were already under arms to re- duce the pretensions of Rome.
A belief had also spread itself that the Council would explain away the doctrines of Trent, or give them some new or laxer meaning, or throw open some questions supposed to be closed, or come to a compro- mise or transaction with other religious systems; or at least that it would accommodate the dogmatic stiffness of its traditions to modern thought and modern theo- logy. It is strange that any one should have forgotten that every General Council, from Nicfea to Trent, which has touched on the faith, has made new definitions, and that every new definition is a new dogma, and closes what was before open, and ties up more strictly the doctrines of faith. This belief, however, excited an expectation, mixed with hopes, that Rome by becoming comprehensive might become approach- able, or by becoming inconsistent might become powerless over the reason and the will of men.
But the interest excited by this preliminary skir- mishing external to the Council, was nothing com- pared to the exultation with which the anti-Catholic opinion and anti-Catholic press of Protestant countries,
16 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
and the anti-Koman opinion and press even of Cath- olic countries, beheld, as they believed, the formation of an organised ' international opposition ' of more than a hundred Bishops within the Council itself. The day was come at last. What the world could not do against Rome from without, its own Bishops were going to do against Rome, and in the world's service, from within. I shall hereafter show how little the world knew the Bishops whom it wronged by its adulation, and damaged by its praise. They were the favourites of the world, because they were believed to be fighting the Pope. In a moment, all the world rose up to meet them. Governments, politicians, newspapers, schismatical, heretical, in- fidel, Jewish, revolutionary, as with one unerring instinct, united in extolling and setting forth the virtue, learning, science, eloquence, nobleness, heroism of this ' international opposition.' With an iteration truly Homeric, certain epithets were perpetually linked to certain names. All who were against Rome were written up ; all who were for Rome were written down. The public eye and ear of all countries were filled, and taught to associate all that is noble and great with ' the international opposition;' all that is neither noble nor great, not to say more, with others. The interest was thus wrought up to the highest pitch; and a confident expectation was raised, and spread abroad, that the Council would be unable to make a definition, and that Rome would be defeated. I can hardly conceive a keener or more vivid motive of interest to the anti-Catholic world than this. For this cause Rome was full of correspondents, ' our
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 17
own,' ' our special,' and ' our occasional.' Private persons forsook great interests and duties, to reside in Rome for the support of the ' international opposi- tion.' A league of newspapers, fed from a common centre, diffused hope and confidence in all countries, that the science and enlightenment of the minority would save the Catholic Church from the immoder- ate pretensions of Rome, and the superstitious ignor- ance of the universal Episcopate. Day after day, the newspapers teemed with the achievements and ora- tions of the opposition. The World believed that it had found its own in the heart of the Episcopate, and loved it as its own. There was nothing it might not hope for, expect, and predict. In truth, it is no wonder that a very intense interest should be excited in minds hostile to Rome by such a spec- tacle as the outer world then believed itself to see. And such, we may safely affirm, were the chief mo- tives of its feverish excitement, at the opening and during the early period of the Council.
But how shall we account for the indifference with which the World affects to treat its close ?
By two very obvious reasons. First, because it became gradually certain that the World had not found its own in the Council ; and that the ' opposition ' on which it counted were not the servants of the World, but Bishops of the Catholic Church, who, while using all freedom which the Church abundantly gave them, would in heart, mind, and will, remain faithful to its divine authority and voice. And secondly, because it became equally certain, indeed was self-evident, that no opposition, from without or
c
18 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
from within, could move the Council a hair's breadth out of the course in which it was calmly and iiTe- sistibly moving to its appointed work.
The hopes and confidence of the miscellaneous alliance of nominal Catholics, Protestants, rational- ists, and unbelievers, received its first sharp check when some five hundred Fathers of the Council de- sired of the Holy See that the doctrine of the Infalli- bility of the Roman Pontiff" should be defined.* This event manifested a mind and a will so united and so decisive, as to reduce the proportions of the oppo- sition, both numerically and morally, to very little. Still it was confidently hoped that some event, in the chapter of accidents, might yet hinder the definition ; that either the minority might become more power- ful by increase, or the majority less solid by division.
This expectation again was rudely shaken by the unanimous vote of the third public Session. The first Constitution De Fide had been so vehemently assailed, and, as it was imagined, so utterly defeated, that if ever voted at all it would be voted only by a small majority, or at least it would be resisted by an imposing minority. It was therefore no small surprise that the whole Council, consisting then of 664 Fathers, should have affirmed it with an unanimous vote. I well remember that when the ' Placets ' of the ' opposition leaders ' sounded through the Council Hall, certain high diplomatic personages looked signifi- cantly at each other. This majestic unanimity, after the alleged internal contentions of the Council, was as perplexing as it was undeniable. The World began to fear that, after all, the international opposition * See Appendix, p. 1G3.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 19
would neither serve its purposes nor do its work. A sensible change of tone was then perceived. The cor- respondents wrote of everything but of this unanimity. The newspapers became almost silent. The leading articles almost ceased. From that time they ex- changed the tone of confidence and triumph for a tone of irritation and of no little bitterness.
Nevertheless, a new hope arose. Governments were acted upon to make representations, and all but to menace the Holy Father.* For a time, confidence revived. It was thought impossible that the joint note of so many Powers, and the joint influence of so many diplomatists, could fail of their effect. It did not seem to occur to those who invoked the inter- ference of the Civil Powers that they were thereby en- deavouring to deprive the Council of its liberty : which, in those who were complaining, in all languages, that the Council was not free, involved a self-contradiction on which I need not comment. Neither did they seem to remember that those who invoke the secular power against the spiritual authority of the Church, whether to defeat a sentence already given, or to prevent the delivery of such a sentence, are ipso facto excommuni- cate, and that their case is reserved to the Pope.f This,
* See Appendix, p. 173.
■{■ Apjjellantes seu 7-ecurrentes ad curiam smmlarem ah ordina- tionihus alicujiis judicis ecclesiastici excommunicationem incurrunt Papte reservatum ex cap. 16 Bullse In Coma Domini, sive illi judices ecclesiastici sint ordinarii sive delegati, ut patet in eadem Bulla: et multi dicunt hoc procedere, etiamsi sic appellantes et recurrentes nulla decreta poenalia aut inhibitiones contra eosdem judices ecclesiasticos obtineant ; alii tamen contrarium tenent. Vide interpretes super dicta Bulla cap. 19, etBonacinarfe Censur. in pai'tic. disp. 1, q. 17, punct. 1, num. 28, qui auctore-s pro utraqne parte
c2
20 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
which applies to any ordinary ecclesiastical judge in matters of law, surely applies in an eminent degree to an (Ecumenical Council in matters of faith. Be this as it may, for a time the interest of the World was re- awakened by the hope that Rome would be in some way baffled after all.
But this hope also was doomed to disappointment. The distribution by the Cardinal Presidents of the Additamentum, or additional chapter on the doctrine of Infallibility; the introduction of the Schema de Romano Pontifice before the Schema de Ecclesia; the closing of the general discussion by a vote of the Council ; all alike showed that the Council knew its own mind, and was resolved to do its duty. It became unmistakably clear how few were in oppo- sition; and equally certain that, when the defini- tion should be completed, all opposition would cease. The interest in the Council, manifested by the anti- Catholic World, at once collapsed. The correspond- ents became silent, or only found reasons why no- body cared any longer for the Council. A period of supercilious disdain followed; and then the corre- spondents of the English journals, one by one, left Rome. The game was played out : and the last hope of an intestine conflict in the Church was over. A
allegat. Et continet etiam judices seculares, qui ea occasione decernunt contra dictos judioes ecclesiasticos, et eos qui ilia decreta exequuntur ; et continet dantes consilium, patrocinium, et favorem in eisdem, ut patet ex eadem Bulla.
In hac materia vide plures poenas infra verb. Curia, c. 8, et verb. Jurisdictio, et procedit etiam in tacita, seu anticipata appellatione ad procurandum impediri futuras ordinationes judicii ecclesiastici, ut Bonac. num. 23, juxta probabiliorem. — Giraldus de Painis Eccl. pars ii. c. iii. vol. v. p. 96.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 21
more disappointing end to the high hopes and excited anticipations with which the adversaries of the Cath- olic Church cheered on the opposition at the open- ing of the year, cannot be conceived. They little knew the men whom they were mortifying and dis- honouring by their applause. They forgot that Bishops are not deputies, and that an (Ecumenical Council is not a Parliament.- And when, of the eighty-eight who on the thirteenth of July voted Non placet^ two only repeated their Non placet on the eighteenth, proving thereby that what two could do eighty might have done, the World was silent, and has steadfastly excluded the Constitution De Bo- mano Pontifice from the columns of its newspapers.
Here is the simple and self-evident reason of this pretended loss of interest in the Council. It is the affected indiiference of those who, having staked their reputation on the issue of a contest, have been thoroughly and hopelessly disappointed.
Before I conclude this part of the subject, I wUl give one passage as a supreme example of what I have been describing. I take it from the chief newspaper in England. It is from an article evi- dently written by a cultivated and practised hand. It appeared when the definition was seen to be certain and near. It was intended to ruin its eflFects beforehand. The writer could not narrate what had taken place, because it was before the event ; nor what would really take place, because nothing was known : but what he thought would excite contempt, that he pleased to say would take place. Nevertheless, he spoke as if the events were certain, and already so
2-2 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
ordered ; wMch truth forbade : and he taxed his in- genuity to make the Avhole account in the highest de- gree odious or ridiculous ; which revealed his motive. The reader will bear in mind that not one particle of the following elaborate description is true, or had even a shadow of truth. But nobody would perceive the fine verbal distinctions on which the writer would defend himself from a charge of deliberate falsehood.
On June 8, we read as follows : —
' The British public have some reason to regret that the pressure of subjects nearer home, and more directly concerning this country, has put their in- terest in the CEcumenical Council somewhat in abey- ance. A great event is at hand. There can no longer be any doubt that at the approaching Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, the 29th instant, the priceless blessing of Papal Infallibility will be vouch- safed to the world. The day is the Feast of St. Peter in our Calendar, and it is usually called St. Peter's Day at Eome, the Apostle to the Gentiles having been associated only to disappear. The day is on this occasion to be observed as a day of days, and the era of a new revelation. Fireworks, illu- minations, transparencies, triumphal arches, and all that taste and money can do to demonstrate and delight, are already in hand, and, whoever the guests, the marriage feast is in preparation. . . . An extra- ordinary effort is to be made. Eome is to excel herself in her mimic meteors, her artistic transfigura- tions, her new heavens and new earths, her angelic radiance, her divine glories, and infernal horrors.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 23
If the Council has been chary of its utterances and coy in its appearances, that will be made up by explosions and spectacles of a more intelligible cha- racter. We can promise that it will be worth many miles of excursion trains to go and see. The Cam- pagna will be deserted, that all the Pope's temporal lieges may be there in their picturesque costumes. They and the astonished strangers will there see with their own eyes the Pope of Rome, the actual successor of St. Peter, invested with absolute autho- rity over all souls, hearts, and minds. They will see him welcoming the faithful " Placets," and consigning the " Non-Placets " to the flames of a Tartarean abyss. They will see hideous forms, snakes, dragons, hydras, centipedes, toads, and nondescript monsters under the feet, or the lance, or the thunderbolt of conquer- ing Rome ; and they will not fail to recognise in them the Church of England, the Protestant com- munities, and the German philosophers. It will be a grand day, and great things will be done on that 29th of June. "We will not believe it possible that a single mishap will disturb the sacred programme — that the lightnings may miss their aim, or the Powers of Darkness prevail. We cannot doubt all will go off well, for the simple reason that all is ready and forecasted, down to the very Dogma. Artists of surpassing skill and taste are working hard on the upholstery of the Divine manifestation, not knowing whether to think it a blasphemy or a good joke. It is their poverty and not their will that consents to the task. As we see the illumina- tions expiring, the Roman candles lost in smoke,
24 THE VATICAN COUNCII,.
and the exhibitors taking the old properties back to the vast magazines of Rome, we cannot help thinking of the poor fathers put off with glare and noise in place of conviction or peace of mind. Think of poor MacHale exhausting in vain his logic, his learning, a7id his powerful style, and taking back to his poor flock on the Atlantic shore a strange story of Chinese lanterns, fiery bouquets, showers of gold, and transparencies more striking even than the illus- trations of our prophetic almanacks.'
When it is borne in mind that the definition of the Infallibility of the Head of the Christian Church , is a subject of deep religious faith to the most culti- vated nations of the world, and that a fifth part of the population of our three kingdoms was profoundly interested in the subject, I shall not refrain from saying that this article from the leading newspaper of England has as little decency as truth.
I will now endeavour briefly to sketch the outline of the Council as viewed from within. As I was enabled to attend, with the exception of about three or four days, every Session of the Council, eighty- nine in number, from the opening to the close, I can give testimony, not upon hearsay, but as a personal witness of what I narrate.
Cardinal Pallavicini, after relating the contests and jealousies of the Orators of Cathohc States assembled in the Council of Trent, goes on to say that to con- voke a General Council, except when absolutely de- manded by necessity, is to tempt God.* I well
* Hist. Cone. Trid. lib. xvi. c. 10, torn. ii. p. 800. Antwerp, 1670.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 25
remember, at the time of the centenary of St. Peter's Martyrdom, when the Holy Father first announced his intention to convene the General Council, one of the oldest and most experienced of foreign diploma- tists expressed to me his great alarm. He predicted exactly what came to pass in the beginning of the Council. His diplomatic foresight fully appreciated the political dangers. They were certainly obvious and grave ; for no one perhaps, at that time, could an- ticipate the majestic unity and firmness of the Council, which exceeded all hopes, and has eiFectually dispelled all fears.
For three hundred years, the Church dispersed throughout the world has been in contact with the corrupt civilisation of old Catholic countries, and with the anti-Catholic civilisation of countries in open schism. The intellectual traditions of nearly all nations have been departing steadily from the unity of the Faith and of the Church. In most countries, public opinion has become formally hostile to the Catholic religion. The minds of Catholics have been much affected by the atmosphere in which they live. It was to be feared and to be expected that the Bishops of all the world, differing so widely in race, political institutions, and intellectual habits, might have imported into the Council elements of divergence, if not of irreconcilable division. Some had indeed met before, at the Canonizations of 1862 or 1867 : but for the most part the Bishops met for the first time. The Pastors of some thirty nations were there, bring- ing together every variety of mental and social culture and experience : but in the midst of this variety there
26 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
reigned a perfect identity of faith. On this, three centuries of separation and divergence in all things of the natural order, had produced no effect. Nothing but the Church of God alone could have lived on immutable through three hundred years of perpetual changes, and under the most potent influences of the world. Nothing has ever more luminously exhibited the supernatural endowments of the Church than the Council of the Vatican. In these three centuries it had passed through revolutions which have dissolved empires, laws, opinions. But the Episcopate of the Catholic Church met again last December in Rome, as it met in Trent, Lyons, or Nicsea. At once it proceeded to its work ; and began as if by instinct, or by the prompt facility of an imperishable experience, to define doctrines of faith and to decree laws of dis- cipline. Such unity of mind and will is above the conditions of human infirmity; it can be traced to one power and guidance alone, the supernatural assistance of the Spirit of Truth, by Whom the Church of God is perpetually sustained in the light and unity of faith.
To those who were within the Council, this became, day by day, almost evident to sense. It was no di- minution from this, that a certain number were found who were of opinion that it was inopportune to define the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. This was a question of prudence, policy, expedience ; not of doc- trine or of truth. It was thus that the Church was united twenty years ago in the belief of the Immacu- late Conception, while some were still to be found who doubted the prudence of defining it. Setting aside
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 27
this one question of opporluneness, there was not in the Council of the Vatican a difference of any gravity, and certainly no difference whatsoever on any doctrine of faith. I have never been able to hear of five Bishops who denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Almost all previous Councils were distracted by di- visions, if not by heresy. Here no heresy existed. The question of opportunity was altogether subor- dinate and free. It may truly be affirmed that never was there a greater unanimity than in the Vatican Council. Of this the world had a first evidence in the unanimous vote by which the first Constitution on Faith was affirmed on the 24th of April.
I should hardly have spoken of the outward con- duct of the Council, if I had not seen, with surprise and indignation, statements purporting to be descrip- tions of scenes of violence and disorder in the course of its discussions. Having from my earliest remem- brance been a witness of public assemblies of all kinds, and especially of those among ourselves, which for gravity and dignity are supposed to exceed all others, I am able and bound to say that I have never seen such calmness, self-respect, mutual forbearance, courtesy and self-control, as in the eighty -nine sessions of the Vatican Council. In a period of nine months, the Cardinal President was compelled to recall the speak- ers to order perhaps twelve or fourteen times. In any other assembly they would have been inexorably recalled to the question sevenfold oftener and sooner. Nothing could exceed the consideration and respect with which this duty was discharged. Occasionally murmurs of dissent were audible ; now and then a
2&. THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
comment may have been made aloud. In a very few instances, and those happily of an exceptional kind, <eKpres8ions of strong disapproval and of exhausted -•patience at length escaped. But the descriptions of ^■iolence, outcries, menace, denunciation, and even of personal collisions, with which certain newspapers deceived the world, I can affirm to be calumnious falsehoods, fabricated to brings the Council into odhim and contempt. That such has been the aim and in- tent of certain journals and their correspondents is undeniable. They at first endeavoured to write it down ; but an CEcumenical Council cannot be written down. Next, they endeavoured to treat it with ridi- cule ; but an (Ecumenical Council cannot be made ridiculous. The good sense of the world forbids it. But it may be made odious and hateful ; and thereby the minds of men may be not only turned from it, but even turned against it. For this in every way the anti-Catholic world has laboured ; and no better plan could be found than to describe its sessions as scenes of indecent clamour and personal violence, unworthy even in laymen, criminal in Bishops of the Church. I have read descriptions of scenes of which I was a personal witness, so absolutely contrary to fact and truth, that I cannot acquit the anonym- ous writer on the plea of error. The animus was manifest, and its effect has been and will be to poison a multitude of minds which the truth will never reach.
It has beezi loudly declared, that a tyrannical majority deprived the minority of liberty of dis- cussion.
Now it is hard to believe this allegation to be sincere, for many reasons.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 29
First, there was only one rule for both majority and minority. If either were deprived of liberty, both were ; if both were, it might be unwise, it could not be unjust; but if both were not, then neither. The majority spontaneously and freely imposed upon itself the same conditions it accepted for all.
But secondly, the mode of conducting the discus- sions afforded the amplest liberty of debate.
