Letters From Rome on the Council Part 24

"Redimus itaque sine mora ad greges nostros, quibus post tam longam absentiam ob belli timores et praesertim summas eorum spirituales indigentias summopere necessarii sumus; dolentes, quod, ob tristia in quibus versamur rerum adjuncta etiam conscientiarum pacem et tranquillitatem turbatam inter fideles nostros reperturi simus.

"Interea Ecclesiam Dei et Sanct.i.tatem Vestram, cui intemeratam fidem et obedientiam profitemur, D. N. J. C. gratiae et praesidio toto corde commendantes sumus Sanct.i.tatis Vestrae

"devotissimi et obedientissimi filii.

"ROMae, _17 Jul. 1870_."

SIXTY-NINTH LETTER.

_Rome, July 19, 1870._-On the evening of the 15th a deputation of the Bishops of the minority waited on the Pope, consisting of Simor, Primate of Hungary, Archbishops Ginoulhiac, Darboy and Scherr (of Munich), Ketteler and Rivet, Bishop of Dijon. After waiting an hour they were admitted at 9 o'clock in the evening. What they tried to obtain was in fact much less than the Opposition had hitherto aimed at: they only asked for the withdrawal of the addition to the third chapter, which a.s.signs to the Pope the exclusive possession of all ecclesiastical powers, and the insertion in the fourth chapter of a clause limiting his infallibility to those decisions which he p.r.o.nounces "innixus testimonio Ecclesiarum." Pius gave an answer which will sound in Germany like a maliciously invented fable,-"Je ferai mon possible, mes chers fils, mais je n'ai pas encore lu le Schema; je ne sais pas ce qu'il contient." And he then requested Darboy, who had acted as spokesman, to give him the pet.i.tion of the minority in writing. He promised to do so, and added, not without irony, that he would take the liberty of sending with it to his Holiness the _Schema_, which the Deputation on Faith and the Legates had with such culpable levity omitted to lay before him, when it wanted only two days to the promulgation of the dogma, thereby exposing him to the peril of having to proclaim a decree he was ignorant of. This Darboy did, and in a second letter to the Deputation severely censured their negligence in not even having communicated the _Schema_ to the chief personage, the Pope.

Pius added further, whether ironically or in earnest I know not, that if only the minority would increase their 88 votes to 100, he would see what could be done. He concluded by a.s.suring them it was notorious that the whole Church had always taught the unconditional infallibility of the Pope. Bishop Ketteler then came forward, flung himself on his knees before the Pope, and entreated for several minutes that the Father of the Catholic world would make some concession to restore peace and her lost unity to the Church and the episcopate. It was a peculiar spectacle to witness these two men, of kindred and yet widely diverse nature, in such an att.i.tude, the one prostrate on the ground before the other. Pius is "totus teres atque rotundus," firm and immoveable, smooth and hard as marble, infinitely self-satisfied intellectually, mindless and ignorant, without any understanding of the mental conditions and needs of mankind, without any notion of the character of foreign nations, but as credulous as a nun, and above all penetrated through and through with reverence for his own person as the organ of the Holy Ghost, and therefore an absolutist from head to heel, and filled with the thought, "I and none beside me." He knows and believes that the holy Virgin, with whom he is on the most intimate terms, will indemnify him for the loss of land and subjects by means of the infallibility doctrine and the restoration of the papal dominion over states and peoples as well as over Churches. He also believes firmly in the miraculous emanations from the sepulchre of St.

Peter. At the feet of this man the German Bishop flung himself, "ipso Papa papalior," a zealot for the ideal greatness and unapproachable dignity of the Papacy, and at the same time inspired by the aristocratic feeling of a Westphalian n.o.bleman and the hierarchical self-consciousness of a Bishop and successor of the ancient chancellor of the Empire, while yet he is surrounded by the intellectual atmosphere of Germany, and with all his firmness of belief is sickly with the pallor of thought, and inwardly struggling with the terrible misgiving that after all historical facts are right, and that the ship of the _Curia_, though for the moment it proudly rides the waves with its sails swelled by a favourable wind, will be wrecked on that rock at last.

The prostration of the Bishop of Mayence seemed to make some impression on Pius. He dismissed the deputation in a hopeful temper. It was of short duration. For directly the report got about that the Pope was yielding, Manning and Senestrey (_de grands effets par de pet.i.tes causes_) went to the Pope and a.s.sured him that all was now ripe, and the great majority enthusiastically set on the most absolute and uncompromising form of the infallibilist theory, and at the same time frightened him by the warning that, if he made any concession, he would be disgraced in history as a second Honorius. That was enough to stifle any thought of moderation that might have been awakened in his soul.

