THE DUBLIN REVIEW. JULY, 1874. ART. I. THE VATICAN DEFINITION ON INFALLIBILITY. Constitutio Dogmatica prima de Ecclesia Christi. The Centenary of St. Peter; The Ecumenical Council; The Vatican Council and its Definitions. By HENRY EDWARD, Archbishop of Westminster. London: Longmans. IT T is now just four years, since the Vatican Council expressed part of the Church's traditional doctrine on her own authority in teaching, by defining that the Pope is infallible in his ex cathedrâ declarations. Since that time a movement has proceeded within the Church, resembling that which ordinarily takes place on the like occasions. At first those Catholics, who are more or less out of harmony with the traditional doctrine to which we have referred, raised various questions about the authority of the Definition. "The Council was not free, nor capable therefore of putting forth an obligatory judgment"; or, "its decrees do not bind, until the Bishops shall have subscribed their names"; or "various Bishops tolerate its denial." As time went on however, the emptiness of such pretexts became so transparently obvious, that no Catholic of the most ordinarily loyal disposition could be hoodwinked by them; and those therefore of whom we speak naturally had recourse to the expedient, of minimizing the force and significance of what had been defined. Moreover it is only fair to add, that others have been led in a similar direction, by motives of (as we think) misplaced charity; by the desire of removing difficulty from the path of an inquiring Protestant. "The Definition implies"-so some Catholics have more or less distinctly expressed themselves-" that ex cathedrâ Acts are at last comparatively few; that they are strictly con *These three Pastorals are now in one volume, the "Petri Privilegium." We name them separately, for convenience of reference. VOL. XXIII.—NO. XLV. [New Series.] B fined to the exposition of revealed dogma; that there is no ground for those notions about the extent of infallibility, which would make that prerogative so heavy a burden to the faithful." Nor has such language been altogether confined to laymen; on the contrary, one or two theologians of deserved authority have incidentally used expressions, in which for our own part we are unable to follow them. Under these circumstances, it will be more satisfactory if we directly encounter such statements. A few years ago, we took part in advocating those "notions about the extent of infallibility," which the Definition is supposed to disparage; and it seems therefore almost our bounden duty, either to express our abandonment of them, or to show cause for retaining them as firmly as ever, the Definition notwithstanding.* In doing the latter, we shall have here and there to reproduce various salient ecclesiastical facts, which we were constantly pressing on our readers' attention some five years ago;t but which, after so long an interval, we trust we may recall to their memory without exciting their distaste. Nor need they fear a revival of the lengthened controversy, then brought to an end; as we have no intention of adducing from general loci theologici" any fresh argument whatever in defence of our position. The thesis which we desire to establish, is essentially defensive and negative; viz: that there is nothing, either in the Vatican Definition or its attendant circumstances, which disparages in the slightest degree that doctrine on the extent of infallibility, which we have humbly maintained. At the same time, in order more forcibly to advocate this negative thesis, we shall further point out, that the Definition and its attendant circumstances-so far from pressing against us -have a real and indeed very strong bearing in our favour. We must begin by stating, with sufficient precision for our present purpose, the doctrine which we advocated in time past on the extent of Papal infallibility. In the Preface to the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican Council,+ Pius * The "Guardian" of April 29th, in a trumpery article which hardly deserves notice on any other account, says that its writer "has been told by various Catholics "that Dr. Ward's teaching is plainly inconsistent with the Vatican Decree." Dr. Ward's last direct treatment of the subject was in a Latin pamphlet, "De infallibilitatis extensione," published in 1869. In that pamphlet, one or two subordinate, but not altogether unimportant, portions of what he had originally maintained are either retracted or expressed with some hesitation. This was done, in deference to the judgment of one or two eminent theologians. This Constitution will be found at engta in our number of July, 1870, pp. 208-223. IX., having referred to the deplorable intellectual evils of the time, went on to say, that "the Church's deepest compassion is stirred by these errors," and that "at no time can she rest from testifying to and proclaiming the truth of God." "We, therefore," he continues, "treading in the footsteps of our predecessors, have never ceased, in accordance with our Supreme Apostolic office, from teaching and defending Catholic Truth, and reprobating perverse doctrines." said the same thing more fully in his "Quantâ Curâ."