The subject matter was distributed in print to every Bishop, and a period of eight or ten days was given for any observations they might desire to make in writing.
These observations were carefully examined by the deputation of twenty-four; and when found to be pertinent were admitted, either to modify or to reform the original Schema.
The text so amended was then proposed for the general discussion, on which every Bishop in the Council had a free right to speak, and the discussions lasted so long as any Bishop was pleased to inscribe his name.
The only limit upon this freedom of discussion con- sisted in the power of the Presidents, on the petition of ten Bishops, to interrogate the Council whether it desired the discussion to be prolonged. The Presi- dents had no power to close the discussion. The Council alone could put an end to it. This right is essential to every deliberative assembly; which has a two-fold liberty, the one, to listen as long as it shall see fit; the other, to refuse to listen when it shall judge that a subject has been sufficiently discussed. To deny this liberty to the Council is to claim for
30 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
individuals the liberty to force the Council to listen as long as they are pleased either to waste its time or to obstruct its judgment. In political assemblies, the house puts an end to debates by a peremptory and inexorable cry of ' question' or ' divide.' The assem- blies of the Church are of another temper. But they are not deprived of the same essential rights ; and by a free vote they may decide either to listen, or not to listen, as the judgment of the Council shall see fit. To deny this is to deny the liberty of the Council; and under the pretext of liberty to claim a tyranny for the few over the will of the many.*
Obvious as is this liberty and right of the Council to close its discussions when it shall see fit, there exists only one example on record in which it did so. With exemplary patience it listened to what the House of Commons would have pro- nounced to be interminable discussions and inter- minable speeches. On the general discussion of the Schema De Romano Pontifice some eighty
* I cannot help here marking a historical parallel. Those who had been invoking the anti-Catholic public opinion, and even the civil governments of all countries, to control the Holy See and the Council, complained of oppression and the violation of their liberty.
When Napoleon held Pius VII. prisoner at Fontainebleau, and by every form of threat and influence had deprived him of liberty, the following warning was given by Colonel Lagorse to Cardinal Pacca, then in attendance on the Pope : ' That the Emperor was displeased with the Cardinals, for having, ever since their arrival at Fontainebleau, continually restricted the Pope from a condition of free agency;' that provided they were desirous of remaining at Fontainebleau, they must abstain from all manner of interference in matters of busi- ness. . . . Failing in the above conditions, they would expose themselves to the hazard of losing their liberty.' — Memoirs of Cardinal Pacca, vol. ii. p. 192.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL 31
Bishops had spoken. Of these, nearly half were of what the newspapers called the Opposition ; but the proportion of the Opposition to the Council was not more than one sixth. They had therefore been heard as three to six. But further, there still remained the special discussion on the Prooemium and the four chapters; that is to say, five distinct discussions still remained, in which every Bishop of the six or seven hundred in the Council would, therefore, have a right to speak five times. Most reasonably, then, the Council closed the general discussion, leaving to the Bishops still their undiminished right, if they saw fit, still to speak five times. No one but those who de- sired the discussion never to end, that is, who desired to render the definition impossible by speaking against time, could complain of this most just exercise of its liberty on the part of the Council. I can conscien- tiously declare, that long before the general discussion was closed, all general arguments were exhausted. The special discussion of details also had been to such an extent anticipated, that nothing new was heard for days. The repetition became hard to bear. Then, and not till then, the President, at the petition not of ten, but of a hundred and fifty Bishops at least, interrogated the Council whether it desired to prolong or to close the general discussion. By an over- whelming majority it was closed. When this was closed, still, as I have said, five distinct discussions commenced ; and were continued so long as any one was to be found desirous to speak. Finally, for. the fifth or last discussion, a hundred and twenty inscribed their names to speak. Fifty at least were heard,
32 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
until on both sides the burden became too heavy to bear ; and, by mutual consent, an useless and endless discussion, from sheer exhaustion, ceased.
■ So much for the material liberty of the Council. Of the moral liberty it will be enough to say, that the short-hand writers have laid up in its Archives a record of discourses which will show that the liberty of thought and speech was perfectly unchecked. If they were published to the world, the accusation would not be of undue repression. The wonder would be, not that the Opposition failed of its object, but that the Council so long held its peace. Certain Bishops of the freest country in the world said truly : ' The liberty of our Congress is not greater than the liberty of the Council.' When it is borne in mind that out of more than six hundred Bishops, one hundred, at the utmost, were in opposition to their brethren, it seems hardly sincere to talk of the want of liberty. There was but one liberty of which this sixth part of the Council was deprived, a liberty they certainly would be the last to desire, namely, that of destroying the liberty of the other five. The Council bore long with this truthless accusation of politicians, newspapers, and anonymous writers; and never till the last day, when the work in hand was finally complete, except only the voting of the public session, took cognisance of this mendacious pretence. On the 16th of July, after the last votes had been given, and the first Con- stitution De Ecclesia Christi had been finally ap- proved, then for the first time it turned its attention to this attempt upon its authority. Two calumnious libels on the Council had appeared ; the one entitled,
THE WOELD AND THE COUNCIL. 33
Ce qui se passe an Concile, the other, La demise heure du Concile : in both, the liberty of the Yatican Council was denied, with a view to denying its authority. The General Congregation by an im- mense majority adopted the following protest, and condemned these two slanderous pamphlets, thereby placing on record a spontaneous declaration of the absolute freedom of the Council.
' Most Reverend Fathers,
' From the time that the Holy Vatican Synod opened by the help of God, a most bitter warfare instantly .broke out against it; and in order to diminish its venerable authority with the faithful, and, if it could be, to destroy it altogether, many writers vied with each other in attacking it by contumelious detraction, and by the foulest calum- nies; and that, not only among the heterodox and open enemies of the Cross of Christ, but also among those who give themselves out as sons of the Catholic Church ; and what is most to be deplored, among even its sacred ministers.
' The infamous falsehoods which have been heaped together in this matter in public newspapers of every tongue, and in pamphlets without the author's name, published in all places and stealthily distributed, all men well know ; so that we have no need to recount them one by one. But among anonymous pam- phlets of this kind there are two especially, written in French, and entitled, Ce qui se passe au Concile, and La derniere heure du Concile, which for the arts of calumny and the license of detraction bear away
D
34 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
the palm from, all others. For in these not only is the dignity and full liberty of the Council assailed with the basest falsehoods, and the rights of the Holy See overthrown, but even the august person of our Holy Father is attacked with the gravest insults. Wherefore we, being mindful of our office, lest our silence if longer maintained, should be perversely interpreted by men of evil will, are compelled to lift up our voice, and before you all. Most Reverend Fathers, to protest and to declare all such things as have been uttered in the aforesaid newspapers and pamphlets to be altogether false and calumnious, whether in contempt of our Holy Father and of the Apostolic See, or the dishonour of this Holy Synod, and on the score of its asserted want of legitimate liberty.
'From the Hall of the Council, the 16th day of July, 1870.
' Philip, Cardinal De Angelis, President.
'Antoninus, Cardinal De Luc a.
' Andreas, Cardinal Bizzari.
' Aloysius, Cardinal Bilio.
'Hannibal, Cardinal Capalti.'*
We have thus carried down our narrative to the eve of the Definition, and with one or two general remarks I will conclude this part of the subject.
A strange accusation has been brought against the Council of the Vatican, or, to speak more truly, against the Head of the Church, who summoned it; namely, that its one object was to define the Infallibility of
* See Appendix, p. 181.
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 35
the Pope. With the knowledge I have, in common with a large part of the Episcopate, I am able to give, to this a direct denial. But this denial is not given as if the admission of the charge would be in any way inconsistent with the wisdom, dignity, or duty of the Council. It is simply untrue in fact. Even though it were true, I should have no hesitation in under- taking to show that the Council, if it had been assem- bled chiefly to define the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, would have been acting in strict analogy with the practice of the Church in the eighteen (Ecumenical Councils already held.
Each several Council was convened to extinguish the chief heresy, or to correct the chief evil, of the time. And I do not hesitate to affirm that the denial of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was the chief intellectual or doctrinal error as to faith, not to call it more than proximate to heresy, of our times.
It was so,becauseitstruck at the certainty of the pon- tifical acts of the last three hundred years ; and weak- ened the effect of pontifical acts at this day over the intellect and conscience of the faithful. It kept alive a dangerous controversy on the subject of Infallibility altogether, and exposed even the Infallibility of the Church itself to difficulties not easy to solve. As an apparently open or disputable point, close to the very root of faith, it exposed even the faith itself to the reach of doubts.
Next, practically, it was mischievous beyond mea- sure. The divisions and contentions of ' Gallicanism ' and ' Ultramontanism ' have been a scandal and a
1)2
86 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
shame to us. Protestants and unbelievers have been kept from the truth by our intestine controversies, especially upon a point so high and so intimately connected with the whole doctrinal authority of the Church.
Again, morally, the division and contention on this point, supposed to be open, has generated more alien- ation, bitterness, and animosity between Pastors and people, and what is worse, between Pastor and Pastor, than any other in our day. Our internal contests proclaimed by Protestant newspapers, and, worse than all, by Catholic also, have been a reproach to us before the whole world.
It was high time to put an end to this ; and if the Council had been convened for no other purpose, this cause would have been abundantly sufficient ; if it had defined the Infallibility at its outset, it would not have been an hour too soon; and perhaps it would have averted many a scandal we now deplore. But this last I say with submission, for the times and seasons of a Council are put in a power above our reach.
In the midst of all these graver events and cares, there were, now and then, some things which gave rise to hearty, and I hope harmless, amusement. Of these, one was what may be called the panic fear lest the definition of the Infalhbility of the Pope should suddenly be carried by acclamation ; and the amusing self-gratulation of those who imagined that with great . dexterity and address they had defeated this intention. The acclamation, like the rising of a conspiracy, was to have taken place first on one day, then, being
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 37
frustrated, on another. The Feast of the Epiphany was named, then the Feast of St. Joseph, then the Feast of the Annunciation. But by the masterly tactics of certain leaders, this conspiracy could never accom- plish itself. Janus first announced the discovery of the plot. The minds of men from that time, it seems, were haunted with it. They lived in per- petual alarm. They were never safe, they tell us, from a surprise which would create an article of faith before they could protest. I refrain, out of re- spect, from naming the distinguished prelates of whom our anonymous teachers speak so freely, when they affirm that at the first general congregation Papal Infallibility was to be carried by acclamation, but that 'the scheme was foiled by the tact and firmness of ' such an one : and that ' a similar at- tempt was projected for a later day (March 19), when the prompt action of four American prelates again frustrated the design.' *
Now the truth is, that nobody, so far as my know- ledge reaches, and I believe I may speak with cer- tainty, ever for a moment dreamed of this definition by acclamation. All whom I have ever heard speak of these rumours were unfeignedly amused at them. The last men in the Council who would have desired or consented to an acclamation were those to whom it was imputed ; and that for a reason as clear as day. They had no desire for acclamations, because accla- mations define nothing. They had already had enough of acclamations in the Council of Chalcedon, which cried unanimously, 'Peter hath spoken by
* Saturday Review, Aug. 2, 1870.
38 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
Leo ; ' and in the Council of Constantinople whicL acclaimed, 'Peter hath spoken by Agatho;' and in the address of the five hundred Bishops at the centenary of St. Peter in 1867, in which they unanimously declared that ' Peter had spoken by Pius:' for they well knew that many, even of those who joined most loudly in that acclamation, denied that these words ascribe infallibility to the Successor of Peter. Experience therefore proved, even if theology long ago had not, that an acclamation is not a definition; and that an acclamation leaves the matter as it found it, as disputable after as it was before. Nothing short of a definition would, satisfy either reason or conscience ; and nothing but this was ever for a moment thought of.
Such, then, is a slight outline of the internal history of this protracted contest. It passed through nine distinct phases : and it must be confessed that they who desired to avert the definition held their suc- cessive positions with no little tenacity.
The first attack came from the World without, in support of a handful of professors and writers, who denied the truth of the doctrine : the second position was to admit its truth but to deny that it was capable of being defined : the third, to admit that it was de- finable, but to deny the opportuneness of defining it : the fourth, to resist the introduction of the doctrine for discussion : the fifth, to render discussion im- possible by delay : the sixth, to protract the discussion tiU a conclusion should become physically impossible before the summer heats drove the Council to dis- perse : the seventh, when the discussion closed, to
THE WOELD AND THE COUNCIL. 39
defer the definition to the future : the eighth, after the definition was made, to hinder its promulgation : the ninth — I •will not say the last, for who can tell what may still come? — to afiirm that the definition, though solemnly made, confirmed, and published by the Head of the Church in the Ecumenical Council, and promulgated urbi et orhi according to the traditional usage of the Church, does not bind the conscience of the faithful till the Council is concluded, and sub- scribed by the Bishops.
This last is the only remnant of the controversy now surviving. I can hardly believe that any one, after the letter of Cardinal Antonelli to the Nunzio at Brussels, can persist in this error. Nevertheless it may be well to add one or two words, which you will anticipate, and well know how to use.
1. A definition of faith declares that a doctrine was revealed by God.
Are the faithful, then, dispensed from believing Divine revelation till the Council is concluded, and the Bishops have subscribed it?
I hope, for the sake of the Catholic religion in the face of the English people, that we shall hear no more of an assertion so uncatholic and so dangerous.
2. But perhaps it may mean that the Council is not yet confirmed, because not yet concluded.
The Council may not yet be confirmed because not yet concluded ; but the Definition is both con- cluded and confirmed.
The Council is as completely confirmed, in its acts hitherto taken, as it ever will or can be. The future confirmation will not add anything to that which is
40 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
confirmed already. It will coniirm future acts, not those which are already perfect.
3. But perhaps some may have an idea that the question is not yet closed, and that the CovmcU may hereafter undo what it has done. We have been told that ' Its decrees may have to be corrected,' and that two years elapsed before the (Ecumenical pretensions of the Latrocinium of Ephesus were formally superseded. Some have called it ' Ludibrium Vaticanum.'
Let those who so speak, or think, for many so speak without thinking, look to their faith. The past acts of the Council are infallible. No future acts will retouch them. This is the meaning of ' irre- formable.' Infallibility does not return upon its own steps. And they who suspend their assent to its acts on the plea that the Council is not concluded, are in danger of falling from the faith. They who reject the Definitions of the Vatican Council are already in heresy.
41
CHAPTER 11.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS.
Having so far spoken on the less pleasing and less vital part of this subject, I gladly turn to the authori- tative acts of the Council,
The subject matter of its deliberations was divided into four parts, and for each part a Deputation of twenty-four Fathers was elected by the Council. The four divisions were, on Faith, Discipline, Religious Orders, and on Rites, including the Missions of the Church,
Hitherto, the subjects of Faith and Discipline alone have come before the Council; and of these two chiefly the first has been treated, as being the basis of all, and in its nature the most important.
In what I have to add, I shall confine myself to the two Dogmatic Constitutions, De Fide and De Ecclesia ChristL*
The history of the Faith cannot be adequately written without writing both the history of heresy and the history of definitions; for heresies are partial aberrations from the truth, and definitions are recti- fications of those partial errors. But the Faith is co- extensive with the whole Revelation of Truth ; and
* See Appendix, p. 182, etc.
42 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
thougli every revealed truth is definite and precise, nevertheless, all are not defined. The need of defini- tion arises when any revealed truth has been obscured or denied. The general history of the Church will therefore give the general history of the Faith; but the history of Councils will give chiefly, if not only, the history of those parts of revelation which have been assailed by heresy and protected by definition.
The Divine Tradition of the Church contains truths of the supernatural order which without revelation could not have been known to man, such as the Incarnation of God and the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and truths of the natural order which are known also by reason, such as the existence of God. The circumference of this Divine Tradition is far wider than the range of definitions. The Church guards, teaches, and transmits the whole divine tra- dition of natural and supernatural truth, but defines only those parts of the deposit which have been obscured or denied.
The eighteen OEcumenical Counpils of the Church have therefore defined such specific doctrines of the Faith as were contested. The Council of the Vatican has, for this reason, treated of two primary truths greatly contested but never hitherto defined : namely, the Supernatural order and the Church. It is this which will fix the character of the Vatican Council, and will mark in history the progress of error in the Christian world at this day.
The series of heresy has followed the order of the Baptismal Creed. It began by assailing the nature and unity of God the Creator; then of the Redeemer;
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 43
then the doctrine of the Incarnation, of the Godhead and the Manhood of the Son of God ; then of the Holy Trinity, and of the personality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost. To these succeeded controversies on sin, grace, and the Holy Sacraments ; finally the heresies of the so-called Reformation, which spread over what remained unassailed in the Catholic Theology, espe- cially the Divine authority and the institution of the Church itself. The Councils before Trent have com- pletely guarded all doctrines of faith hitherto contes- ted, by precise definition, excepting only the two primary and preliminary truths anterior to all doc- trine, namely, the revelation of the supernatural order and the Divine authority and institution of the Church. To affirm and to define these seems to be, as I said, the mission and character of the Vatican Council, and indicates the state of the Christian world ; because in the last three hundred years the rapid development of the rationalistic principle of Protestantism has swept away all intermediate systems and fragmentary Chris- tianities. The question is reduced to a simple choice of faith and unbelief, or, of the natural or the super- natural order.
This then is the starting-point of the first dogmatic Constitution, De Fide Catholica.
In the Prooemium, the Council declares that none can fail to know how the heresies condemned at Trent have been subdivided into a multitude of contending sects, whereby Faith in Christ has been overthrown in many; and the Sacred Scriptures, which at first were avowedly held to be the source and rule of faith, are now reputed as fables. The cause of this it declares
44 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
to be, the rejection of the Divine authority of the Church, and the license of private judgment.
' Then sprang up,' it goes on to say, ' and was widely spread throughout the world, the doctrine of ration- alism or naturalism, which opposing itself altogether to Christianity as a supernatural institution, studiously labours to exclude Christ, our only Lord and Saviour, from the minds of men and from the life and morality of nations, and to set up the dominion of what they call pure reason and nature. After forsaking and re- jecting the Christian religion, and denying the true God and His Christ, the minds of many have lapsed at length into the depth of pantheism, materialism, and atheism, so that, denying the rational nature of man, and all law of justice and of right, they are striving together to destroy the very foundations of human society.