The sitting of July 16 was held to consider the proposals of those who had voted _juxta modum_. The Legates had promised to pay as much consideration as was possible to their wishes, and they redeemed their pledge by striking out one pa.s.sage and inserting another. The majority decided, on the motion of certain Spaniards, which was adopted by the Deputation on Faith, to strike out the words at the opening of the fourth chapter, saying the Pope will define nothing "nisi quod antiquitus tenet c.u.m caeteris Ecclesiis Apostolica Sedes." This was felt to impose too narrow limits on the Pope's infallibility and arbitrary power of defining. And as the minority had the day before expressed to the Pope their special desire that the consent of the Church should be laid down as a requisite condition of doctrinal definitions, it was now resolved, in direct contradiction to their wishes, again on the motion of Spanish Bishops, not only to leave the words "definitiones Pontificis ex sese seu per sese esse irreformabiles," but to add to them "non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae." And thus the infallibilist decree, as it is now to be received under anathema by the Catholic world, is an eminently Spanish production, as is fitting for a doctrine which was born and reared under the shadow of the Inquisition.

In the last sitting of the Congregation three Bishops of the Deputation on Faith spoke, the Neapolitan D'Avanzo, Bishop of Calvi and Teano, Zinelli, Bishop of Rovigo, the author of the notorious addition to the third chapter of the third canon, and Ga.s.ser, Bishop of Brixen. D'Avanzo was jocose: "As," said he, "the angel bade the Apostle John swallow a book, telling him it would make his belly bitter but taste sweet as honey in his mouth, so must we Bishops swallow this infallibilist _Schema_, and I have done so already. It will no doubt give many of us a stomach-ache, but we must act as if we had honey in our mouths." Ga.s.ser, who as a speaker is "se ipse amans sine rivali," to quote Cicero's saying about Pompey, made a speech of endless length, exhausting the patience of his hearers; but there was some gold mixed with all this dross. Such was his declaration that Councils had hitherto been useful only for people of unsound faith, who did not chose to believe the Pope's _ipse dixit_, which every good Christian had always believed. But now "quid credendum sit unice ab arbitrio Pontificis in posterum dependebit." On this a well-known Hungarian Bishop could not refrain from observing to his neighbour, "Si etiam infallibilitas Pontificis contenta esset in Sacra Scriptura magis compromitti non posset quam hoc levissimo ac ineptissimo sermone, quo auditores ex integro jam la.s.sos ad vomitum movit et martyres reddidit."

An amusing scene occurred at the close of this sitting, the last attended by the Bishops of the minority. A printed address was read out and distributed to the Fathers, in which the Legates complained in the strongest language of certain works describing the course of the Council.

Two were named and characterized as "calumnious," both published at Paris.

The one, by Gaillard, was _Ce qui se pa.s.se au Concile_; the other was by a man distinguished alike for intellect, eloquence and learning, a member of the Council, who has had almost unique opportunities of seeing through the whole business. It is the work I have before mentioned, _La Derniere Heure du Concile_, in which the personal intervention of the Pope and the pressure brought to bear by him are forcibly depicted in strict accordance with truth. This pamphlet had already created a great sensation, and when the Legates called on the Bishops to join them in condemning it, the Italians and Spaniards, who-being for the most part ignorant of French-had not read it, immediately shouted out "Nos condemnamus." "We do not," cried the Bishops of the minority. Two copies of the address were then handed to each of them, one of which they were ordered to return with their names subscribed. The result was not successful; Haynald told the Legates, in the name of the Hungarian Bishops, that they had better first translate _La Derniere Heure_ into Latin, and then he and his colleagues would see whether it was really as bad as the Cardinals maintained.

All the Bishops from South and Central Italy who could be whipped up, or who had previously obtained leave of absence on account of illness or age, were peremptorily recalled for the Solemn Session of July 18. Of the Cardinals, Hohenlohe was absent. The rest appeared, including Antonelli, but only three, Patrizzi, Bonaparte and Pambianco, threw a certain spontaneity and energy of voice and manner into their _Placet_ by standing up to deliver it. Guidi was the one most observed; he sat there with an oppressed and abstracted air, and his scarcely audible _Placet_ escaped with difficulty from his lips. The two negative voters were Bishops Riccio of Cajazzo and Fitzgerald of Little Rock. When the Monsignore who was repeating the names and votes had credited one of them with a _Placet_ out of his own head, the Bishop shouted in a stentorian voice, "No; _Non placet_!"