* He He had already begins this Encyclical by reminding the bishops of Christendom, "with how great care" his predecessors had laboured "by their most wise Letters and Constitutions, to expose and condemn all those heresies and errors," which in their time afflicted the Church. In like manner, he adds, "scarcely had we been elevated to the Chair of St. Peter, when according to the duty of our Apostolic ministry, and following the illustrious example of our predecessors, we" began "raising our voice: and in many published Encyclical Letters, Consistorial Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters, we have condemned the chief errors of this our most unhappy age; and we have excited your admirable episcopal vigilance, and we have again and again admonished and exhorted all sons of the Catholic Church to us most dear, that they should altogether abhor and flee from the contagion of so dire a pestilence." The position then which we assumed was this. When the Pontiff, "in accordance with the duty of his Apostolic ministry" and his "supreme Apostolic office,"-following up the course of "those most wise Letters and Constitutions," whereby his "predecessors" "exposed and condemned the heresies and errors of their time,"-proceeds to "reprobate the perverse doctrines," and "condemn the chief errors, of" his "most unhappy age," he is speaking ex cathedrâ. But Pius IX. did precisely this-as he expressly declares-in various Encyclicals, Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters. Therefore, in those Encyclicals, Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters, he was speaking ex cathedrâ. It has surprised us that any Catholics have been found, to dissent from what seems to us so very irresistible an inference; but this is not the point on which we are here to insist. We are here merely to argue, that there is nothing in the Definition of 1870 which discredits our conclusion, but in fact very much the contrary. It will save the necessity of future digression if, before we enter on our direct thesis, we draw attention to a very impor * This Encyclical will be found at length in our number for April, 1865, pp. 500-513. B 2 tant preliminary. There can hardly be a more dangerous mistake, than to suppose that no interior assent is due from a loyal Catholic to the Church's teaching, except in the case of those judgments which are strictly infallible. This mistake is combatted by F. Newman, for one, with his accustomed vigour of language. "In matters of conduct," he says, " of ritual, of discipline, of politics, of social life, in the ten thousand questions which the Church has not formally answered, even though she may have intimated her judgment, there is a constant rising of the human mind against the authority of the Church and of superiors; and that, in proportion as each individual is removed from perfection." This sentence is from his volume on "Difficulties felt by Anglicans" (new edition, pp. 264-5), and we have italicised various of its expressions. According to F. Newman then, there are "ten thousand questions" on which the Church may have "intimated her judgment" without imposing it; ecclesiastical" superiors rightly employed, in pressing such judgment on the acceptance of the faithful; and these in their turn do not hesitate interiorly to accept it, except in proportion as they are "removed" from spiritual "perfection," and "rise against the authority of the Church." are As regards indeed one particular class of doctrinal judgments which are not strictly infallible,-we mean those pronounced by a Pontifical Congregation,-Pius IX., in his wellknown Munich Brief, has expressly inculcated the duty* of interiorly accepting these judgments. Nor is this by any means pure theory; but, on the contrary, it has constantly been exemplified in practice. Take, Take, e.g., the well-known condemnation of seven ontologistic propositions. No one ever alleged, that this condemnation was strictly infallible; yet, when Mgr. Hugonin was nominated Bishop of Bayeux, the Holy Father required him to retract those philosophical doctrines, favouring the seven propositions, which he had formerly maintained; and he readily obeyed the requisition. Moreover, the most superficial students of Catholic philosophy are aware, that ontologism is no isolated doctrine; that those who give it up after having once held it, have to change their whole intellectual attitude, towards a considerable number of fundamental propositions. Yet this great intellectual surrender is made by the good Catholic as a matter of course, in deference to a confessedly fallible ecclesiastical Decree. *He says that educated Catholics are "bound in conscience" to this. ("Ex conscientiâ obstringuntur.") Our readers will find a careful exposition of the whole passage, in our number of July, 1871, pp. 148-151. |