' While this impiety spreads on every side, it miser- ably comes to pass, that many even of the sons of the Catholic Church have wandered from the way of piety, and while truth in them has wasted away, the Catholic instinct has become feeble. For, led astray by many and strange doctrines, they have recklessly confused together nature and grace, human science, and divine faith, so as to deprave the genuine sense of dogmas which the Holy Church our Mother holds and teaches ; and have brought into danger the integ- rity and purity of the Faith.'
Such is the estimate of the condition of the Chris- tian world in the judgment of the Vatican Council ; and from this point of sight we may appreciate its decrees.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 45
Its first chapter is of God the Creator of all things.* In this is decreed the personality, spirituality, and liberty of God, the creation of corporeal and of spiri- tual beings, and the existence of body and soul in man. These truths may be thought so primary and undeniable as to need no definition. To some it may be hardly credible that, at this day, there should exist men who deny the existence of God, or His person- ality, or His nature distinct from the world, or the existence of spiritual beings, or the creation of the world, or the liberty of the Divine will in creation. But such errors have existed and do exist, not only in obscure and incoherent minds, but in intellects of power and cultivation, and in philosophies of elaborate subtilty, by which the faith of many has been under- mined.
The second Chapter is on Revelation. It affirms the existence of two orders of truth: the order of nature, in which the existence of God as the beginning and end of creatures may be certainly known by the things which He has made ; and the order which is above created nature, that is, God and His action by truth and grace upon mankind. The communication of supernatural truth to man is revelation ; and that revelation is contained in the Word of God written and unwritten, or in the divine tradition committed to the Church. These truths, elementary and cer- tain as they seem, have been and are denied by errors of a contradictory kind. By some it is denied that God can be known by the light of reason ; by others
* The text of the Constitutions will be found in the Appendix, No. IV.
46 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
it is affirmed not only that God may be known by the light of reason, but that no revelation is neces- sary for man ; once more, others deny that man can be elevated to a supernatural knowledge and perfec- tion ; again, others affirm that he can attain to all truth and goodness of and from himself. These errors also are widespread ; and in the multifarious literature which Catholics incautiously admit into their homes and minds, have made havoc of the faith of many.
The third Chapter is on Faith. It may be truly said, that in this chapter every word is directed against some intellectual aberration of this century.
It affirms the dependence of the created intel- ligence upon the uncreated, and that this dependence is by the free obedience of faith ; or, in other words, that inasmuch as God reveals to man truths of the supernatural order, man is bound to believe that revelation by reason of the authority or veracity of God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. The infallibility of God is the motive of faith. And this faith, though it be not formed in us by perceiving the intrinsic credibility of what we believe, but by the veracity of God, nevertheless is a rational or intellectual act, the highest and most normal in its nature. For no act of the reason can be more in harmony with its nature than to believe the Word of God. To assure mankind that it is God who speaks, God has given to man signs and evidences of His revelation, which exclude reasonable doubt. The act of faith therefore is not a blind act, but an exercise of the highest reason. It is also an act not of necessity
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 47
but of perfect freedom, and therefore in itself an act of normal obedience to God, and meritorious in its nature. And this act of faith, in which both the intellect and the will have their full and normal exercise, is nevertheless an act not of the natural order, but of the supernatural, and springs from the preventing grace of the Holy Spirit, Who illuminates the intelligence and moves the will. Faith is there- fore a gift of God, and a moi-al duty which may be required of us by the commandment of God.
But inasmuch as the grace of faith is given to man that he may believe the revelation of God, it is co- extensive Avith that whole revelation. Whatsoever God has revealed, man, when he knows it, is bound to believe. But God has made provision that man should know His revelation, because He has com- mitted it to His Church as the guardian and teacher of truth. Whatsoever, therefore, the Church pro- poses to our belief as the Word of God, written or unwritten, whether by its ordmary and universal teaching, or by its solemn judgment and definition, we are bound to believe by divine and Catholic faith.
To this end, God has instituted in the world His visible Church, one, universal, indefectible, immut- able, ever multiplying ; the living witness of the Incarnation, and the sufficient evidence of its own mission to the world. The maximum of extrinsic evidence for the revelation of Christianity is the witness of the Church, considered even as an histori- cal proof ; and that extrinsic evidence is not only sufficient to convince a rational nature that Chris- tianity is a Divine revelation, but to convict of
48 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
unreasonable unbelief any intelligence which shall reject its testimony. But the visible Church is not merely a human witness. It was instituted and is guided perpetually by God Himself, and is there- fore a divine witness, ordained by God as the infallible motive of credibility, and the channel of His reve- lation to mankind.
I need hardly point out what errors are excluded by these definitions. The whole world outside the Catholic Church is full of doctrines diametrically, contrary to these truths. It is affirmed that the reason of man is so independent of God, that He cannot justly lay upon it the obligation of faith; again, that faith and science are so identified that they have the same motives, and that there is neither need nor place in our convictions for the authority of God ; again, that extrinsic evidence is of no weight, because men ought to believe only on their own in- ternal experience or private inspiration ; again, that all miracles are myths, and all supernatural evid- ences useless, because intrinsically incredible; once more, that we can only believe that of which we have scientific proof, and that it is lawful for us to call into doubt the articles of our faith when and as often as we will, and to submit them to a scientific analysis, in the meanwhile suspending our faith until we shall have completed the scientific demonstration.
The fourth and last Chapter is on the relation of faith to reason.. In this three things are declared: first, that there are two orders of knowledge ; secondly, that they differ as to their object; thirdly, that they differ as to their methods of procedure.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 49
The order of nature contains the subject-matter of natural religion and of natural science. The order of faith contains truths which without re- velation we might have known, though not cer- tainly nor easily; and also truths which, without revelation, we could not have known. Such then are the two objects of reason and of faith. The two methods of procedure likewise differ, inasmuch as in the order of nature the instrument of knowledge is discovery ; in the supernatural order, it is faith, and the intellectual processes which spring from faith.
From these principles it is clear that science and faith can never be in real contradiction. All seem- ing opposition can only be either from error as to the doctrine of the Church, or error in the assumptions of science. Every assertion, therefore, contrary to the truth of an illuminated faith, is false. ' For the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching, received also the command to guard the deposit of faith, is divinely invested with the right and duty of proscribing science falsely so-called, lest any man be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit.' ' For the doctrine of Faith which God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men to be brought to perfection like an invention of philosophy, but was delivered to the Spouse of Christ as a divine deposit to be faithfully guarded, and to be infallibly de- clared.'
The importance of this first Constitution on Catho- lic Faith cannot be over-estimated, and, from its great breadth, may not as yet be fully perceived.
It is the broadest and boldest affirmation of the
50 THE VATICAN ^COUNCIL.
supernatural and spiritual order ever yet made in the face of the world ; which is now, more than ever, sunk in sense and heavy with materialism. It de- clares that a whole order of being and power, of truth and agency, exists, and is in full play upon the world of sense. More than this, that this super- natural and spiritual order is present in the world, and is incorporated in a visible and palpable form, over which the world has no authority. That God and His operations are sensible ; visible to the eye, and audible to the ear. That they appeal to the reason of man ; and that men are irrational, and therefore act both imprudently and immorally, if they do not listen to, and believe in the Word of God. It affirms also, as a doctrine of revelation, that the visible Church is the great motive of credibility to faith, and that it is ' the irrefragable testimony of its own divine legation.' It moreover asserts that the Church has a divine commission to guard the deposit of revelation, and ' a divine right to proscribe errors of philosophy and vain deceit,' that is, all intellectual aberrations at variance with the deposit of revelation. Finally, it affirms that the Church has a divine office to declare infallibly the deposit of truth.
I am not aware that in any previous (Ecumenical Council the doctrine of the Church, and of its divine and infallible authority, has been so explicitly defined. And yet the Council of the Vatican was not at that time engaged upon the Schema De Ecdesia^ which still remains to be treated hereafter. It was not how- ever without a providential guidance that the first Constitution on Catholic Faith was so shaped, espe-
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 51
cially in its closmg chapter. Neither is it without a great significance that at its conclusion was appended a Monitum, in which the Roman Pontiff by his supreme authority, enjoins all the faithful, Pastors and people, to drive away all errors contrary to the purity of the faith ; and moreover warns Christians that it is not enough to reject positive heresies, but that all errors which more or less approach to heresy must be avoided ; and all erroneous opinions which are proscribed and prohibited by the Constitutions and decrees of the Holy See.
When these words were written, it was not foreseen that they were a preparation, unconsciously made, for the definition of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. If the first Constitution had been designedly framed as an introduction, it could hardly have been more opportunely worded. It begins with God and His revelation ; it closes with the witness and office of the Visible Church, and with the supreme authority of its Head. The next truth demanded by the in- trinsic relations of doctrine was the divine endow- ment of infallibility. And when treated, this doctrine was, contrary to all expectation, and to all likelihood, presented first to the Council, and by the Council to the world, in the person and oflBce of the Head of the Church.
In all theological treatises, excepting indeed one or two of great authority, it had been usual to treat of the Body of the Church before treating of its Head. The reason of this would appear to be, that in the exposition of doctrine the logical order was the more obvious ; and to the faithful, in the first forma-
52 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
tion of the Church, the body of the Church was tnown before its Head. We might have expected that the Council would have followed the same method. It is, therefore, all the more remarkable that the Council inverted that order, and defined the prerogative of the Head before it treated of the Constitution and en- dowments of the Body. And this, which was brought about by the pressure of special events, is not without significance. The Schools of the Church have fol- lowed the logical order : but the Church in Council, when for the first time it began to treat of its own constitution and authority, changed the method, and, like the Divine Architect of the Church, began in the historical order, with the foundation and Head of the Church. Our Divine Lord first chose Cephas, and invested him with the pi'imacy over the Apostles. Upon this Rock all were built, and from him the whole unity and authority of the Church took its rise. To Peter alone first was given the plenitude of jurisdiction and of infallible authority. Afterwards, the gift of the Holy Ghost was shared with him by all the Apostles. From him and through him, therefore, all began. For which cause a clear and precise concep- tion of his primacy and privilege is necessaiy to a clear and precise conception of the Church. Unless it be first distinctly apprehended, the doctrine of the Church will be always proportionally obscure. The doctrine of the Church does not determine the doctrine of the Primacy, but the doctrine of the Primacy does precisely determine the doctrine of the Church. In beginning therefore with the Head, the Council has followed our Lord's example, both in teaching and in
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 53
fact ; and in this will be found one of the causes of the singular and luminous precision with which the Council of the Vatican has, in one brief Constitution, excluded the traditional errors on the Primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
The reasons which prevailed to bring about this change of method were not only those which demon- strated generally the opportuneness of defining the doctrine, but those also which showed specially the necessity of bringing on the question whde as yet the Council was in the fulness of its numbers. It was obvious that the length of time consumed in the dis- cu.ssion, reformation, and voting of the schemata was such, that unless the Constitution De Romano Pon- tijice were brought on immediately after Easter, it could not be finished before the setting in of summer should compel the Bishops to disperse. Once dis- persed, it was obvious they could never again re- assemble in so large a number. Many who, with great earnestness, desired to share the blessing and the grace of extinguishing the most dangerous error which for two centuries has disturbed and divided the faithful, would have been compelled to go back to their distant sees and missions, never to return. It was obviously of the first moment that such a question should be discussed and decided, not, as we should have been told, in holes and corners, or by a handful of Bishops, or by a faction, or by a clique, but by the largest possible assembly of the Catholic Episcopate. All other questions, on which little divergence of opinion existed, might well be left to a smaller number of Bishops. But a doctrine which
54 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
for centuries had divided both Pastors and people, the defining of which was contested by a numerous and organised opposition, needed to be treated and affirmed by the most extensive dehberation of the Bishops of the Cathohc Church. Add to this, the many perils which hung over the continuance of the Council ; of which I need but give one example. The outbreak of a war might have rendered the definition impossible. And in fact, the Infallibility of the Koman Pontiff was defined on the eighteenth of July, and war was officially declared on the following day.
With these and many other contingencies fully before them, those who believed that the definition was not only opportune but necessary for the unity of the Church and of the Faith, urged its immediate discussion. Events justified their foresight. The debate was prolonged into the heats of July, when, by mutual consent, the opposing sides withdrew from a further prolonging of the contest, and closed the discussion. If it had not been already protracted beyond all limits of reasonable debate, for not less than a hundred fathers in the general and special discussions had spoken, chiefly if not alone, of in- fallibility, it could not so have ended.* Both sides were convinced that the matter was exhausted.
We will now examine, at least in outline, the first Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ ; and I will then confine what I have to add to the defini- tion of Infallibility ; thereby completing a part of the
* During the session of the council 420 speeches were delivered, of which nearly one-fourth were on the Infallibility alone.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 55
subject whicli in the two previous Pastorals it would have been premature to treat.
The Proo3mium of the Constitution declares that the institution of the visible Church was ordained to preserve the twofold unity of faith and of communion, and that for this end one principle and foundation was laid in Peter.
The first Chapter declares the Primacy of Peter over the Apostles ; and that his primacy was conferred on him immediately and directly by our Lord, and consists not only in honour but also in jurisdiction.
The second Chapter affirms this primacy of honour and jurisdiction to be perpetual in the Church ; and that the Roman Pontiffs, as successors of Peter, in- herit this primacy; whereby Peter always presides in his see, teaching and governing the Universal Church.
The third Chapter defines the nature of his jurisdic- tion, namely, ' totam plenitudinem hujus supremaj potestatis,' the plenitude of power to feed, rule, and govern the Universal Church. It is therefore a jurisdiction episcopal, ordinary, and immediate over the whole Church, over both pastors and people, that is, over the whole Episcopate, collectively and singly, and over every particular church and diocese. The ordinary and immediate jurisdiction which every several Bishop in the Church exercises in the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed him, is thereby sustained and strengthened.
From this Divine primacy three consequences follow : the one, that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge over all the Church, from whom lies no appeal ; the second, that no power under God may come
56 The Vatican council.
between the chief pastor of the Church and any, from the highest to the humblest, member of the flock of Christ on earth ; the third, that this supreme power or primacy is not made up of parts, as the sovereignty of constitutional states, but exists in its plenitude in the successor of Peter.*
The fourth and last Chapter defines the infallible doctrinal authority of the Roman Pontiff as the supreme teacher of all Christians.
The Chapter opens by affirming that to this supreme j urisdiction is attached a proportionate grace, whereby its exercise is directed and sustained.
This truth has been traditionally held and taught by the Holy See, hj the praxis of the Church, and by the OEcumenical Councils, especially those in which the East and the West met in union together, as for instance the fourth of Constantinople, the second of Lyons, and the Council of Florence.
It is then declared, that in virtue of the promise of our Lord, ' I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not,' f a perpetual grace of stability in faith was divinely attached to Peter and to his successors in his See.
The definition then affirms ' that the Roman Pon-
* In order to fix this doctrine more exactl}', and to exclude all possible equivocation, after full and ample and repeated discussion, the words ' aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non yero totam plenitudinem hujus supremse potestatis,' were inserted in the Canon appended to this Chapter. I notice this, because it has been most untruly and most invidiously said, that these words were interpo- lated after the discussion. They were fully and amply discussed, and the proof of the fact exists in the short-hand report of the speeches, laid up in the Archives of the Council.
t St. Luke xxii. 31, 32.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 57
tiff, when he speaks ex cathedra^ that is, when in dis- charge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Chris- tians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding - faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doc- trine, regarding faith and morals. And that there- fore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre- formable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.'
In this definition there are six points to be noted.
1. First, it defines the meaning of the well-known phrase, loquens ex cathedra; that is, speaking from the Seat, or place, or with the authority of the supreme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the Universal Church.
2. Secondly, the subject-matter of his infallible teaching, namely, the doctrine of faith and morals.
3. Thirdly, the efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors.
4. Fourthly, the act to which this divine assistance is attached, namely, the defining of doctrines of faith and morals.
5. Fifthly, the extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church.
6. Lastly, the dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra^ namely, that they are in themselves irre- formable, because in themselves infallible, and not be- cause the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should assent to them.
58 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
These six points contain the whole definition of Infallibility. I will therefore take them in order, and then answer certain objections.
I. First, the definition limits the infallibility of the PontiiF to the acts which emanate from him ex ca- thedra. This phrase, which has been long and com- monly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In one and one only capacity he is exempt from error ; that is, when, as teacher of the whole Church, he teaches the whole Church in things of faith and morals.
Our Lord declared, ' Super cathedram Moysi sede- runt scriba? et Pharisasi : ' the scribes and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses. The seat or ' cathedra' of Moses signifies the authority and the doctrine of Moses ; the cathedra Petri is in like manner the authority and doctrine of Peter. The former was binding by Divine command and under pain of sin, upon the people of God under the old law; the latter is binding by Divine command and under pain of sin, upon the people of God under the new.
I need not here draw out the traditional use of the term cathedra Petri, which in St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, and St. Augustine is employed as synony- mous with the successor of Peter, and is used to
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 59
express the centre and test of Catholic unity. Ex cathedra is therefore equivalent to ex cathedra Petri, and distinguishes those acts of the successor of Peter which are done as supreme teacher of the whole Church.
The value of this phrase is great, inasmuch as it excludes all cavil and equivocation as to the acts of the Pontiff in any other capacity than that of Supreme Doctor of all Christians, and in any other subject- matter than the matters of faith and morals.
11. Secondly, the definition limits the range, or, to speak exactly, the object of infallibility, to the doctrine of faith and morals. It excludes therefore all other matter whatsoever.
The great commission or charter of the Church is, in the words of our Lord, ' Go ye therefore and teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and behold, I am with you all days, even to- the consummation of the world.'*
In these words are contained five points.
1. First, the perpetuity and universality of the mission of the Church as the teacher of mankind.
2. Secondly, the deposit of the Truth and of the commandments, that is, of the Divine Faith and law entrusted to the Church.
3. Thirdly, the ofiice of the Church, as the sole interpreter of the Faith and of the Law.
4. Fourthly, that it has the sole Divine jurisdiction existing upon earth, in matters of salvation, over the reason and the will of man.
* St. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.
60 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
5. Fifthly, that in the discharge of this office our Lord is with His Church always, and to the consum- mation of the world.
The doctrine of faith, and the doctrine of morals are here explicitly described. The Church is infal- lible in this deposit of revelation.
And in this deposit are truths and morals both of the natural and of the supernatural order; for the religious truths and morals of the natural order are taken up into the revelation of the order of grace, and form a part of the object of infallibility.
1. The phrase, then, ' faith and morals ' signifies the whole revelation of faith ; the whole way of salvation through faith; or the whole supernatural order, with all that is essential to the sanctification and salva- tion of man through Jesus Christ.