As all the Bishops of the Opposition but two stayed away, and an _abest_ was the answer to every name of the slightest note that was called, the Holy Ghost had no opportunity for working a miracle of conversion, and all went prosaically and smoothly as the wheels of a watch, without any sensation. Each of the stipendiaries has discharged his obligation, and the Pope and Monsignori find that the Council has cost large sums, but think the money is well spent and will bring in abundant interest. The most remarkable case of desertion was that of Bishop Landriot of Rheims.

Not one of the Bishops had been so open-mouthed, or had announced his fallibilist opinions with such copious flow of words to everybody he came across. He now says, like Talleyrand, that he has only deserted before the rest. Clerical Rome, so far as I can yet make out, is not in any very exalted state of enthusiasm; that is prevented by the political conjunctures, which give Antonelli and Berardi a good deal to think about.

De Banneville has indeed given the most consoling a.s.surances to Antonelli; the 5000 French troops at Civita Vecchia, who had received orders to hold themselves ready for recall to France, are to be at once replaced by 5000 more-recruits it is believed. Paris wishes just now to be on the best terms with Rome, who may well prove a useful ally in what the _Monde_ has already designated a religious war against Protestantism. Meanwhile they are pleased at the Vatican to have erected their _rocher de bronze_ beforehand. The Bishops have-ostensibly of their own free will-abdicated in favour of the monarch, to receive back from him so many rights and commissions as he may think good to delegate to them. The revolution in the Church is accomplished "to enrich _one_ among all." Pius himself is more than content; his supreme desire, the crown of his life and work, is attained.

During the voting and promulgation a storm burst over Rome, and made the Council Hall so dark that the Pope could not read the decree of his infallibility without having a candle brought. It was read to an accompaniment of thunder and lightning. Some of the Bishops said that heaven thereby signified its condemnation of Gallicanism, while others thought Pius was receiving a divine attestation, as the new Moses who proclaimed the Law of G.o.d, like the old one, amid thunder and lightning.

It is remarkable that the days of the opening and closing of this Council were the two darkest and most depressing Rome has witnessed during the eight months of its session. It rained without intermission, so that the promised illumination was partly given up and partly proved a lamentable failure. There were few but monks, nuns and Zouaves, during the session in the very empty-looking church. When the Pope at last proclaimed himself the infallible and absolute ruler of all the baptized "with the approbation of the holy Council," some bravos shouted, several persons clapped, and the nuns cried in tones of tender rapture, "Papa mio!" That was the only semblance of a demonstration. If any spark of enthusiasm really glimmered in the souls of the Romans, it was quenched by the downpour of rain. The keen-witted Roman, who is accustomed to speak of this Pope with a certain good-humoured irony, as a sort of comic personality, thinks there is no harm in gratifying the wish of the old man who has set his heart on this infallibility; that will hurt n.o.body. All the most important members of the diplomatic bodies stayed away, in obedience to the instructions of their governments. Neither the amba.s.sadors of Austria, France, Prussia or Bavaria were present. The Belgian and Dutch consuls and an agent of some South American Republic attended. The decrees of July 18, establishing under anathema the two new dogmas, are the following:-

"(_a._) Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem hujus supremae potestatis, aut hanc ejus potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas Ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos Pastores et fideles-anathema sit.

"(_b._) Sacro approbante Concilio docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, c.u.m ex cathedra loquitur, id est, c.u.m omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, pro suprema sua apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per a.s.sistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque ejusmodo _Romani Pontificis definitiones esse ex sese, non autem __ ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles_. Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit-anathema sit."

In the work against infallibility circulated here by the Bishop of Mayence occurs the following pa.s.sage: "Will it not seem to all nations that the authority of all Bishops is suppressed and sentenced to death, only in order to erect on such vast and manifold ruins the unlimited authority of the one Roman Pope?" When these lines were written, the Bishop and his theologian had no notion, or at least no knowledge, of the third anathema of the third chapter, which was afterwards made still more rigorous. They were only thinking of infallibility, but what would they have said, had they known that the Bishops would be required to subscribe to the abolition of the episcopate and the transference of all conceivable ecclesiastical powers and rights over the 180 million of Catholics in principle and in detail to the Pope alone, as a new article of faith imposed under anathema? And yet this is what happened on the 13th and 18th July 1870. That the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishops still survives, is indeed affirmed in the decree, but the affirmation is contrary to fact. It would be in inevitable collision with the constantly encroaching jurisdiction of the Pope; the earthen vessel dashed against the iron.