Now, this formula is variously expressed by the Church and by theologians ; but it always means one and the same thing.
The Second Council of Lyons says, ' if any ques- tions arise concerning faith,' they are to be decided by the Roman Pontiff.*
The Council of Trent uses the formula ' in things of faith and morals, pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine.' f
Bellarmine says, ' in things which pertain to faith,' and again, ' The Roman Pontiff" cannot err in faith ; ' and further he says, ' Not only in decrees of faith the
* ' Si quEe subortse fuerint qusestiones de fide, suo (i. e. Eom. Pont.) debent judicio definiri.' — Labbe, Goncil. torn. xiv. p. 512. Venice, 1731.
t ' In rebus fidei et morutn ad sedificationem doctrinae Christianae peitinentium.' — Labbe, Concil. torn. xx. p. 23.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 61
Supreme Pontiff cannot err, but neither (can he err) in moral precepts which are enjoined on the whole Church, and which are conversant Avith things neces- sary to salvation, or with those which are in them- selves good or evil,' *
Gregory of Valentia says, ' Without any restric- tion it is to be said, that whatsoever the Pontiff determines in controverted matters which have re- spect to piety, he determines infallibly; when, as it has been stated, he obliges the whole Church ; ' and again, ' Whatsoever the Pontiff asserts in any con- troverted matter of religion, it is to be believed that he asserts infalHbly by his Pontifical authority, that is, by Divine assistance.' f
Bannez proposes the thesis in these words : ' Can (the Roman Pontiff) err in defining matters of faith?'!
S. Antoninus says, ' It is necessary to admit one head in the Church, to whom it belongs to clear up
* ' In his quse adfidem pertinent.'' ' Pontifex Eomanus non potest errare in fide.^ ' Non solum in decretis fidei errare non potest Summus Pontifex, sed neque in prseceptis morum, quje toti Ecolesias prEescribtintur, et quEe in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis qu£e per se bona vel mala sunt, versantur.' — Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv. capp. iii. v. pp. 795, 804. Venice, 1599.
f ' Absque ulla restrictione dicenduna est, quicquid Pontifex in rebus controversis ad pietatem spectantibus determinat, infallibiliter ilium determinare, quando, ut expositum est, universam Ecclesiam obligat.' Greg, de Valentia, 0pp. tom. iii. disp. i. qti. i. ' De Objecfo Fidei,' punct. vii. s. 40, p. 312. Ingolstadt, 1595.
' Qusecumque Pontifex in aliqua re de religione controversa sic asserit, carta fide credendum est ilium infallibiliter, utpote ex auc- toritate Pontificia, i.e. ex Divina assistentia, asserere.' — Ibid. s. 39, p. 303.
J 'An possit in rebus fidei definiendis errare?' — In Sum. S. Th. Q. 2, q. 1. art. 10.
62 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
doubts concerning whatsoever relates to faith, whether speculative or practical.' *
Suarez says, ' It is a Catholic truth, that the Pon- tiff defining ex cathedra is a rule of faith which can- not err, whensoever he proposes authoritatively any- thing to be believed of faith to the whole Church.' f
And in his treatise ' De Rehgione,' tract, ix. 1. 3, c. 4, n. 5, speaking of the Bull of Gregory XIII., ' Ascendente Domino,' by which it is declared that simple vows constitute a true religious state, he says that the truth of this definition is ' altogether infallible, so that it cannot be denied without error. The reason is, because the sentence of the Pontiff in things which pertain to doctrine contains infallible certainty by the institution and promise of Christ, " I have prayed for thee." ' Afterwards he adds, ' The providence of Christ our Lord over His Church would be greatly diminished if He should permit His Vicar, in deciding such questions ex cathedra^ to fall into error.' J
* ' Oportet enim in Ecclesia ponere unum caput, ad quod pertinet declarare ilia quse sunt dubia circa quiEcumque ad fidem pertinentia, sive sint speculativa sive agibilia.' — Summa Theol. p. iii. tit. 22, c. 3.
f ' Veritas Catholica est Pontificem definientem ex cathedra esse regulam fidei, quK errare non potest quando aliquid authentice pro- ponit toti Ecclesise, tanquam de fide credendum.' — Suarez, De Fide, disp. v. sec. 8, torn. xiii. p. 94. Mentz, 1622.
X ' Omnino infallibilem, ita ut sine errore in fide negari non possit. Eatio est, quia sententia Pontificis in his quce ad doctriTiam pertinent, infallibilem continet certitudinem ex Christi institution e et permis- sione : " Ego rogavi pro te." . . . Valde autem diminuta fuisset Christi Domini providentia circa suam Ecclesiam si in decldendis talibus quasstionibus ex cathedra Vicarium sunm labi permitteret.' — Id. De Eeligione Soc. Jesu, lib. iii. c. 4, n. 6, torn. xvii. p. 427. ,
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 63
Melchior Canus says, ' The Roman Pontiff succeeds by Divine right to Peter both in firmness of faith and in deciding controversies of religion ;' and again, ' The Roman Pontiff in ending controversies of faith cannot err.' *
S. Alphonsus affirms, ' When the Pope speaks as universal Doctor, ex cathedra, that is, by the supreme authority to teach the Church, delivered to Peter, in deciding controversies of faith and morals, he is altogether infallible.' f
Hervseus says, ' The authority of declaring doubtful points in such matters belongs to the Pope, that is, in things pertaining to the natural or divine law;' and afterwards he adds, ' That his declaration ought to be held as true, so that it is not lawful to hold or to opine the contrary. 'J
Gregory de Yalentia adds, ' In him, whom the whole Church is bound to obey in those things which pertain to the spiritual health of the soul, whether they concern faith or morals, there is infallible authority for the judging questions of faith.' Again: ' Christ willed that after the death of Peter, some one should
* ' Eomanus Pontifex Petro et in fidei firmitate et in compo- nendis religionis controversiis divino jure succedit. Eomanus Pon- tifex in fidei controversiis finiendis errare non potest.' — Melcbior Canus, De loc. Theol. lib. vi. c. 4 and 7.
t ' Quum Papa loquitur tanquam Doctor universalis ex cathedra, nempe ex potestate suprema tradita Petro docendi Ecclesiam in controversiis fidei et morum decernendis, est omnino infallibilis. — S. Alphons. Lig. 0pp. torn. i. lib. i. tract. 2, p. 13.5. Mechlin, 1845.
\ ' Ad Papam pertinet auctoritas declarandi dubia in talibus, hoc est, in pertinentibus ad jus naturale vel divinum,^ &c. — De Pot. Papm, ii. col. 4. . . . ' Quod declaratio sua debeat haberi nt vera, ita quod non liceat oppositum tenere vel opinari.' — De Potent. Papali, apud S. Anton. Eoccab. Bibl. Pontif. torn. v. p. 66.
6-1 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
be acknowledged by the Church in perpetual succession in Peter's place : on whom Christ Himself should con- fer supreme authority as He did on Peter ^ of ordaining the matters which relate to faith, and to other things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful.^ And fur- ther he says, 'that He (Christ) may confer on him the authority, which Peter had, that is, that by a certain law he may so ordain as to co-operate with him by a peculiar assistance, in rightly appointing such things in doctrine and morals as pertain to the good estate of the Church.^
And still more explicitly in another place he says, ' It is not to be denied, that what has been said of the infallible certainty of the Pontifical definitions, holds good, first, in those things which the Pontifi" has pro- posed to the faithful, in deciding doctrinal controversies and exterminating errors^ as revealed of God, and to be believed by faith. But, forasmuch as the Church is always bound to hear its Pastor, and the Divine Scrip- ture declares absolutely the Church to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. iii.), and therefore it can- not ever err as a whole, it cannot be doubtful, that the authority of the Pontiff is infallible in all other things which regard piety^ and the whole Church. Nor do I think that this can be denied without error.' Gregory then applies this to the canonisation of Saints, and concludes : ' This certainty surely rests upon the same promises of God, by which we have seen that it can never be that the whole Church should err in matters of religion.''*
* ' Cui Ecclesia tota obtemperare tenetur, in iia rebus, quse ad sph'itualem ammce salutem pertinent, sive illas fidem sive mores con-
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 65
Here we have the single word faith put to stand for the whole revealed order of salvation : for morals are contained under faith ; and this, which is the ulti- mate object of infallibility, is expressed in the following and various formulas: 1. Concerning faith. 2. In things of faith and morals. 3. Things which pertain to faith. 4. Things necessary to salvation. 5. Pre- cepts of morals binding the whole Church. 6. . Things pertaining to piety. 7. Things of religion. 8. Things of faith speculative and practical. 9. Things pertaining to doctrine. 10. Controversies of religion.
11. Things pertaining to the natural and Divine laws.
12. Things pertaining to the spii-itual health of souls.
cernant, in eo auctaritas est infallibilis ad fidei qusestiones dijudi- candas.' — Gregory de Valentia, disp. 1. q. 1, ' De Objecto Fidei,' p. vii. q. 5. s. 27, p. 238. Ingoldstadt, 1595.
' Voluit Christus ut Petro vita defuncto aliquis perpetua serie successionis in locum Petri ab Eoclesia reciperetur, cui Christus ipse auctoritatem supremam sicut Petro conferret, de fide et aliis rebus ea constituendi quae ad salutem fidelium pertineant.' Ibid s. 35, p. 275. . . ' Ut is [Christus] illi conferat auctoritatem quam Petrus habuit, hoc est, ut certa lege statuat, peculiari quadam assistentia cum eo concurrere ad ea in doctrina et moribus recte constituenda quse ad honum Ecclesice statum pertineant.' — Ibid. s. 36, p. 279.
'Non estnegandum, quin quod dictum est de infallibili certitudine definitionum Pontificis, imprimis locum habeat, in iis quse Pontifex ad doctrinse controversias finiendas erroresque exterminandos fidelium proposuit, tanquam a Deo revelata et credenda ex fide. Cseterum, quoniam Pastorem suum semper audire tenetur Eoclesia, et Ecclesiam divina Scriptura absolute prsedicat esse columnam et firmamentum veritatis (1 Tim. iii.), ideoque nunquam errare tota potest; dubium esse non debet, quin in aliis quoque rebus omnibus asserendis, qucB ad pietatem spectent, et Ecclesiam totam concernent, in- fallibilis sit Pontificis auctoritas. Neque sane arbitror, hoc absque errore negari posse. . . Quse sane certitude iisdem illis Dei promis- sionibus nititur ex quibus compertum habemus nunquam esse futurum ut universa Ecclesia in rebus religionis fallatur.' — Ibid. s. 40, p. 306.
F
66 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
13. And to the salvation of the faithful. 14. To the good estate of the Church. 15. The deciding of con- troversies and the extermination of errors. 16. Things which regard piety and the whole Church. 17. Matters of religion.
These might be greatly multiplied. They will, however, suffice to show how wide and general is the simple formula ' in faith and morals,' which is the traditionary expression of the object of the infallibility of the Church.
It is clear that these phrases are all equivalent. They are more or less explicit, but they contain the same ultimate meaning, namely, that the Church has an infallible guidance in treating of all matters of faith, morals, piety, and the general good of the Church.
The object of infallibility, then, is the whole re- vealed Word of God, and all that is so in contact with revealed truth, that without treating of it, the Word of God could not be guarded, expounded, and defended. As, for instance, in declaring the Canon and authenticity and true interpretation of Holy Scripture, and the like*
Further, it is clear that the Church has an infallible guidance, not only in all matters that are revealed, but also in all matters which are opposed to reve- lation. For the Church could not discharge its office as the Teacher of all nations, unless it were able with infallible certainty to proscribe doctrines at variance with the word of God.
From thiSj again, it follows that the direct object of infallibility is the Revelation, or Word, of God ; the indirect object is whatsoever is necessary for its expo-
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 67
sition or defence, and whatsoever is contrariant to the Word of God, that is, to faith and morals. The Church having a divine office to condemn errors in faith and morals, has therefore an infallible assistance in dis- cerning and in proscribing false philosophies and false science.* Under this head comes the condemnation of heretical texts, such as the Three Chapters, proscribed in the Fifth Council, the 'Augustinus' of Jansenius, and the like ; and also censures, both greater and less, those, for instance, of heresy and of error, because of their contrariety to faith; those also of temerity, scandal, and the like, because of their contrariety to morals at least.
2. It is therefore evident that the doctrinal autho- rity, of the Church is not confined to matters of revela- tion, but extends also to positive truths which are not revealed, whensoever the doctrinal authority of the Church cannot be duly exercised in the promulga- tion, explanation, and defence of revelation without judging and pronouncing on such matters and truths. This will be clear from the following propositions :
( 1 . ) First, the doctrinal authority of the Church is infallible in all matters and truths- which are neces- sary to the custody of the Depositum.
This extends to certain truths of natural science, as, for example, the existence of substance ; and to truths of the natural reason, such as that the soul is
* Porro Ecclesia, qu£e una cum apostolico munere docendi, man- datum accepit fidei depositum custodiendi, jus etiam et oiEcium divinitus habet falsi nominis scientiam proscribendi, ne quis deci- piatur per philosophiam, et inanem fallaoiam (Coloss. ii. 8). — Con- stitutio Prima de Fide Catholica, cap. iv. De Fide et Eatione. Appendix, No. IV.
f2
68 THE VATICAN COUNCIL,
inimaterial ; that it is ' the form of the body ; ' * and the like. It extends also to certain truths of the supernatural order, which are not revealed; as, the authenticity of certain texts or versions of the Holy Scriptures.
The Council of Trent by a dogmatic decree declared, under anathema, that the Vulgate edition is authentic. Now this is a definition or dogmatic judgment, to be believed on the infallible authority of the Church. But this truth or fact is not revealed.
(2.) Secondly, there are truths of mere human his- tory, which therefore are not revealed, without which the deposit of the Faith cannot be taught or guarded in its integrity. For instance, that St. Peter was Bishop of Eome ; that the Council of Trent and the Council of the Vatican are Ecumenical, that is, legitimately celebrated and confirmed; that Pius IX. is the successor of Peter by legitimate election. These truths are not revealed. They have no place in Scrip- ture ; and except the first, they have no place in tradition ; yet they are so necessary to the order of faith, that the whole would be undermined if they were not infallibly certain. But such infallible cer- tainty is impossible by means of human history and human evidence alone. It is created only by the in- fallible authority of the Church.
(3.) Thirdly, there are truths of interpretation, not revealed, without which the deposit of the faith can- not be preserved.
The Council of Trent f declares that to the Church it belongs to judge of the true sense and inter-
* Concil. Later. V. Bulla Apostolici Regiminis. f Sess. iv.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. ^
pretation of Holy Scripture. Now the sense ' of l&e- Holy Scripture is twofold ; namely, the literal and grammatical, or, as it is called, the sensus quis ; and the theological and doctrinal, or the sensus qualis. The Church judges infallibly of both. It judges of the question that such and such words or texts have such and such literal and grammatical meaning. It judges also of the conformity of such meaning with the rule of faith, or of its contradiction to the same. The former is a question of fact, the latter of dogma. That the latter falls within the infallible judgment of the Church has been denied by none but heretics. The former has been denied, for a time, by some who continued to be Catholics : for this is, in truth, the question of dogmatic facts. But the Jansenists never ventured to extend their denial to the text of Scrip- ture, though the argument is one and the same. The Church has the same assistance in judging of the grammatical and of the theological sense of texts, whether sacred or simply human : and has exercised it in all ages.
For instance : Pope Hormisdas * says, ' The vener- able wisdom of the Fathers providently defined by faithful ordinance what doctrines are Catholic : fixing also certain parts of the ancient books to be received as of authority, the Holy Ghost so instructing them ; lest the reader, indulging his own opinion . . . should assert not that which tends to the edification of the Church, but what his own pleasure had conceived.'
Pope Nicholas I. f writes, 'By their decree (i.e. that
* Hormisdse Ep. LXX. Labbe, Condi, torn. v. p. 664.
t Nic. Ep. ad Univ. Episc. Galliee, Labbe, Condi, torn, x. p. 282.
70
THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
of, the Roman Pontiffs) the ^vritmgs of other authors ^re apjjrovecl or condemned, so that what the Apo- stoHc See approves, is to be held at this day, and what it has rejected, is to be esteemed of no effect,' &c.
Pope Gelasius, in a Council held at Rome, decreed as follows : ' Also the writings of Csecilius Cyprianus, Martyr, Bishop of Carthage, are in all things to be received; also the writings of Blessed Gregory, Bishop of Xazianzum. . . . also the writings and treatises of all orthodox Fathers, who in nothing have deviated from the fellowshija of the Holy Roman Church, nor have been separated from its faith and preaching; but have been partakers by the grace of God of its communion unto the last day of their life, we decree to be read.' *
Turrecremata says, ' It is to be believed that the Roman Pontiff is directed by the Holy Ghost in things of faith, and consequently in these cannot err ; other- wise any one might as easily say that there was error in the choice (or discernment) of the four Gospels, and of the canonical epistles, and of the books of other doctors, approving some, and disapproving others ; which, however, we read, and as is evident, was determined by the Roman Pontiffs Gregory and Gelasius.' f Again, he says, ' The sixth kind of Catho- lic truths are those which are asserted by doctors, approved by the Universal Church for the defence of the faith and the confutation of heretics. . . . This is evident : for since the Church, which is directed by
* Labbe, Concil. torn. v. p. 387.
f Turrecremata, De potestate Papali, lib. ii. cap. 112, in Bibl. M. Eocaberti, torn. xiii. p. 4.53.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 71
the Holy Ghost, approves certain doctors, receiving their doctrine as true, it necessarily follows that the doctrine of such (writers), delivered by way of asser- tion, and never otherwise retracted, is true and ought to be held by all the faithful with firm belief, in so far as it is received by the 'Universal Church; other- wise, the Universal Church would appear to have erred in approving and accepting their doctrine as true, which however was not true.'*
And Stapleton lays down, ' Bishops . . . when they treat of the Scripture as doctors, have not this certain and infallible authority of which we are speak- ing : until their treatises, approved by sacred authority, are commended by the Church as Catholic and cer- tainly orthodox interpretation, which Gelasius first did,'t &c.
I will give one more example, as it is eminently in point.
The Church has approved in a special manner the works of St. Augustine as containing the true doc- trines of grace against the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies.
In this particular, his works have been declared to be orthodox by St. Innocent I., St. Zosimus, St. Boniface I., St. Celestine, St. Hormisdas, St. Felix IV., and Boniface II. For that reason Clement XI. justly condemned the book of Launoy called 'Veritable tradition de I'Eglise sur la Predestination et la Gr^ce,' &c., as ' at least impious and blasphemous, and in- jurious to St. Augustine, the shining light and chief
* Ibid. lib. iv. p. ii. c. ii. 382.
t Controv. Fidei, lib. x. c. ii. p. 355, ed. Paris, 1620.
72 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
doctor of the Catholic Church ; as also to the Church itself and to the Apostolic See.' *
Now, in this approbation the Church approved the doctrine of St. Augustine, not only in the sensus qualis but also in the sensus quis ; that is, it approved not only a possible theological sense which was or- thodox, but the very and grammatical sense of the text. It was therefore a true doctrinal judgment as to a dogmatic fact.
For, as Cardinal Gerdil argues, the doctrine of St. Augustine was proposed by the Church as a rule of faith against the Pelagian and semi- Pelagian errors. ' AVhen it is said that the doctrine of St. Augustine in the matter of grace was adopted by the Church, it must not be understood in the sense as if St. Augus- tine had worked out a peculiar system for himself,
which the Church then adopted as its own
' The great merit of St. Augustine is, that with mar- vellous learning he expounded and defended the antient belief of the faithful.' f The Church infal- libly discerned the orthodoxy of his writings, and approving them, commended them as a rule of faith.
If the Church have this infallible discernment of the meaning, grammatical and theological, of orthodox texts, it has eodem intuitu the same discernment of heterodox texts. For the universal practice of the Church in commending the writings of orthodox, and of condemning .those of heterodox authors, is a part of the doctrinal authority of the Church in the
* Brev. ' Cum. sicut,' 28 Jan. 1704. D'Argentre, Collec. Jud. torn, vi. p. 444.
■]• Saggio d' Istruz. teol. ' De gratia,' ed. Eom. p. 189.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 73
custody and defence of the faith. It falls therefore within the limits of its infallibility.
The commendation of the works of St. Augustine, and the condemnation of the Thalia of Arius at Nicaja, of the Anathematisms of Nestorius at Ephesus, and of the Three Chapters of Ibas, Theodore, and Theodoret, in the Second Council of Constantinople, all alike in- volved a judgment of dogmatic facts.
The subterfuge of the Jansenists as to the literal meaning of ' Augustinus ' came too late. The practice of the Church and the decrees of Councils had already pronounced its condemnation.
(4.) What has here been said of the condemnation of heretical texts, is equally applicable to the censures of the Church.
The condemnation of propositions is only the con- demnation of a text by fragments.
The same discernment which ascertains the ortho- doxy of certain propositions, detects the heterodoxy of those which are contradictory. And in both pro- cesses that discernment is infallible. To define doctrines of faith, and to condemn the contradictions of heresy, is almost one and the same act. The infallibility of the Church in condemning heretical propositions is denied by no Catholic.
In like manner, the detection and condemnation of propositions at variance with theological certainty is a function of the same discernment by which theo- logical certainty is known. But the Church has an infallible discernment of truths which are theologically certain; that is, of conclusions resulting from two premisses of which one is revealed and the other pvidpnt, bv the liffht of nature.
74 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
In these two kinds of censures, at least, it is there- fore of faith that the Church is infallible.
As to the other censures, such as temerity, scandal, oflPence to pious ears, and the like, it is evident that they all relate to 'the moral character of propositions. It is not credible that a proposition condemned by the Church as rash should not be rash, and as scan- dalous should not be scandalous, or as oiFensive to pious ears should not be such, and the like. If the Church be infallible in faith and morals, it is not to be be- lieved that it can err in jDassing these moral judgments on the ethical character of propositions. In truth, all Catholic theologians, without exception, so far as I know, teach that the Church is infallible in all such censures.* They diflfer only in this : that some' declare this truth to be of faith, and therefore the denial of it to be heresy ; others declare it to be of faith as to the condemnation of heretical propositions, but in all others to be only of theological certainty; so that the denial of it to be not heresy, but error.
To deny the infallibility of the Church in the' censures less than for heresy, is held to be heretical by De Panormo, Malderus, Coninck, Diana, Oviedo, Amici, Matteucci, Pozzobonelli, Viva, Nannetti. Murray calls it objective heresy. Griffini, Herincx, Ripalda, Ferraris, and Reinerding do not decide whether it be heretical, erroneous, or proximate to error. Cardenas and Turrianus hold it to be erroneous ; Anfossi erroneous, or proximate to error. De Lugo in one place maintains that it is erroneous ;
* Of course, I am not speaking of writers whose works are under censure.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 75
ill another, that to deny the infallibility of the Church in the condemnation of erroneous propositions, is heresy.* All, therefore, affirm the Church in passing such censures to be infallible.
The infallibility of the Church in all censures less than heresy may be proved from the acts of the Council of Constance. In the eleventh article of the Interrogatory proposed to the followers of Huss are included condemnations of all kinds. They were asked whether they believed the articles of "Wickliffe and Huss to be 'not Catholic, but some of them notoriously heretical, some erroneous, others temera- rious and seditious, others offensive to pious ears.' f
* De Panormo, Scrutinium Doetrinarum, cap. iii. art. xiii. num. 7 sqq. p. 196, Rome, 1709 ; Diana, 0pp. torn. ix. De infall. Eom. Pont, resol. x. num. 8 sqq. p. 262, Venice, 1698 ; Amici, Cursus Theologicus, tom. iv. De Fide, disp. vii. num. 55, p. 146, Douay, 1641 ; Matteucci, Opus Dogmatic. De Controv. Pidei, vii. cap. iii. num. 33, p. 359, Venice, 1755 ; Viva, Theses Damnatce, quasst. prodrom. num. xviii. p. 10, Padua, 1737 ; Murray, De Ecclesia, tom. iii. fasc. i. p. 226, Dublin, 1865; Herincx, Summ. Theol. Schol. -et Moral, dub. ix. num. 98, p. 186, Antwerp, 1663; Eipalda, tom. iii. disp. i. sect. 7, num. 59, p. 16, Cologne, 1648 ; Ferraris, Bihlio- thec. Canonic, tom. vi. sub. v. Prop, Damn. num. 37, p. 565, Rome, 1789; Reinerding, Theol. Fundamental, tract, i. num. 408, p. 237, Munster, 1864 ; Cardenas, Crisis Theologica, dis. prooem. num. 140, p. 35, Cologne, 1690; Turrianus, Select. Disput. Theol. pars i. disp. XXX. dub. 3, p. 149, Lyons, 1634; Anios&i, Difesa delV ' Aucto- rem Fidei,' lett. x. tom. ii. p. 141, Rome, 1816; De Lugo, De Virtute Fidei, tom. iii. disp. xx. sect. 3, num. 109, p. 324, and num. 113- 117, p. 325, Venice, 1751. For the summary and for the references to Pozzobonelli, Malderus, Coninck, Oviedo, Nannetti and GrifEni, I am indebted to an unpublished work of Fr. Granniello of the congregation of Barnabites in Rome.
■f ' Utrum credat sententiam sacri Constantiensis concilii, . . . scilicet quod supradioti 45 articuli Joannis Wicliff, et Joannis Huss triginta, non sunt Catholici ; sed quidam ex eis sunt
76 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
Martin V., therefore, in tlie Bull 'Inter cunctos* requires belief, that is, interior assent, to all such con- demnations made by the Council of Constance, which therein extended its infallible jurisdiction to aU the minor censures, less than that of heresy.
In like manner, again, in the Bull ' Auctorem Fidei,' the propositions condemned as heretical are very few, but the propositions condemned as erroneous, scandalous, offensive, schismatical, injurious, are very numerous.
During the last three hundred years, the Pontiffs have condemned a multitude of propositions of which perhaps not twenty were censured with the note of heresy.
Now in every censure the Church proposes to us some truth relating to faith or morals ; and whether the matter of such truths be revealed or not revealed, it nevertheless so pertains to faith and morals that the deposit could not be guarded if the Church in such judgments were liable to error.
The Apostle declares that ' the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth.' * On what authority these words can be restricted to revealed truths alone, I do not know. I know of no commentator, ancient or modern, who so restricts them. On the other hand St. Peter Damian, Sixtus V., Ferr6, Cardinal de Lugo, Gregory de Valentia, expressly extend these words to all truths necessary to the custody of the deposit.
notorie hsretici, quidam erronei, alii temerarii et seditiosi, alii piarum auriuin ofFensivi.' — Labbe, Condi, torn. xvi. p. 194. * 1 Tim. iii. 15.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 77
This doctrine is abundantly confirmed by the following declarations of Pius IX. ' For the Church by its Divine institution is bound with all diligence to guard whole and inviolate the deposit of Divine faith, and constantly to watch with supreme zeal over the salvation of souls, driving away therefore, and elimi- nating with all exactness, all things which are either contrary to faith or can in any way bring into peril the salvation of souls. Wherefore the Church, by the power committed to it by its Divine Author, has not only the right, but above all the duty, of not tolerating but of proscribing and of condemning all errors, if the integrity of the faith and the salvation of souls should so require. On all philosophers who desire to remain sons of the Church, and on all philosophy, this duty lies, to assert nothing con- trary to the teaching of the Church, and to retract all such things when "the Church shall so admonish. The opinion which teaches contrary to this we pro- nounce and declare altogether erroneous, and in the highest degree injurious to the faith of the Church, and to its authority.'*
From all that has been said, it is evident that the Church claims no jurisdiction over the processes of philosophy or science, except as they bear upon re- vealed truths; nor does it claim to intervene in philosophy or science as a judge or censor of the principles proper to such philosophy or science. The only judgment it pronounces regards the conformity or variance of such processes of the human intelli-
* Litterse Pii IX., ' Gravissimas inter,' ad Archiep. Monac. et Frlsine. Dec. 1862.
78 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
gence with the deposit of faith, and the principles of revealed morality : that is, in order to the end of its infallible otfice, namely, the guardianship of Divine revelation.
I will not here attempt to enumerate the subject- matters which fall within the limits of the infalli- bility of the Church. It belongs to the Church alone to determine the limits of its own infallibility. Hitherto it has not done so except by its acts, and from the practice of the Church we may infer to what matter its infallible discernment extends. It is enough for the present to show two things :
1. First, that the infallibility of the Church ex- tends, as' we have seen, directly to the whole matter of revealed truth, and indirectly to all truths which though not revealed are in such contact with revela- tion that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, expounded, and defended without an infal- lible discernment of such unrevealed truths.
2. Secondly, that this extension of the infallibility of the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all theologians, at least theologically certain ; and, in the judgment of the majority of theologians, certain by the certainty of faith,.
Such is the traditional doctrine respecting the infallibility of the Church in faith and morals. By the definition of the Vatican Council, what is tra- ditionally believed by all the faithful in respect to the Church is expressly declared of the Roman Pontiff. But the definition of the extent of that infal- libility, and of the certainty on which it rests, in matters not revealed, has not been treated as yet,'
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 79
but is left for the second part of the 'Schema De Ecclesia.'
III. Thirdly, the definition declares the efBciont cause of infallibility to be a Divine assistance pro- mised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors.
The explicit promise is that of our Divine Lord to Peter, ' I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.' *
The implicit promise is in the words ' On this rock I wUl build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' f
The traditional interpretation of these promises is precise.
The words, ' Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos,' are interpreted, by both Fathers and Councils, of the perpetual stability of Peter's faith in his see and his successors ; and of this assertion I give the following proofs.
St. Ambrose, a.d. 397, in his treatise on Faith, says, Christ ' said to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Was He not therefore able to confirm the faith of him to whom by His own authority He gave the kingdom? whom He pohited out as the foundation of the Church, when He called him the rock ? ' J
* St.. Luke, xxii. 32.
t St. Matth. xvi. 18.
J Habes in evangelio quia Petro dixit, Rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua. — Ergo cui propria auctoritate regnum dabat, hujus fidem firmare non poterat; quem cum petram dixit firmamentura Ecclesise indicavit ? — St. Ambrose De Fide, lib. iv. cap. v. tom. iii. p. 672, ed. Ben. Venice, 1751.
80 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
St. John Chrysostom, a.d. 407, in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, writes, ' He (i.e. Peter) takes the lead in the matter, as he was himself en- trusted with the care of all. For Christ said to him, Thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.'*
St. Augustine, a.d. 430, in his commentary on the words of Psalm cxviii. 43, ' And take not Thou the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,' says, ' There- fore the whole body of Christ speaks ; that is, the universality of the Holy Church, And the Lord Himself said to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, that is, that the word of truth be not utterly taken out of thy mouth.' f
St. Cyril of Alexandria, a.d. 444, in his commen- tary on St. Luke, says, ' The Lord, when He hinted at the denial of His disciple and said, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, immediately utters a "word of consolation, thou being converted, confirm thy brethren; that is, be the confirmer and teacher of those who come to Me by faith.' J
* Ilpairoe Tov TrpaynaroQ aiidevrel, &t£ alroQ waVToe ey^eipiadeiQ, TrpoQ yap tiivtov enrev 6 Xpiirroe' Kai <tv ttote 'fKiiTTptiLas ariipilov TOVQ aSe\<j>ovQ mw. — St. Joann. Chrys. 0pp. torn. ix. p, 26, ed. Ben. Paris, 1731.
t Totum itaque corpus Christi loquitur, id est EcclesisB sanctse universitas. — Et ipse Dominus ad Petrum, Eogavi, inquit, pro te, ne deficiat fides tua ; hoc est ne auferatur ex ore tuo verbum veritatis usque valde.— St. Augustin. Enarratio in Psalmos, torn. iv. p. 1310, ed. Ben. Paris, 1681.
I O /it'i-rot KvpwQ Tfjv TOV fiadrjrov Ixpvrjinv alu^aftevoQ tV ole^ri, idiiidriv ircpl aoi 'Iva fiij UXLirri i; tvIgtiq aov, tlaffpei trapaxpfipa Tuv TtJQ TrapaKXijt7e<0Q Koyov, Kai (pr](n, Kal av ttote iwiiTTpi^aQ arrtpiiov Toig aieXcpovc aov ■ rovrtaTi ytvov arripiyfia Kai ^ilaaicaXoQ tSiV lia wiareuig wpoaiovTwv kfioLSt. Cyrill. Alex. Comment, in Luc. xxii. torn. V. p. 916, ed. Migne, Paris, 1848.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 81
St. Leo the Great, a.d. 480, in a discourse on the anniversary of his election to the Pontificate, says, ' If anything in our time and by us is well administered and rightly ordained, it is to be ascribed to his opera- tion and to his government, to whom it was said, " Thou being converted, confirm thy brethren," and to whom after His resurrection, in answer to his threefold declaration of everlasting love, the Lord with mystical meaning thrice said, " Feed my sheep." '*
St. Gelasius, a.d. 496, writes to Honorius, Bishop of Dalmatia, ' Though we are hardly able to draw breath in the manifold difficulties of the times ; yet in the government of the Apostolic See we un- ceasingly have in hand the care of the whole fold of the Lord, which was committed to blessed Peter by the voice of our Saviour Himself, " And thou being converted, confirm thy brethren," and again, " Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep." 'f
Pelagius IL, a.d. 590, in like manner writes to the Bishops of Istria, ' For you know how the Lord in the gospel declares : Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I
* Tantam potentiam dedit ei quern totius Ecclesiae principem fecit, ut si quid etiam nostris temporibus recte per nos agitur recteque disponitur illius operibus illius sit gubemaculis deputandum, cui dictum est, Et tu conversus confirma fratres tuos ; et cui post resurrectionem suani Dominus ad triuam Eeterui amorisprofessionem mystica insinuatione tei' dixit, Pasce oves meas. — St. Leo, serm. iv. cap. iv. torn. i. p. 19, ed. Ballerini, Venice, 1753.
I Licet inter varias temporum difficultates vis respirare valeamus, pro sedis tamen apostolicse moderamine totius ovilis dominici curam sine cessatione tractantes, quK beato Petro salvatoris ipsius nostri voce delegata est, Et tu conversus confirma fratres tuos ; et item, Petre, amas me ? 'pasce oves meas. — St. Gelasius, epist. v. ; in Labbe, Concil. tom. v. p. 298, Venice, 1728.
G
82 THE VATICAN 'COUJirCIL.
have prayed the Father for. thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren. See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.'*
St. Gregory the Great, a.d. 604, in his celebrated letter to Maurice, Emperor of the East, says, ' For it is clear to all who know the Gospel, that the care of the whole Church was committed to the Apostle St. Petei', prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said, " Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep." To him it is said, " Behold, Satan has desired to sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren." To him it is said, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church," 'f &c.
Stephen, Bishop of Dori, a.d. 649, at a Lateran Council under Martin I. says, in a libellus supplex or memorial read and recorded in the acts, ' Peter the Prince of the Apostles was first commanded to feed the sheep of the Catholic Church, when the Lord said, " Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep." And
* Nostis enim in evangelic domimim proclamantem, Simon, Simon, ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum, ego autem rogavi pro te Patrem, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu conversus confirma fratres tuos. Considerate, carissimi, quia Veritas mentiri non potuit, nee fides Petri in seternum quassari poterit vel mntaii. — Pelagius. 11. epist. v. in Labbe, Concil. tom. vi. p. 626.