The Jewish general and historian, Josephus, relates how he was shut up with forty companions in the valley of Jehoshaphat, and summoned to surrender by the Romans. They resolved to die first. The Bishops are not offered this alternative, but threatened with both at once. They are bidden to submit and then kill themselves, to subscribe the decree of the majority, and thereby sign the sentence which degrades and annihilates them, under pain of incurring anathema. That is the demand. The situation is an unprecedented one. And what of the 532 real or t.i.tular Bishops who have made the 13th and 18th July "dies nefasti" for the Church, and renounced so many rights and duties for themselves and their successors, like a cast-off garment? Perhaps it lightens their hearts and is a pleasant feeling to them to be able to say, "Thank G.o.d, I need not trouble myself any more about doctrine, tradition, or dogma; henceforth the one infallible oracle in the Vatican will attend to all that, and he again will devolve the burden on the l.u.s.ty shoulders of the Jesuits, as he has done before. And how sweet and convenient it is to be a mere executor of papal decrees, while one's episcopal income remains untouched, and to be able to cover one's-self with the Medusa shield of a papal order in every difficulty, and every conflict with clergy, people or governments!" I heard a Bishop of this party say the other day, "Now first begin the golden days of the episcopate."

It is reported that on the very day after the promulgation several Bishops experienced a certain reaction of sobriety, a feeling like what German students are wont to attribute to cats, and inquired of the high dogma-fabricating parties, the Legates and some members of the Deputation, whether they were really bound to believe, confess and teach all that is contained in the Syllabus, the Bull _Unam Sanctam_, etc., as _e.g._, the subjection of the secular powers to the Pope, the Church's power of inflicting bodily punishment with Pius who reigns gloriously, the burning of heretics with Leo X., _et id genus omne_. They are said to have been answered with a well-known Roman proverb, "Toto devorato bove, turpe est in cauda deficere"-"You have swallowed the whole ox of papal infallibility, and the last Spanish addition with it, and you need not strain at the tail, _i.e._, the consequences; that indeed is the best part of this ox."

The Bishops of the minority agreed before leaving Rome that they would none of them act alone and independently, in such further steps as would have to be taken concerning the decrees of the majority, but would all continue to correspond and act in concert. Meanwhile the Council has not been prorogued, but leave of absence is given to Bishops who can allege urgent reasons up to November 15. Perhaps in the interval the builders of the new Jesuit-Papal Zion, who stay behind, will prepare many a surprise for the Catholic world.

Future historians will begin a new period of Church history with July 18, 1870, as with October 31, 1517.

Are we really at the end of the drama? It appears so. On the same spot where, 1856 years ago, the first monarch of the world, Augustus, bade the attendants on his death-bed clap their hands in token of the role being well played out to the end, the Roman courtiers on July 18 have saluted by clapping of hands the first man proclaimed infallible monarch of the world by 532 spiritual satraps. The eight months' campaign has terminated in the preliminary closing act of July 18; the absolute Papacy celebrates its financially dear-bought, but otherwise easily obtained, triumph over the Church, which now lies defenceless at the feet of the Italians. It only remains to follow up the anathematized enemy, the Bishops of the minority, into their lurking-places, and compel each man of them to bend under the Caudine yoke amid the scornful laughter of his colleagues of the majority.

Anathemas, the "ultima ratio" of Rome, have already been discharged at the fugitives, and every such shot of the Infallible is itself infallible.

APPENDIX I.

SPEECH OF DARBOY, ARCHBISHOP OF PARIS, DELIVERED MAY 20, ON THE _Const.i.tutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia_.

There seem to me to be three points to be considered in reference to this _Schema_: its origin, its contents and scope, and its practical results.

And first as regards its origin and presentation to the Council at this time, it is enough to mention two facts, from which it may be judged whether the affair has been conducted regularly and in accordance with the dignity and rights of this venerable a.s.sembly.