\ Cunctis enim Evangelium scientibus liquet, quod voce dominica sancto et omnium apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesise cura commissa est. Ipsi quippe dicitur, Petre, amas me? pasce oves meas. Ipsi dicitur, Ecce Satanas expetiit cribrare vos sicut triticum ; et ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua; et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Ipsi dicitur, Tu es Petrus et super banc petram, etc. — St Gregor. Epist. lib. v. ep. xx. tom. ii. 748, ed. Ben. Paris, 1705.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 63
again, he chiefly and especially, having a faith firm above all, and unchangeable in our Lord God, was found worthy to convert and to confirm his fellows and his spiritual brethren who were shaken.'*
Pope St. Vitalian, a.d. 669, says, in a letter to Paul, Archbishop of Crete, ' What things we com- mand thee and thy Synod according to God and for the Lord, study at once to fulfil, lest we be compelled to bear ourselves not in mercy but according to the power of the sacred canons, for it is written : The Lord said, " Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, con- firrh thy brethren." And again : " Whatsoever thou, Peter, shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ' f
The quotations given in the Pastoral Letter of last year, united with these, afford the following result. The application of the promise Ego rogavi pro te, &c. to the infallible faith of Peter and his successors, is made by St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Leo, St. Gelasius, Pelagius IL, St. Gregory the Great,
* Princeps apostolomm Petrus pascere primus jiissus est oves Catholicse Ecclesise, cum Dominus dicit, Petre, amas me ? Pasce oves meas; et iterum ipse prseoipue ac specialiter firmam prK omni- bus habens in Dominum Deum nostrum et immutabilem fidem, convertere aliquando et confirmare exagitatos consortea suos et spiritales meruit fratres. — Labbe, Concil. torn. vii. p. 107.
f Quae prsecipimua tibi secundum Deum et propter Dominum tuseque synodo, stude iilico peragere, ne cogamur non misericorditer sed secundum Tirtutem sacratissimorum canonum oonversari. Scriptum namque est, Dominus inquit, Petre, rogavi pro te ut non deficeret fides tua ; et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Et rursum, Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. — St. Vitalian, epist. i. in Labbe, Concil. torn. vii. p. 460.
g2
84 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
Stephen Bishop of Dori in a Lateran Council, St. Yitalian, the Bishops of the IV. (Ecumenical Council A.D. 451, St. Agatho in the VI. a.d. 680, St. Bernard A.D. 1153, St. Thomas Aquinas a.d. 1274, St. Bona- venture a.d. 1274: that is, this interpretation is given by three out of the four doctors of the Church, by six Pontiffs down to the seventh century. It was recognised in two CEcumenical Councils. It is ex- plicitly declared by the Angelic Doctor, who may be taken as the exponent of the Dominican school, and by the Seraphic Doctor, who is likewise the witness of the Franciscan ; and bj' a multitude of Saints. This catena, if continued to later times, might, as all know, be indefinitely prolonged.
The interpretation by the Fathers of the words, ' On this rock,' &c. is fourfold, but all four interpre- tations are no more than four aspects of one and the same truth, and all are necessary to complete its full meaning. They all implicitly or explicitly contain the perpetual stabiUty of Peter's faith. It would be out of place to enter upon this here. It is enough to refer to Ballerini De vi et ratione Primatus, where the subject is exhausted.
In these two promises a divine assistance is pledged to Peter and to his successors, and that divine assist- ance is promised to secure the stability and indefecti- bility of the Faith in the supreme Doctor and Head of the Church, for the general good, of the Church itself.
It is therefore a charisma, a grace of the super- natural order, attached to the Primacy of Peter which is perpetual in his successors.
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 85
I need hardly point out that between the charisma, or gratia gratis data of infallibility and the idea of impeccability there is no connection. I should not so much as notice it, if some had not strangely obscured the subject by introducing this confusion. I should have thought that the gift of prophecy in Balaam and Caiaphas, to say nothing of the powers of the priesthood, which are the same in good and bad alike, would have been . enough to make such confusion impossible.
The preface to the Definition carefully lays down that infallibihty is not inspiration. The Divine assist- ance by which the Pontiffs are guarded from error, when as Pontiffs they teach in matters of faith and morals, contains no new revelation. Inspiration con- tained not only assistance in writing but sometimes the suggestion of truths not otherwise known. The Pontiflfsare witnesses, teachei's, andjudges of the reve- lation already given to the Church; and in guarding, expounding, and defending that revelation, their wit- ness, teaching, and judgment, is by Divine assistance preserved from error. This assistance, like the reve- lation which it guards, is of the supernatural order. They, therefore, who argue against the infallibility of the Pontiff because he is an individual person, and still profess to believe the infallibility of Bishops in General Councils, and also of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world, because they are many wit- nesses, betray the fact that they have not as yet mastered the idea that infallibility is not of the order of nature, but is of the order of grace. In the order of nature, indeed, truth may be found rather with the
86 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
many than witli the individual, though in this the history of mankind would give a host of contrary examples. But in the supernatural order, no such argument can have place. It depends simply upon the ordination of God ; and certainly neither in the Old Testament nor in the New have we examples of infallibility depending upon number. But in both we have the example of infallibility attaching to per- sons as individuals ; as for instance the Prophets of the old and the Apostles of the new law. It is no answer to say that the Apostles were united in one body. They were each one possessed of that which all possessed together. To this may be also added the inspired writers, who were preserved from error individually and personally, and not as a collective body. The whole evidence .of Scripture, therefore, is in favour, of the communication of Divine gifts to individuals. The objection is not scriptural nor Catholic, nor of the supernatural order, but natural, and, in the last analysis, rationalistic.
IV. Fourthly, the Definition precisely determines the acts of the Pontiff to which this Divine assistance is attached ; namely, ' in doctrina de fide vel morihus definienda,^ to the defining of doctrine of faith and morals.
The definition, therefore, carefully excludes all ordinary and common acts of the Pontiff as a private person, and also all acts of the Pontiff as a private theologian, and again all his acts which are not in matters of faith and morals ; and further, all acts in which he does not define a doctrine, that is, in which he does not act as the supreme Doctor of the Church
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 87
in defining doctrines to be held by the whole Church.
The definition therefore includes, and includes only, the solemn acts of the Pontifi' as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, defining doctrines of faith and morals, to be held by the whole Church.
Now the word doctrine here signifies a revealed truth, traditionally handed down by the teaching authority, or magisterium infallibile, of the Church; including any truth which, though not revealed, is yet so united with a revealed truth as to be insepa- rable from its full explanation, and defence.
And the word definition here signifies the precise judgment or sentence in which any such traditional truth of faith or morals may be authoritatively for- mulated; as, for instance, the consubstahtiality of the Son, the procession of the Holy Ghost by one only Spiration from the Father and the Son, the Immacu- late Conception, and the like.
The word ' definition ' has two senses, the one forensic and narrow, the other wide and common; and this in the present instance is more correct. The forensic or narrow sense confines its meaning to the logical act of defining by genus and differentia. But this sense is proper to dialectics and disputations, not to the acts of Councils and Pontiffs. The wide and common sense is that of an authoritative ter- mination of questions which have been in doubt and debate, and therefore of the judgment or sentence thence resulting. When the second Council of Lyons says, ' Si qua3 subortae fuerint fidei quasstiones suo judicio debere definiri,' it means that the questions
88 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
of faith ought to be ended by this judgment of the Pontiff. JDeJinire is finem imponere, or jinaliter judi- care. It is therefore equivalent to determinare, or Jinaliter determinare, which words are those of St. Thomas when speaking of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is in this sense that the Vatican Council uses the word dejinienda. It signi- fies the final decision by which any matter of faith and morals is put into a doctrinal form.
Now it is to be observed that the definition does not speak of either controversies, or questions of faith and morals. It speaks of the doctrinal authority of the Pontiff in general; and therefore both of what may be called pacific definitions like that of the Im- maculate Conception, and of controversial definitions like those of St. Innocent against the Pelagians, or St. Leo against the Monophysites. Moreover, under the term definitions, as we have seen, are included all dogmatic judgments. In the Bull Auctorem Fidei these terms are used as synonymous. The tenth proposition of the Synod of Pistoia is condemned' as ' Detrahens firmitati definitionum, judiciorumve dog- maticorum Ecclesiae.' In the Italian version made by order of the Pope these words are translated, 'detraente alia fermezza delle definizioni o giudizj dommatici della Chiesa.' Now, dogmatic judgments included all judgments in matters of dogma; as for instance, the inspiration and authenticity of sacred books, the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of human and uninspired books.
But intimately connected with dogma in these judgments, as we have already seen, is the gram-
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 89
matical and literal sense of such texts. The theo- logical sense of such texts cannot be judged of with- out a discernment of their grammatical and literal sense; and both are included in the same dogmatic judgment, that is, both the dogmatic truth and the dogmatic fact.
The example above given, in which the Pontiffs approved and commended to the Church, as a rule of faith against Pelagianism, the writings of St. Augus- tine, was a true definition of doctrine in faith and morals. The condemnation of the ' Augustinus ' of Jansenius, and of the five propositions extracted from it, was also a doctrinal definition, or a dogmatic judgment.
In like manner all censures, whether for heresy or with a note less than heresy, are doctrinal definitions in faith and morals, and are included in the words in doctrina de fide vel moribus definienda.
In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontifi" as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition of his in- fallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, BO far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as, for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come laws of discipline, canonisation of Saints, approbation of religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals, and piety.
The Definition, then, limits the infallibihty of the Pontifi' to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and
90 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.
V. Fifthly, the definition declares that in these acts the Pontiff ' ea mfallibilitate pollere, qua Divinus Eedemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide et inoribus instructaxn esse voluit ; ' that is, that he is possessed of the infallibility with which our Divine Saviour willed that His Church should be endowed.
It is to be carefully noted that this definition declares that the Roman Pontiff possesses by himself the infallibility with which the Church in unison with him is endowed.
The definition does not decide the question whether the infallibility of the Church is derived from him or through him. But it does decide that his infallibility is not derived from the Church, nor through the Church. The former question is left untouched. Two truths are affirmed ; the one, that the supreme and infallible doctrinal authority was given to Peter, the other, that the promise of the Holy Spirit was afterwards extended to the Apostles. The promises 'Ego rogavi pro te,' and 'Won prsevalebunt,' were spoken to Peter alone. The promises 'He shall lead you into all truth,' and ' Behold, I am with you all days,' were spoken to Peter with all the Apostles. The infallibility of Peter was, therefore, not dependent on his union with them in exer- cising it; but, their infallibility was evidently de- pendent on their union with him. In like manner, the whole Episcopate gathered in Council is not in-
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 91
fallible without its head. But the head is always infallible by himself. Thus far the definition is ex- press, and the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ is declared to be the privilegium Petri, a charisma attached to the primacy, a Divine assistance given as a prerogative of the Head. There is, therefore, a special fitness in the word pollere in respect to the Head of the Church. This Divine assistance is his special prerogative depending on God alone; inde- pendent of the Church, which in dependence on him is endowed with the same infallibility. If the defi- nition does not decide that the Church derives its infallibility from the Head, ic does decide that the Head does not derive his infallibility from the Church ; for it affirms this Divine assistance to be derived from the promise to Peter and in Peter to his suc- cessors.
YI. Lastly^ the definition fixes the dogmatic value of these Pontifical acts ex cathedra, by declaring that they are ' ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesice, irre- formahilia^ that is, irreformable in and of themselves, and not because the Church or any part or any mem- bers of the Church should assent to them.. These words, with extreme precision, do two things. First, they ascribe to the Pontifical acts ex cathedra, in faith or morals an intrinsic infallibility; and secondly, they exclude from them all influx of any other cause of such intrinsic infallibility. It is ascribed alone to the Divine assistance given to the Head of the Church for that end and efffect.
I need not add, that by these words many forms of error are excluded : as, first, the theory that the joint
92 THE VATICAN COUNCII-.
action of the Episcopate congregated in Council is necessary to the infallibility of the Pontiff; secondly, that the consent of the Episcopate dispersed is re- quired; thirdly, that if not the express at least the tacit assent of the Episcopate is needed. All these alike deny the infallibility of the Pontiff till his acts ai'e confirmed by the Episcopate. I know, indeed, it has been said by some, that in so speaking they do not deny the infallibility of the Pontiff, but affirm him to be infallible when he is united with the Episcopate, from which they further affirm that he can never be divided. But this, after aU, resolves the efficient cause of his infallibility into union with the Episcopate, and makes its exercise dependent upon that union; which is to deny his infallibility as a privilege of the primacy, independent of the Church which he is to teach and to confirm. The words ' Ex sese,-non autem ex consensu Ecdesice,' preclude all ambiguity by which for two hundred years the promise of our Lord to Peter and his successors has in some minds been obscured.
\)6
CHAPTER III.
THE TEEMlNOLOaY OF THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY.
I WILL now add a few words respecting the terms which have been used, not only in the course of the last months, but in the traditional theology of the Schools, on the doctrine of Infallibility.
Certain well-known writers have rendered memor- able the formula of ' personal, separate, independent and absolute infalHbility.' It has not only been used in pastoral letters, and pamphlets, but introduced into high diplomatic correspondence.
The frequency and confidence with which this for- mula was repeated, as if taken from the writings of the promoters of the Definition, made it not unnatural to examine into the origin, history, and meaning of the formula itself. I therefore set myself to search it out; and I employed others to do the same. As it had been ascribed to myself, our first examination was turned to anything I might have written. After repeated search, not only was the formula as a whole nowhere to be discovered, but the words of which it is composed' were, with the exception of the word ' in- dependent,' equally nowhere to be found. I mention this, that I may clear away the supposition that in what I add I have any motive of defending myself
94 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
or anything I may have written. I speak of it now simply for the truth's sake, and for charity, which is always promoted by a clear statement of truth, and never by the confused noise of controversy ; and also to justify some of the most eminent defenders of Catholic doctrine, by showing that this terminology is to be found in the writings of many of our greatest theologians.
I may remind you, in passing, that in the Definition not a trace of this formula nor of its component words is to be found.
First, as to the word personal. Cardinal Toletus, speaking of the doctrine of infallibility, says, ' The first opinion is, that the privilege of the Pope, that of not erring in faith, is personal; and cannot be com- municated to another.' After quoting our Lord's words, ' I have prayed for thee,' &c. he adds, ' I con- cede that this privilege is personal.' *
Ballerini says, that the jurisdiction of St. Peter, by reason of the primacy, was ' singular and personal ' to himself. The same right he affirms to belong also to the Roman Pontiffs, St. Peter's successors.' f
This doctrine he explains diffusely.
' This primacy of chief jurisdiction, not of mere order, in St. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs his suc- cessors, is personal^ that is, attached to their person :
* ' Prima est quod privilegium Papse ut in fide errare non possit est personale, nee ipse potest alteri communicare, Luc. xxii. ; "Ego rogavi pro te, Petre, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos." Ad primum concede esse illud privilegium personale : ob id communicari non potest.' — Toletus, In Sunvm. Enarr. torn. ii. pp. 62, 64. Eome 1869.
t ' Jurisdictio et prasrogativ» qua2 eidem sedi ab antiquis asse-
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF , INFALLIBILITY. 95
and therefore a supreme personal right, which is communicated to no other, is contained in the primacy.
' Hence, when there is question of the rights and the jurisdiction proper to the primacy, and when these are ascribed to the Roman See, or Cathedra, or Church of St. Peter; by the name of the Roman See or Cathedra, or Church, to which this primacy of jurisdiction is ascribed, the single person of the Roman Pontiff is to be understood, to whom alone -the same primacy is attached.
' Hence again it follows, that whatsoever belongs to the Roman See or Cathedra or Church, by reason of the primacy, is so to be ascribed to the person of the Roman Pontiffs that they need help or association of none for the exercise of that right.' *
From this passage three conclusions flow :
1. First, that the Primacy is a personal privilege in Peter and his successors.
runtur ratione primatus ejusdem Petri ac successorum singulares et personales judicandse sunt.' — Ballerini, de Vi et Satione Primatus, cap. iii. sect. 5, p. 14. Rome, 1849.
* ' Hie prEEcipuse jurisdictionis et non meri ordinis primatus S. Petri et Eomanorum Pontificum ejus successorum personalis est, seu ipsorum personse alligatus ; ac proinde jus quoddam prtecipuum ipsorum personale, id est, nulli alii commune, in eo primatu con- tineri debet. Hinc cum de jure, seu jurisdictione propria primatus agitur, hsecque Romanse S. Petri sedi, cathedrEe, vel Bcclesias tribuitur ; sedis cathedrse vel Ecclesise EomanEe nomine, cui ea jurisdictio primatus propria asseratur, una Eomani Pontificis per- sona inteUigenda est, cui uni idem primatus est alligatus. Hinc quoque sequitur, quidquid juris ratione primatus Eomanfe sedi cathedrEe, vel BcclesiEe competit, Eomanorum Pontificum personse ita esse tribuendum ut nuUius adjutorio vel societate ad idem jus exercendum indigeant.' — Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione Primatus, cap. iii. propositio 3, p. 10.
96 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
2. Secondly, that this personal privilege attaches to Peter and to the Eoman Pontiffs alone.
3. Thirdly, that in exercising this same primacy the Eoman Pontiff needs the help and society of no other.
Ballerini then adds :
' That what was personal in Peter by reason of the primacy, is to be declared personal in his successors the Roman Pontiffs, on whom the same primacy of Peter with the same jurisdiction has devolved, no one can deny.
' Therefore to Peter alone, and to the person alone of his successors, the dignity and jurisdiction of the Primacy is so attached, that it can be ascribed to no other Bishop, even though of the Chief Sees; and much less can it be ascribed to any number whatso- ever of Bishops congregated together; nor in that essential jurisdiction of the primacy ought the Roman Pontiff to depend on any one whomsoever; nor can he; especially as the jurisdiction received from Christ was instituted by Christ un-circumscribed by any con- dition, and personal in Peter alone and his successors : like as He instituted the primacy of jurisdiction to be personal, which without personal jurisdiction is unintelligible.' *
* ' Quod autem personale in Petro fuit ratione primatus, idem in successoribus ejus Eomanis Pontificibus, in quos idem primatus Petri cum eadem jurisdictione transivit, personale esse dicendum, inficiari potest nemo. Soli igitur Petro et soli successorum ejus personse ita alligata est propria primatus dignitas et jurisdic- tio ut nulli alii Episcopo prsBStantiorum licet sedium, et minus multo pluribus aliis Episcopis quantumvis in unum coUectis, possit adscribi : neque in ea jurisdictione primatus essential! Eomanus Pontifex dependere ab alio quopiam debet aut potest, cum prse- sertim ipsam a Christo acceptam idem Christus nulla conditione
TEEMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 97
From these statements it follows :
1. Fij'st, that what depends on no other is altogether independent.
2. Secondly, that what is circumscribed by no con- dition is absolute.
3. Thirdly, that what is by God committed to one alone, depends on God alone.
But perhaps it wUl be said that all this relates not to infallibility, but to the power of jurisdiction only. To this I answer :
1. That if the primacy be personal, all its prero- gatives are personal.
2. That the doctrinal authority of the Pontiff is a part of his jurisdiction, and is therefore personal.
3. That infallibility is, as the Definition expressly declares, a supernatural grace, or charisma^ attached to the primacy in order to its proper exercise. Infalli- bility is a quality of the doctrinal jurisdiction of the Pontiff in faith and morals.
And such also is the doctrine of Ballerini, who lays down the following propositions :
'Unity with the Eoman faith is absolutely necessary, and therefore the prerogative of absolute infallibility is to be ascribed to it, and a coercive power to con- strain to unity of faith, in like manner, absolute; as also the infallibility and coercive power of the Catho- Uc Church itself, which is bound to adhere to the faith of Rome, is absolute.' *
circumscriptam, personalem solius Petri ac successorum esse in- fitituerit, uti primatum jurisdictionis instituit personalem, qui sine personal! jurisdictione inteUigi nequit. — Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione Primatus, cap. iii. sect. 4, p. 13.
* Ballerini, de Vi et Bat. Primatus : Unitas cum Eomana fide abao-
H
98 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
But Ballerini has declared that whatsoever is as- cribed to the Eoman See, Cathedra, or Church is to be ascribed to the person of the Koman Pontiff only. Therefore this infallibility and coercive power are to be ascribed to him, and are personal.
Here we have the infallibility personal, indepen- dent, and absolute, fuUy and explicitly taught by two chief theologians of great repute.
But hitherto we have not met the word separate, though in truth the word sole, or alone, is equivalent.
I wiU therefore add certain quotations from the great Dominican School.
Bzovius, the continuator of the Annals of Baronius, says, ' To Peter alone, and after him to all the Roman Pontiffs legitimately succeeding, the privilege of in- fallibility, as it is called, was conceded by the Prince of Pastors, Christ who is God.' *
Dominicus Marchese writes : ' This privilege was conceded to the successors of Peter alone without the assistance of the College of Cardinals;' and again, ' To the Roman Pontiff alone, in the person of Peter, was committed the care of the Universal Church, and firmness, and certainty in defining matters of faith.' f
lute necessaria est, ac proinde infallibilatia prserogativa absoluta illi est tribuenda, et vis coactiva ad fidei unitatem pariter absoluta: sicuti absoluta est item infallibilitas et vis coactiva ipsiua Ecclesi» Catbolicffi, qu£e Komanse fidei adheerere oportet. Appendix De infaU. Pont. Prop. vii.
* ' Soli Petro et post eum omnibus Eomanis Pontificibus legitime sedentibus, infallibUitatis quod vocant privilegium, a Principe pastorum Cbristo Deo concessum, ut in rebus fidei, morum doo- trina, et universalis Ecclesise administratione certissima nuUaque faUaci» nota inumbrata decreta veritatis ipsius radio scribant edicant et sanciant.' — Bzovius de Pontifice Romano, cap. xiv. p. 106; apud Rocaberti, Biblioth. Pontif. torn. i. Rome, 1698.
f ' Soli Petro secluso ab Apostolis ac proinde soli ejus successori
TEEMINOLOGY OP DOCTKINE OP INFALLIBILITY. 99
Gravina teaches as follows : ' To the Pontiff, as one (person) and alone, it was given to be the head ; ' and again, ' The Roman Pontiff' for the time being is one, therefore he alone has infallibility.'*
Vincentius Ferr^ says, ' The exposition of certain Paris (doctors) is of no avail, who affirm that Christ only promised that the faith should not fail of the Church founded upon Peter; and not that it should not fail in the successors of Peter taken apart from (seorsum) the Church.' He adds that our Lord said, ' I have prayed for thee, Peter ; sufficiently showing that the infallibility was not promised to the Church as apart from (seorsum) the head, but promised to- the head, that from him it should be derived to the Church.' t
Marchese, before quoted, repeats the same words,
Summo Pontifici secluso Cardinalium CoUegio hoc privilegium con- cessit.'— Marchese, de Capite visibili Ecclesioe, disput. iii. dub. 2, p. 719 ; apud Eocaberti, torn.' ix.
' Soli Eomano Pontifici in persona Petri commissa est cura totius Ecclesi» et firmitas et certitude in definiendo res fidei.' — Mar- chese, disput. V. dub. 1, sect. 2, p. 785 ; apud Eocaberti, torn. ix.
* ' Uni et soli Pontifici datum est esse caput.' — Gravina, de su- premo Judice controv. Fidei, qusest. i. apud Eocaberti, torn. viii. p. 392.
' Nullus in terra reperitur alter, qui cseteris sit in fide firmior et constantior sciatur esse quam unus Pontifex Eomanus pro tempore ; ergo et ipse solus habet infallibilitatem.' — Gravina, qusest. ii. apud Eocaberti, torn. viii. p. 422.
t ' Nee valet expositio aliquorum Parisiensium afSrmantium hie Christum tantum promisisse fidem non defecturam Ecclesise fundatse super Petrum, non vero promisisse non defecturam in successoribus Petri seorsum ab Bcclesia sumptis. Christus dicens, ego autem rogavi pro te P.etre, satis designat hanc infallibilitatem non pro- missam Ecclesiae ut seorsum a capite, sed promissam capiti, ut ex illo derivetur ad Ecclesiam.' — Ferre, JDe Fide, quaest. xii. apud Eocaberti, tom. xx. p. 388.
H 2
100 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
' The infallibility in faith which (our Lord) promised, not to the Church apart from (seorsum) the head, but to the head, that from him it should be derived to the Church.' * Billuart also says ' (Chi'ist) makes a clear distinction of Peter from the rest of the Apostles, and from the whole Church, when He says, And thou, &c.' f
Peter Soto writes: 'When this (Pasce oves meas, &c.) was said to JPeter in the presence of the rest of the Apostles, it was said to Peter as one, and as apart from (seorsum) the rest.' J
And Marchese again, ' Therefore to Peter alone set apart from the Apostles (secluso ab Apostolis), and therefore to his successor alone, the Supreme Pontiff, set apart from the College of Cardinals, He (our Lord) conceded this privilege.' §
Lastly, F. Gatti, the learned professor of theology of the Dominican Order at this day, writing of the words, 'I have prayed for thee,' &c., says, 'inde- fectibUity is promised to Peter apart from (seorsum)
* ' Satis designat infallibilitatem in fide quam promisit, noE Ecclesise seorsum a Capite sed Capiti ut ex illo derivetur ad Eccle- siam.' — ^Marchess, de capite Visib. Eccles. disput. iii. dub. 2; apud Eocaberti, torn. ix. p. 719.
f - ' Facit enim apertam distinotionem Petri ab aliis apostolis et a tota Ecclesia cum dicit, et tu aliquando conversua confirma firatres tuos.' — Billuart, de Regulis Fidei, dissert, iv. art. 5, sect. 2, torn. iv. p. 78. Venice, 1787.
I 'Dum vero hoc Petro coram ceteris apostolis dicitur, uni, inquam, Petro et a casteris seorsum.' — Petrus Soto, Defensio Ca- tholicce Confessionis, cap. 82, apud Eocaberti, torn, xviii. p. 73.
§ ' Ergo soli Petro secluso ab Apostolis ac proinde soli ejus suc- cessori summo Pontifici, secluso Cardinalium coUegio, hoc privi- legium concessit.' — Marchese, de Capite visib. Eccles. disp. iii. dub. 2 ; apud Eocaberti, torn. ix. p. 715.
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 101
the Church, or from the Apostles; but it is not proroised to the Apostles, or to the Church, apart from (seorsum) the head, or with the head,' and afterwards he adds, ' Therefore Peter, even apart from (seorsum) the Church, is infallible.'*
Muzzarelli, in his treatise on the primacy and in- fallibility of the Pontiff, uses the same terms again and again ; of which the following is an example. Speak- ing as in the person of the Pontiff, he says, ' If I separately from a Council propose any truth to be beheved by the Universal Church, it is most certain that I cannot err.'f
In like manner Mauro Cappellari, afterwards Gre- gory XVI., affirms that the supreme judge of con- ti'oversies is the Pontiff, ' distinct and separate from all other Bishops : and that his decree in things of faith ought by them to be held without doubt.' J
Lastly, Clement VI., in the fourteenth century, proposed to the Armenians certain interrogations, of which the fourth is as follows :
' Hast thou believed, and dost thou still believe, that the Roman Pontiff alone, can by an authentic
* ' Indefectibilitas promittitur Petro seorsum ab Ecclesia seu ab Apostolis; non vero promittitur Apostolis seu Ecclesiaa sive seorsum a capita, sive una cum capite. — Ergo Petrus etiam seorsum ab Ecclesia spectatus est infallibilis.' — Gatti, Institutiones Apologetico-PolemiccB. apud Bianchi de Constitutione MonarcMca EcclesicB, p. 124. Eome, 1870.
t 'Ne viene ohe se anch' io separatamente dal concilio vorr6 proporre alia cbiesa universale la verita da credersi su questo arti- colo, non potr6 certamente errare.' — Muzzarelli, Primato ed Infal- lihilita del Papa, in II Buon Uso della Logica, torn. i. p. 183. Florence, 1821.
% II Triohfo della Santa Sede, Cap. v. Sect. 10, p. 124. Venezia, 1832.
102 THE VATICAN COUNCIL,
determination to •which we must inviolably adhere, put an end to doubts which arise concerning the Catholic faith; and that whatsoever he, by the author- ity of the keys delivered to him by Chi-ist, determines to be true, is true and Catholic; and what he deter- mines to be false and heretical is to be so esteemed ?' *
In the above passages we have infallibility personal, absolute, independent, without the Apostles, without the CoUege of Cardinals, alone, apart from the Church, separate from Councils and from Bishops.
I am not aware of any modern writer who has used language so explicit and fearless.
We wiU now ascertain the scholastic meaning of these terms; and we shall see that they are in precise accordance with the definition of the Council.
You need not be reminded, Reverend and dear Brethren, of the terminology of Canonists in treating the subject of privileges.
A privilege is a right, or faculty bestowed upon persons, places, or things.
Privileges therefore are of three kinds, personal, real, and mixed.f
A personal privilege is that which attaches to the person as such.
A real privilege attaches either to a place, or to a thing, or to an office.
* 'Si credidisti et adhuc credia solum Komanmn Pontificem, dubiis emergentibvis circa fidem catholicam posse per deteimina- tionem authenticam cui sit inviolabiliter adLserendum, finem im- ponere et esse verum et Catholicum qtiidquid ipse auctoritate cla- vium sibi traditarum a Christo determinat esse verum ; et quod determinat esse falsum et haereticum sit censendum,'— Baronius, tom. XXV. ad aim. 1351, p. 529. Lucca, 1750.
t Keiffenstuel. Tit. de Privileg. lib. v. 34, 12.
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OP INFALLIBILITY. 103
A mixed privilege may be both personal and real; it may also attach to a community or body of persons, as to an University, or a College, or a Chapter.
The primacy, including jurisdiction and infallibility, is a privilege attaching to the person of Peter and of his successors. It is therefore a personal privilege in the Pontiffs.
It is personal, as Toletus says, because it cannot be communicated to others. It is not a real privi- lege attached to the See, or Cathedra, or Church of Rome, and therefore to the person ; but to the person of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore, to the See.
It is not a mixed privilege, attaching to the Pontiff, only in union with a community or body, such as the Episcopate, congregated or dispersed ; but attach- ing to his person, because inherent in the primacy, which he alone personally bears.
The use of the word personal is therefore precise and correct, according to the scholastic terminology ; not, indeed, according to the sense of newspaper theologians. Theology, like chancery law, has its technical language; and the common sense of Eng- lishmen would keep them from using it in any other meaning.
In this sense it is that the Dominican theologian De Fiume says, ' There are two things ... in Peter: one personal, and another public; as Pastor and Head of the Church. Some things therefore be- long to the person of Peter alone, and do not pass to his successors ; as the saying, Get thee behind me Satan ... and the like. Some, again, are spoken of him as a public person^ and by reason of his office
104 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
as supreme Head and Pastor of the Universal Church, as, Feed My sheep, &c.' *
Therefore, infallibility is the privilege of Peter not as a- private person, but as a public person holding the primacy over the Universal Church.
In the Pastoral addressed to you so long ago as the year 1867, this was pointed out in the unmistak- able words of Cardinal Sfondratus. ' The Pontiff,' he says, ' does some things as a man, some things as a prince, some as doctor, some as Pope, that is, as head and foundation of the Church ; and it is only to these (last-named) actions that we attribute the gift of infallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. As then not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of the Pope enjoys the papal privilege.' f
The value therefore of this traditional language of the schools is evident.
When the infallibility of the Pontiff is said to be personal, it is to exclude all doubt as to the source from which infallibility is derived ; and to declare
* ' Duo namque sunt in Petro. TJnum personale et aliud pub- licum, ut Pastor et caput Ecclesiee. Quaedam ergo tantummodo personse Petri conveniunt, ad successores non transeunt; ut quod dicatur : Vade post me, Satana, et similia. Quaedam vero dicuntur de eo quatenus est persona publica, et ratione officii Supremi Capitis et Pastoris Ecclesias universalis; ut Pasce eves meas, &c.' — Ignatius de Piume, Schola veritatis orihodoxcB, apud Bianchi, de Gonstitutione Monarchica Ecclesim, p. 88. Kome, 1870.
I ' Pontifex aliqua facit ut homo, aUqua ut Princeps, aliqua ut Doctor, aliqua ut Papa, hoc est ut caput et fundamentum EcclesiEe : et his solis actionibus privilegium infallibilitatis adscribimus : alias humanse conditioni relinquimus : sicut ergo non omnis actio Papse est papalis, ita non omnis actio Papse papali privilegio gaudet.' — Sfondrati, Regale Sacerdotium, lib. iii. sec. 1.
TERMINOLOGY • OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 105
that it is not a privilegium mixtum inherent in the Episcopate, or communicated by it to the head of the Church; but a special assistance of the Spirit of Truth attaching to the primacy, and therefore to the person who bears the primacy, Peter and his successors ; conferred on them by Christ Himself for the confirmation of the Church in faith.
2. Next, as to the term separate. The sense in which theologians have used this term is obvious. They universally and precisely apply it to express the same idea as the word personal ; namely, that in the possession and exercise of this privilege of infallibility the successor of Peter depends on no one but God. The meaning of decapitation, decollation, and cutting off, of a headless body, and a bodiless head, I have hardly been able to persuade myself, has ever, by serious men, at least in serious moods, been imputed to such words as separatim^ seorsum^ or seclusis Episcopis.
My reason for this doubt is, that such a monstrous sense includes at least six heresies ; and I could hardly think that any Catholic would fail to know this, or, knowing it, would impute it to Catholics, still less to Bishops of the Church.
The words seorsum, &c., may have two meanings, one obviously false, the other as obviously true.
The former sense would be disunion of the head from the body of the Episcopate and the faithful, or separation from Catholic communion ; the latter, an in- dependent action in the exercise of his supreme office.
And first of the former :
1. It is defide, or matter of faith, that the head of
106 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
the Church, as such, can never be separated, either from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecdesia discens ; that is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful.
To suppose this, would be to deny the perpetual indwelling office of the Holy Ghost in the Church, by which the mystical body is knit together; the head to the Body, the Body to the head, the members to each other ; and to ' dissolve Jesus,' * that is, to destroy the perfect symmetry and organisation which the Apostle describes as the body of Christ ; and St. Augustine speaks of as ' one man, head and body, Christ and the Church a perfect man.'f On this unity all the properties and endowments of the Church depend ; indefectibility, unity, infallibility. As the Church can never be separated from its in^ visible Head, so never from its visible head.
2. Secondly, it is matter of faith that the Ecdesia docens or the Episcopate, to which together with Peter, and as it were, in one person with him, the assistance of the Holy Ghost was promised, can never be dissolved ; but it would be dissolved if it were separated from its head. Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed.
3. Thirdly, it is also matter of faith that not only no separation of communion, but even no disunion of doctrine and faith between the Head and the Body,
* St. Jolin iv. 3, ' Omnia spiritus qiii solvit Jesum,' &c.
f ' Unus homo caput et corpus, umis homo Christus et Ecclesia vir perfectus.' — S. Augustin. In Psalm xviii. torn. iv. p. 85, 86, ed. Ben. Paris, 1681.
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OP INFALLIBILITY. 107
that is, between the Ecdesia docens and discens, can ever exist. Both are infallible ; the one ac- tively, in teaching, the other passively, in believing; and both are therefore inseparably, because neces- sarily, united in one faith. Even though a num- ber of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away. It would always remaia united, by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, to its head ; and the reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infalli- bility of its head. Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err. How many soever, as in- dividuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain, and therefore never be dis- united from its head in teaching or believing. Even a minority of the Bishops united to the head, would be the Episcopate of the Universal Church. They, therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such a separation, who assert that the Pontiff may fall into error. But they who deny his infallibility do ex- pressly assert the possibility of such a separation. And yet it is they who have imputed to the defenders of the Pontifical infallibility, that separation which on ' Ultramontane ' principles is impossible ; but, on the principles of those who lay the charge, such a separation is not only possible, but even of probable occurrence.
So far, we have spoken of the idea of separation from communion, or disunion in faith and doctrine. But further, the separate or independent exercise of the supreme Pontifical authority in no way imports separation or disunion of any kind.
108 THE VATICAN COUNCIL;
1. It is de fide that the plenitude of jurisdiction was given to Peter and his successors ; and that its exercise over the whole body, pastors and people, imports no separation or disunion from the Body. How then should the exercise of infallibility, which is attached to that jurisdiction, import separation?
2. Again, it is de fide that this supreme juris- diction and infallibility was given to maintain and perpetuate the unity of the Church. How then can its exercise produce separation, which it is divinely ordained to prevent ?
It is therefore de fide that its exercise excludes separation, and binds the whole Church, both Body and Head, in closer bonds of communion, doc]trine and faith.
3. Lastly, it is de fide that in the assistance pro- mised to Peter and his successors, all the means necessary for its due exercise are contained. An infallible office fallibly exercised is a contradiction in terms. The infallibility of the head consists in this, that he is guided both as to the means and as to the end. It is therefore contrary to faith to say, that the independent exercise of this office, divinely assisted, can import separation or disunion of any kind. It is a part of the promise, that in the selection of the means of its exercise, the successor of Peter will not err. If he erred as to the means, either he would err as to the end, or he would be preserved only by a series of miracles. In escaping from the super- natural, the objectors fall into the miraculous. The Catholic doctrine of infalhbility invokes no such in- terventions. It affirms that a Divine assistance, pro-
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 109
portionate to tlie burden of the primacy, is attached to it as a condition of its ordinary exercise, in bonum Ecclesice. The freedom as well as the prudence of the Pontiffs, in selecting the means of exercising their office of universal Doctor, is carefully expressed in the fourth chapter of this Constitution. ' The Roman Pontiffs, as the state of times and events induced them, sometimes by convoking (Ecumenical CouncUs, or by ascertaining the mind of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes by local Synods, sometimes by employing other helps which Divine providence supplied, have defined, as truths to be held, such things as they by God's assistance knew to be in harmony with the Scriptures and Apostolical traditions.' *
It may be well here to add two passages which complete this subject.