It is certain that the fourth chapter, dealing with the infallibility of the Pope, is the turning-point of the whole _Schema_. For whatever is brought forward in the former chapters about the power and origin of the primacy in Peter and its continuance in the Popes, about which there is no difference among us,-and certainly in the first and second chapters this seems to exceed the right measure-is unmistakeably connected with the infallibility in the fourth chapter. So entirely is this infallibility the grand object of the Vatican Council, that some have indiscreetly a.s.serted it is in a sense the sole object. And with reason, for the fabrication of such a dogma must always remain the weightiest act of an c.u.menical Council; and moreover the other questions to be dealt with are either of far less importance, or have long since been settled and only require revision, as, _e.g._, questions about the being and attributes of G.o.d, the reality and need of revelation, the duty of faith, and the relation of faith to reason. Yet this serious question of infallibility was neither indicated in the Bull convoking the Council nor in the other public announcements referring to it, and with good reason, because on the one hand the Catholic world had no desire for a settlement of this question, nor was there any other ground producible for meddling with what had always. .h.i.therto been a subject of free inquiry among theologians, and on the other hand there are many and grave evils, partly endangering the salvation of souls, which the Pope out of his care and affection has thought it more needful to deal with.

It is certain that the first stirring of this question came from without, from religious and secular journalists, and that too in an impertinent manner, against all ecclesiastical and traditional precedent and all rules of hierarchical order and usage, by seeking to put a pressure on the conscience of the Bishops through demagogic agitation, and to intimidate them with the prospect of intrigues in their dioceses which would make the government of them impossible. Nay, matters have come to such a pa.s.s that the Fathers of the Council, however piously and courageously they may be simply following their conscience, are accused of having paid an improper deference to party opinion, by promoting the introduction of the infallibility question in consequence of these violent agitations, and all of us appear to have lost something of dignity and freedom through the tumult raised before the doors of the Council-chamber. And such a judgment, which is in the highest degree mischievous and injurious to our honour, can hardly be endured without damage and disgrace to this venerable a.s.sembly, an a.s.sembly which must act independently and not under pressure from without, which must not only be, but appear to be, free.

It is further certain that the question brought before us to-day has been introduced against the natural and logical order of the subjects in hand, and thereby the cause itself is prejudiced. The rest of the _Schema de Fide_ ought first to have been submitted to our consideration, on which we have already debated and have the arguments of both sides so fresh in our memory that the final discussion would have been all the easier. Then again the _Schema de Ecclesia_ begins quite incorrectly with the primacy.

Neither its first compilers nor any theologians before now were of opinion that the treatise on the Church should begin with that. And furthermore, our studies have been directed to the questions intended to come on for consideration according to the order originally announced.

And lastly, it is certain that the precipitate introduction of the question of infallibility by reversing the original order has contributed to the injury rather than the honour of the Holy See. For as, according to the Bull _Multiplices inter_, motions are to be sent in to a special Congregation, which then reports to the Pope, who either accepts or rejects its decisions, it follows that the authors of this motion have compelled the Holy Father to make a decision in his own case and in reference to a personal prerogative, and have thereby-no doubt unintentionally-failed to show a fitting regard for his high position, if they have not rather directly injured it.

If I am right on all these points-and such appears to be the case-it is impossible to discuss and decide upon the question of infallibility, thus originating and thus introduced, without paving the way for the insults of unbelievers and the reproaches which threaten the moral authority of this Council. And this should the more carefully be avoided, because writings and reports directed against the power and legitimacy of the Council are already current and widely circulated, so that it seems more likely to sow the seeds of contradiction and disunion among Christians than to quiet men's minds and lead to peace. If I may venture to add a practical remark to this portion of my speech, I should say that some have with good reason declared this question to be inopportune, and that there would be equally good reason for abstaining from any decision, even if the discussion of it were opportune.

On the contents and tendency of the _Schema_ I shall make only a few observations.

The _Schema_ does not deal with the infallibility of the Church, which we all believe, and which has been proved for twenty centuries, but lays down as an article of faith that the Pope is, alone and of himself, infallible, and that he possesses this privilege of inerrancy in all matters to which the infallibility of the Church herself extends. It must be well understood that the _Schema_ does not refer to that universally admitted infallibility, which is the invincible and inviolable strength of dogmatic decrees and decisions binding alike on all the faithful and all their pastors, and which reposes wholly and solely on the agreement of the Bishops in union with the Pope, but that it refers-though this is not expressly stated-to the personal, absolute and exclusive infallibility of the Pope. On the former kind of infallibility-that of the Church-complete harmony prevails among us, and there is therefore no ground for any discussion, whence it follows that it is the second kind of infallibility which is in question here. To deny this would be to disguise and distort the doctrine and spirit of the _Schema_. And moreover, the Pope's personal infallibility is not maintained there as a mere opinion or commendable doctrine, but as a dogma of faith. Hitherto the opportuneness and admissibility of entertaining this question has been disputed at the Council; that dispute is now closed by the Pope's decision that the matter can no longer be pa.s.sed over in silence, and we have now to consider whether it is or is not opportune to declare the personal infallibility of the Pope a dogma.