Melchior Canus says : ' Inasmuch as God promised firmness of faith to the Church, He cannot be wanting to it, so as not to bestow upon the Church prayers and other helps whereby that firmness is pre- served. Nor can it be doubted that what happens in natural things, the same occurs in supernatural; namely, that he who gives the end gives the means to the end.'
' If God should promise an abundant harvest next year, what could be more foolish than to doubt whether men would sow seeds in the earth ? So will I never admit that either Pontiff or Council have omitted any necessary diligence in deciding questions of faith. It might happen to any private
* Constit. Dogmat. Prima, de Eccl. Christi, cap. iv.
110 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
man, that he should not use diligent attention in seeking truth, and yet to do so should entirely give himself to the work, and, though his error be in- culpable, nevertheless fall into error. But even inculpable error is far from the Church of God, as we have proved in a former book. Which fact is an abundant argument that neither Pontiff nor Council has omitted, in deliberation, any necessary thing.' 'Let us therefore grant that to the Judges consti- tuted by God in the Church, none of those things can be wanting which are necessary for a right and true judgment.' *
Cerboni, a theologian of the Dominican order, says : ' When once anything of faith has been defined by the Supreme Pontiff, it is not permitted to doubt whether he has used all diligence before such de- finition.'
* ' Cum Ecclesi» fidei firmitatem fiierit" pollicitus, deesse non potest quominus tribuat Bcclesiae preces, caeteraque prssidia, quibus hsec firmitas conservatur. Nee vero dubitari potest, quod in rebus naturalibus contingit, idem in supernaturalibus usu venire ; ut qui dat finem, det consequentia ad finem. — Quod si Deus in sequentem annum frugum abundantiam polliceretur, ecquid stultius esse posset quam dubitare, anne homines semina terrae mandaturi sint? — Ita nunquam ego admittam aut Pontificem aut concilium diligentiam aliquam necessariam qusestionibus fidei decernendis omisisse. Id quod privato cuicunque alteri homini accidere potest, ut nee dili- gentem navet operam ad disquirendam Teritatem, et ut navaverit integrumque sese in ea re prasstiterit, errat adhuc tamen, quamvis error sine culpa sit. Error autem vel inculpatus ab Ecclesia Dei longissime abest, quemadmodum libro superiore constituimus. Qme res abunde magno argumento est ut nee Pontifex nee concilia ne- cessarium quicquam in deliberando prsetermiserint. — Concedamus ergo judicibus a Deo in Ecclesia constitutis nihil eorum deesse posse, qu£e ad rectum verumque judicium sunt necessaria.' — Mel- chior Canus, I)e Locis Theologicis, lib. v. cap. 5, pp. 120, 121. Venice, 1776.
TEEMINOLOGY OF DOCTKINE OF INFALLIBILITY. Ill
'It absolutely cannot be said, that the means necessary for the Supreme Pontiff in the investigation of truth have been neglected by him, even though he should be supposed to have defined anything ex ca- thedra^ without first seeking the judgment of others.'
' The privilege of infallibility, when the Supreme Pontiff defines anything ex cathedra, is to be ascribed not to those whom he has previously consulted, but to the Eoman Pontiff himself.
'Inasmuch as the truth and certainty of those things which are defined " ex cathedra " depend on the authority and infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, it is not necessarily requisite, that he should first consult these (counsellors) rather than others, this rather than that body, concerning the matter which he is about to define ex cathedra.' *
Prom all that has been said, three things are beyond question ; first, that the privilege of infaUibihty in the head of the Church, neither by its possession nor by
* ' Semel ac a Summo Pontifice quidpiam ad fidem spectans definitum habeatur, dubitare non licet, utrum omnem diligentiam ante hujusmodi definitionem ille prsemiserit.
QuEe ad investigandam veritatem media in summo Pontifice re- quiruntur, ab eo neglecta ftiisse, absolute dici non potest, etiamsi aliorum non exquisita sententia quidpiam ex cathedra definiisse prssupponatur.
Privilegium infallibilitatis, dum a Summo Pontifice aliquid ex cathedra definitur, non iis qui antea consulti fuerint, sed ipsi Romano Pontifici tribui debet.
Ex 60 quod Veritas et certitudo eorum quae ex cathedra defiijiuntur, a Summi Pontificis auctoritate et infallibilltate pen- deant, non necessario requiritur, ut Summus Pontifex de eo quod est ex cathedra definiturus, hos vel illos potius quam alios hunc vel ilium co3tum prse alio antea consulat.WCerboni, De Jure et Legum Disciplina, lib. 23, cap. 6, apud Bianchi de constitutione mon. Eccles. p. 158. Rome, 1870.
112 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
its exercise, can in any way import separation or dis- union between the head and the body. Such a sup- position involves, as we have seen, heretical notions at every turn. The, very reverse is true: that the supreme privilege of infallibility in the head is the divinely ordained means to sustain for ever the unity of the Universal Church in communion, faith, and doctrine.
And further, that the independent exercise of this privilege by the head of the Episcopate, and as dis- tinct from the Bishops, is the divinely ordained means of the perpetual unity of the Episcopate in communion and faith with its head and with its own members.
And lastly, that though the consent of the Episco- pate or the Church be not required, as a condition, to the intrinsic value of the infallible definitions of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless, it cannot without heresy be said or conceived that the consent of the Episco-. pate and of the Church can ever be absent. For if the Pontiff be divinely assisted, both the active and the passive infallibility of the Church exclude such a supposition as heretical. To deny such infallible as- sistance now after the definition, is heresy. And even before the definition, to deny it was proximate to heresy, because it was a revealed truth, and a Divine fact, on which the unity of the Church has depended from the beginning.
From what has been said, the precise meaning of the terms before us may be easily fixed.
1. The privilege of infallibility impersonal, inasmuch as it attaches to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 113
Peter, as & public person, distinct from, but inseparably united to, the Church; but it is not personal, in that it is attached, not to the private person, but to the primacy, which he alone possesses.
2. It is also independent, inasmuch as it does not depend upon either the Ecdesia docens or the Ecclesia discens; but it is not independent, in that it depends in all things upon the Divine Head of the Church, upon the institution of the primacy by Him, and upon the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
3. It is absolute, inasmuch as it can be circum- scribed by no human or ecclesiastical law; it is not absolute, in that it is circumscribed by the office of guarding, expounding, and defending the dejDosit of revelation.
4. It is separate in no sense, nor can be, nor can so be called, without manifold heresy, unless the word be taken to mean distinct. In this sense, the Roman Pontiff is distinct from the Episcopate, and is a dis- tinct subject of infallibility; and in the exercise of his supreme doctrinal authority, or magisterium, he does not depend for the infallibility of his definitions upon the consent or consultation of the Episcopate, but only on the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost.
114 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
CHAPTER IV.
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH.
It may here be well to answer an objection which is commonly supposed to lie against the doctrine of the Pontifical Infallibility ; namely, that the evidence of history is opposed to it.
The answer is twofold.
1. First, that the evidence of history distinctly proves the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
I shall be told that this is to beg the question.
To which I answer, they also who affirm the con- trary beg the question.
Both sides appeal to history, and with equal con- fidence; sometimes with equal clamour, and often equally in vain.
By some people ' The Pope and the Council,' by Janus, is regarded as the most unanswerable work of scientific history hitherto published.
By others it is i"ega,rded as the shallowest and most pretentious book of the day.
Between such contradictory judgments who is to decide ? Is there any tribunal of appeal in matters of history? or is there no ultimate judge? Is history a road where no one can err ; or is it a wilderness in which we must wander without guide or path? are
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE EULB OF FAITH. 115
we all left to private judgment alone? If any one say, that there is no judge but right reason or common sense, he is only reproducing in history what Luther applied to the Bible.
This theory may be intellectually and morally pos- sible to those who are not Catholics. In Catholics such a theory is simple heresy. That there is an ultimate judge in such matters of history as affect the truths of revelation, is a dogma of faith. But into this we will enter hereafter.
For the present, I will make only one other obser- vation.
Let us suppose that the divinity of our Lord were in controversy. Let us suppose that two hundred and fifty-six passages from the Fathers were adduced to prove that Jesus Christ is God. These two hun- dred and fifty-six passages, we will say, may be dis- tributed into three classes ; the first consisting of a great number, in which the divinity of our Lord is explicitly and unmistakably declared; the second, a greater nuniber which so assume or imply it as to be inexplicable upon any other hypothesis; the third, also numerous, capable of the same interpretation, and incapable of the contrary interpretation, though in themselves inexplicit.
We will suppose, next, one passage to exist in some one of the Fathers, the aspect of which is adverse. Its language is apparently contradictory to the hypo- thesis that Jesus Christ is God. Its terms are ex- plicit ; and, if taken at the letter, cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of His divinity.
I need only remind you of St. Justin Martyr's
116 THE VATICAir-COUNClL.
argument that the Angel who appeared to Moses in the bush could not be the Father, but the Son, because the Father could not be manifested 'in a narrow space on earth;'* or even of the words of our Divine Lord Himself, ' The Father is greater than I.'t
Now I would ask, what course would any man of just and considerate intelligence pursue in such a case?
Would he say, one broken link destroys a chain? One such passage adverse to the divinity of Christ outweighs two hundred and fifty-six passages to the contrary?
Would this be scientific history ? Or would it be scientific to assume that the one passage, however apparently explicit and adverse, can bear only one sense, and cannot in any other way be explained? If so, scientific historians are bound to the literal prima facie sense of the words of St. Justin Martyr, and of our Lord above quoted.
Still, supposing the one passage to remain explicit and adverse, and therefore an insoluble difficulty, I would ask whether any but a Socinian, oTroSsVe* oouXso'oji/, servilely bound, and pledged by the per- verseness of controversy, would reject the whole cumulus of explicit and constructive evidence con- tained in two hundred and fifty-six passages, because of one adverse passage of insoluble difficulty ? People must be happily unconscious of the elements which underlie the whole basis of their most confident beliefs
* Dialog, cum Tryph. sect. 60, p. 157. Ed. Ben. Paris, 1742. t St. John xiv. 28.
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE RULE OP FAITH. 117
if they would so proceed. But into this I will not enter now. Enough to say, that such a procedure would be so far from scientific that it would be super- ficial, uniiitellectual, and absurd. I would ask, then, is it science, or is it passion, to reject the cumulus of evi- dence which surrounds the infallibility of two hundred and fifty-six pontiffs, because of the case of Honorius, even if supposed to be an insoluble difficulty? Real science would teach us that in the most certain systems there are residual phenomena which long remain as msoluble difiiculties, without in the least diminishing the certaintj'^ of the system itself
But, further, the case of Honorius is not an in- soluble difficulty.
In the judgment of a cloud of the greatest theo- logians of all countries, schools, and languages, since the controversy was opened two hundred years ago, the case of Honorius has been completely solved. Nay more, it has been used with abundant evidence, drawn from the very same acts and documents, to prove the direct contrary hypothesis, namely, the infallibility of the Roman pontiffs. But into this again I shall not enter. It is enough for my present argument to affirm that inasmuch as the case of Honorius has been for centuries disputed, it is disputable. Again, inas- much as it has been interpreted with equal confidence for and against the infallibility of the Roman pontiff — and I may add that they who have cleared Honorius of personal heresy, are an overwhelming majority compared with their opponents, and let it be said for argument's sake, and with more than moderation, that the probability of their interpretations at least equals
118 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
that of the opponents — ^for all these reasons I may, with safety, aifirm that, if the case of Honorius be not solved, it is certainly not insoluble; and that the long, profuse, and confident controversy of men whom I will assume to be sincere, reasonable, and learned on both sides, proves beyond question that the case of Honorius is doubtful.
I would ask, then, is it scientific, or passionate to reject the cumulus of evidence surrounding the line of two hundred and fifty-six pontiffs, because one case may be found which is doubtful? doubtful, too, be it remembered, only on the theory that history is a wilderness without guide or path; in no way doubtful to those who, as a dogma of faith, believe that the revelation of faith was anterior to its history and is independent of it, being divinely secured by the presence and assistance of Him who gave it.
And this is a sufficient answer to the case of Honorius, which of all controversies is the most useless, baiTen, and irrelevant.
I should hardly have thought, at this time of day, that any theologian or scholar would have brought up again the cases of Vigilius, Liberius, John XXII., &c. But as these often-refuted and senseless conten- tions have been renewed, I give in the note references to the works and places in which they are abundantly answered.*
Such is the first part of the answer to the alleged opposition of history.
2. We will now proceed to the second and more complete reply.
* Appendix, p. 223.
SCIENTIFIC HISTOKY AND THE RULE OF FAITH. 119
The true and conclusive answer to this objection consists, not in detailed refutation of alleged difficul- ties, but in a principle of faith ; namely, that whenso- ever any doctrine is contained in the Divine tradition of the Church, all difficulties from human history are excluded, as TertuUian lays down, by prescription. The only source of revealed truth is God, the only channel of His revelation is the Church. No human history can declare what is contained in that revela- tion. The Church alone can determine its Umits, and therefore its contents.
When then the Church, out of the proper fountains of truth, the Word of God, written and unwritten, declares any doctrine to be revealed, no difficulties of human history can prevail against it. I have before said : ' The pretentious historical criticism of these days has prevailed, and will prevail, to undermine the peace and the confidence, ^nd even the faith of some. But the city seated on a hill is still there, high and out of reach. It cannot be hid, and is its own evidence, anterior to its history, and independent of it. Its history is to be learned of itself.' ' It is not there- fore by criticism on past history, but by acts of faith in the livinsr voice of the Church at this hour, that we can know the faith,' *
On these words of mine, Quirinus makes the fol- lowing not very profound remark : ' The faith which removes mountains will be equally ready — -such is clearly his meaning — to make away with the facts of history. Whether any German Bishop will be found to offer his countrymen these stones to digest,
* Pastoral, &c., 1869, p. 125-
120 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. .
time will show.'* Time has shown, faster tlian Quirinus looked for. The German Bishops at Fulda, in their pastoral letter on the Council, speak as follows : ' To maintain that either the one or the other of the doctrines decided by the General Council is not con- tained in the Holy Scripture, and in the tradition of the Church — those two sources of the Catholic faith — or that they are even in opposition to the same, is a first step, irreconcilable with the very first principles of the Catholic Church, which leads to separation from her communion. Wherefore, we hereby declare that the present Vatican Council is a legitimate General Council ; and, moreover, that this Council, as little as any other General Council, has propounded or formed a new doctrine at variance with the ancient teaching, but has simply developed and thrown light upon the old and faithfully-preserved truth contained in the deposit of faith, and in opposition to the errors of the day has proposed it expressly to the belief of all faithful people; and, lastly, that these decrees have received a binding power on all the faithful by the fact of their final publication by the Supreme Head of the Church in solenm form at the Public Session.' f
Let us, then, go on to examine the relation of history to faith.
The objection from history has been stated in these words : ' There are grave difiiculties, from the words and acts of the Fathers of the Church, from the genuine documents of history, and from the doctrine
* Letters from Rome, &c. by Quirinus, second series, p. 348-9. t Times, Sept. 22, 1870.
SCIENTIFIC HISTOIiY AND THE RULE OF FAITH. 121
of the Church itself, which must be altogether solved, before the doctrine of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff can be proposed to the faithful as a doctrine revealed by God.'
Are we to understand from this that the words and acts of the Fathers, and the documents of human history, constitute the Rule of Faith, or that the Rule of Faith depends upon them, and is either more or less certain as it agrees or disagrees with them ? or, in other words, that the rule of faith is to be tested by history, not history by the rule of faith ? If this be so, then they who so argue lay down as a theo- logical principle that the doctrinal authority of the Church, and therefore the certainty of dogma, depends, if not altogether, at least in part, on human history. From this it would foUoAV that when critical or scientific historians find, or suppose themselves to find, a difiiculty in the writings of the Fathers or other liuman histories, the doctrines proposed by the Church as of Divine revelation are to be called into doubt, unless such difficulties can be solved. The gravity of this objection is such, that the principle on which it rests is undoubtedly either a doctrine of faith or a heresy.
In order to determine Avhether it be the one or the other, let us examine first what is the authority and place of human history.
To do so surely and shortl}^, I will transcribe the rules of Melchior Canus, which may be taken as the doctrine of all theological Schools.
The eleventh chapter of his work ' De Locis Theo- logicis,' is entitled 'de Humanas Historiag Auctoritate.' In it he lays down the following principles :
122 THE VATICAN COUNCIL.
1. 'Excepting the sacred authors, no historian can be certain^ that is, sufficient to constitute a certain faith in theological matter. As this is obvious and manifest to every one, it has no need to be proved by our arguments.
2. ' Historians of weight, and worthy of confidence, as some without doubt have been, both in Ecclesi- astical and in secular matters, furnish to a theologian, a probable ai'gument.
3. 'If all approved historians of weight concur in the same narrative of an event, then from their authority a certain argument can be educed, so that the dogmas of theology may be confirmed also by reason.' *
Let us apply these rules to the case of Honorius, and to the alleged historical difficulties. Is this one in which 'all approved historians of weight concur in the same narration of events?' In the case of Honorius, it is well known that great dis- crepancy prevails among historical critics. The his- tories themselves are of doubtful interpretation. But the Rule of Faith is the Divine tradition of revelation proposed to us by the magisterium^ or doctrinal authority, of the Church. Against this, no such historical difficulties can prevail. Into this they cannot enter. They are excluded, as I have said, by a prescription which has its origin in the Divine institution of the Church. The revelation of the faith, and the institution of the Church, were both perfect and complete, not only before human histories existed, but even before the inspired Scrip-
• Melchior Canus, Loci theol lib, xi. c, 4.
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THK RULE OF FAITH. 123
tures were written. The Churcli itself is the Divine
witness, teacher, and judge, of the revelation entrusted
to it There exists no other. There is no tribunal
to which appeal from the Church can lie. There is
no co-ordinate witness, teacher, or judge, who can
revise, or criticize, or test, the teaching of the Church.
Tt is sole and alone in the world. And to it may be
applied the words of St. Paul, as St. John Chrysos-
tom has applied them : ' The spiritual man judgeth
all things and he himself is judged by no one.' The
Ecclesia docens, or the pastors of the Church, with
their head, are a witness divinely sustained and
guided to guard and to declare the faith. They
were antecedent to history, and are independent
of it. The sources from which they draw their
testimony of the faith are not in human histories,
but in Apostolical tradition, in Scripture, in Creeds,
in the Liturgy, in the public worship and law of
the Church, in Councils: and in the interpretation
of all these things by the supreme