To deal rightly with this subject and come to a decision, it is requisite that the formula or definition of the doctrine should be laid before us, that it should be proved by sure and unquestionable evidence, and finally, that it should be accepted with moral unanimity.

There is the greatest difficulty in fixing the form or definition of the doctrine, as is shown by the example of those who first composed and then revised the _Schema_, and who seem to have expended much-perhaps fruitless-labour upon it; for they indulge in ambiguous expressions which open the door to endless controversies. What is meant by "exercising the office of the supreme teacher of Christendom"? What are the external conditions of its exercise? When is it certain that the Pope has exercised it? The compilers of the _Schema_ think of course that this is as clear as, _e.g._, the c.u.menicity of a Council. But they thereby contradict themselves, for a Council is only then held c.u.menical by the body of the faithful scattered over the world when the Bishops are morally unanimous, and therefore infallibility would still depend on the consent of the episcopate if the same principle is to be applied to papal decrees. The authors of the _Schema_ either eliminate this consent or they do not. In the former case they are introducing an innovation, and an innovation which is unprecedented and intolerable; in the latter case they are only expressing an old and universally received view and fighting a man of straw. But in no case can they pa.s.s over in silence the necessity or needlessness of the consent of the episcopate, for that would be to infuse doubts into the faithful and throw fresh difficulties in their way in a question of such vast importance and all that at present hinges on it.

The compilers only define the subject-matter of papal infallibility by saying that it is identical with the infallibility of the Church. But that explanation is inadequate until the Council has defined the infallibility of the Church. Hence it is clearly a logical fallacy to prefix the _Schema_ on the Primacy to that on the Church. Of the infallibility of the Church we know that it always acts within the proper limits of its subject-matter, both because the common consent of the Bishops is necessary and because the Church is holy and cannot sin, while the compilers of this _Schema_ on papal infallibility on the one hand, according to their own statement, exclude the consent of the Bishops, and on the other hand have not undertaken to prove that every Pope is holy and cannot sin.(156)

But if a form of definition was really discovered, it would have to be confirmed by solid and certain proofs. It would have to be shown that this doctrine of personal infallibility is contained in holy Scripture, as it has been always interpreted, and in the tradition of all centuries, that it has the moral a.s.sent not merely of some but of all Fathers, Doctors, Bishops and Theologians, and that it is in perfect harmony with all decisions and acts of the General Councils, and therefore with the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance-for even supposing they were not c.u.menical, which I do not admit, they would show the mind and common opinion of the theologians and Bishops.(157) It would further have to be proved that this doctrine is neither contradicted by historical facts nor by any acts of the Popes themselves, and lastly that it belongs to that cla.s.s of truths which the Council and Pope in union can decide upon, as having been acknowledged for revealed truth always, everywhere and by all.

All this our _Schema_ omits. But when the question is of defining a dogma, the Fathers must have sufficient evidence laid before them and time allowed them for weighing it. As it is, neither the original nor the revised draft of the _Schema_ supply such arguments as might ill.u.s.trate the matter and clear up all doubts, and as little is sufficient time allowed-as is generally notorious-for unravelling this complicated question, solving its difficulties and acquiring the necessary information about it. In such a matter, where a burden is to be laid on the conscience of the faithful, a hasty decision p.r.o.nounced without absolute certainty is dangerous, while there is no danger in a fuller discussion and in not deciding till it can be done with complete certainty of conscience.

It would finally be necessary that the doctrine of the personal and independent infallibility of the Pope, after being clearly expressed and certainly proved, should be accepted by the Fathers with moral unanimity; for otherwise we must fear that the definition would be regarded as a papal const.i.tution and not a decree of a Council.(158) It is a duty to impose a truth of faith on all Christians, but this difficult and sacred right can only be exercised by the Bishops with the greatest caution. And therefore the Fathers of Trent, as you all know, whatever sophistical objections may be raised, did not pa.s.s their decrees on dogmatic questions by numerical majorities, but with moral unanimity. I content myself now with referring to the perplexity of conscience among the faithful, which must arise from pa.s.sing this dogma over the heads of the minority, and thus giving a handle for questioning the validity and authority of this Council.

Two leading remarks may suffice on the practical consequences of the dogma, for the only object of bringing forward the personal infallibility as an article of faith is to make the unity of the Church more compact and the central authority stronger, and thus to supply an efficient remedy for all abuses.