Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

XXII.]

VIGILIUS AND THE FIFTH COUNCIL.

433

the emperor and his Western brethren-and with the usual result of pleasing neither. It was not until after his name had been struck out of the diptychs by the council that he yielded a tardy and undignified assent. I have so little sympathy with the trial of men for heresy a hundred years after their death that I have never cared to form an opinion of my own whether the writings condemned by the fifth council deserved the censure passed on them. But as the acts of the council received the confirmation of the pope, and are now recognized by the Roman Church, we must assume that the council was in the right all through. What respect can we have then for Vigilius, as guide to the Church, who resisted the council as long as resistance was possible; who held the same relation to it of late and reluctant assent as Eusebius of Cæsarea held to the Council of Nicæa, or Theodoret to that of Ephesus?

It might seem that the claims of the pope to be the guide of the Church could hardly fall lower than at the fifth council; but lower they did fall at the sixth. In the acts of that council, after anathematizing other Monothelite heretics, they proceed: 'with these we likewise provide that Honorius, who was bishop of Rome, should be cast forth from the Church of God, and anathematized; because we find by his writings to Sergius that he followed his mind in all things, and confirmed his impious dogmas.' In another part of the proceedings, where the heretics and their patrons are anathematized by name, we have: 'Anathema to the heretic Theodorus: anathema to the heretic Cyrus: anathema to the heretic Honorius;' and this anathema is repeated in two or three other parts of the proceedings. Further, there is an epistle of Pope Leo II. confirming the acts of this general council, in which, after anathematizing Theodore, Cyrus, Sergius, and others, he adds, 'also Honorius, who did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.' This condemnation is repeated in the second Council of Nicæa, counted by Roman Catholics as the seventh general; and the adversaries of images are classed with Arius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius,

Honorius, and all their pestilent crew. The council reckoned as the eighth general also condemns Honorius. The profession of faith made by the popes on their day of election, from the sixth to the ninth century, contains a profession of assent to the anathema passed by the fathers of the sixth general council on the other Monothelites, and ' on Honorius, who fomented their detestable teaching.'

The condemnation of Honorius was inserted in the Roman breviaries down to the end of the sixteenth century. It has been left out of those published since; but this mere attempt to drop his condemnation out of sight is not enough for the present generation. In our day, when all the villains of history have been whitewashed, it might be expected that some attempt would be made to rehabilitate Pope Honorius, even if his case were not a formidable stumbling-block in the way of a popular theory. The first attempts were somewhat inconsistent with each other. Honorius was never condemned: he was condemned unjustly: he was condemned only as a private doctor: he was censured, not as a heretic, but only as not having been sufficiently energetic in putting down. heresy. The letters attributed to him are forged; they are perfectly orthodox.

Of the defences made at the present day by the advocates of Infallibility, the first to be examined is the assertion that the pope, in the letters which have been censured, did not teach ex cathedra, inasmuch as it does not appear that these letters had been read in a synod of Italian bishops, nor do they bear marks of being addressed to the universal Church. The point here raised is an important one, and it is not really a digression from the case of Honorius if I delay to give a full discussion of it. Everyone can understand that there is a clear distinction between legal decisions pronounced by a judge on the bench and opinions on points of law which he may have expressed in private conversation. So we readily admit that, supposing the pope to possess the gift of Infallibility, that attribute is not to be expected to attach to things occasionally said by him in his private capacity, and not in that of public teacher of the Church. But this is no justification for a number of arbitrary rules

XXII.] WHEN THE POPE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA.'

435

which have been invented for distinguishing when the pope speaks ex cathedra-rules as to which the advocates of Infallibility have been able to come to no agreement.* And yet it has been necessary to invent such rules, in order to relieve the papal see of the responsibility of a number of decisions which everyone owns to be erroneous. To my mind, the only common-sense view is, that the pope speaks ex cathedra whenever he clearly speaks in his official capacity that is to say, whenever, either spontaneously, or in answer to questions addressed to him as pope, he publishes in writing his decisions on a question of doctrine. If you try beyond this to introduce conditions for ex cathedra utterances, these are mere crotchets of theologians. The case is just the same as if a physician set up to be infallible, and, after a number of patients had died under his treatment, you endeavoured to frame a set of rules, distinguishing by the kind of paper they were written on, or the manner in which he had affixed his signature, the prescriptions in which he was to be regarded as speaking as a private person from those which he had given as the infallible physician. I need not speak, then, of arbitrary rules, such as that the decree should be affixed to the door of St. Peter's, or any other, as to the observance of which Christian people in general would have no evidence.

One theory made it necessary to an ex cathedra utterance that the decree should be made in council. In point of fact, the earliest papal decisions were always so made. The reason of this was that the pope's personal authority was not, in early times, so strong that he could afford not to back it up with the opinion of others. When the pope sent his decision to the East, for instance, he used to summon previously a council of all the bishops within reach, so that he might speak in their name as well as in his own. This conciliar form, belonging to many of the earlier papal

* I remember that at the time of the Vatican Council, one of the opponents of the dogma of the pope's personal infallibility declared himself willing to acknowledge that the pope was infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, only he was not convinced that since our Lord's time any pope ever had spoken ex cathedra.

utterances, has been imitated in later times by papal allocutions being addressed, in the first instance, to an assembly of cardinals or other bishops. But it is clearly inconsistent with modern ideas of papal infallibility to make the presence of a council necessary. Suppose some of the council should not agree, would the decree be less binding? If the council added nothing to the authority of the decree, why summon them to hear what might in no way concern them?

Another theory made it necessary that the Pope should have duly deliberated about the matter in hand, and have taken the advice of theologians and learned doctors, for it was notorious, it was said, that many popes have been very ignorant, and that without the use of such means their opinions would not be entitled to regard. But it was soon seen that the gift of infallibility would be worthless if any such condition were attached to its exercise. It might be very proper and right that the pope, before announcing his decision, should take advice. Pius IX., I have already told you, did so before defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But, plainly, his authority would be worth nothing if those to whom his decrees were addressed were entitled to inquire whether or not he had used these human means to guide his judgment. Clearly their duty as obedient subjects is to take for granted that he has done everything that is right.

Received Roman Catholic theory does, indeed, recognize one case where the absence of sufficient care deprives papal utterances of the attribute of infallibility: it is held that the ' obiter dicta' in such an utterance may be erroneous. This distinction prevails in our own law courts. Though the judgment of a Court of Appeal binds inferior courts, yet if the judges in pronouncing sentence express an opinion on a subject not immediately before them, that goes for nothing, it being possible that if they had heard the question properly argued they might have changed their sentiments. Thus, Pope Nicolas I. was consulted by the Bulgarians whether a Jew or a Pagan could give valid baptism. He replied in the affirmative, but further volunteered the information that the baptism would be equally good, whether given in the name of

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Jesus alone or in that of the Three Persons of the Trinity.* This is now given up as clearly erroneous teaching, but is excused as an 'obiter dictum,' the Pope having gone out of his way to answer a question he had not been asked. It seems to me that the analogy to our law courts does not hold. Judges who decide by human wisdom may go wrong for want of adequate use of human means to guide and inform their judgments. But if the Holy Spirit inspire the sentence He cannot be supposed dependent on these human means; and if information is given which had not been asked for, this surely ought to be attributed to the Holy Spirit's special direction, and to be received with all the more reverence. The Pope's authority would fail to be decisive in disputes if the parties are to be at liberty to pull his sentence to pieces, and decide how much of it they will receive.

Now, as regards this particular case, remember that the Roman Church holds that an unbaptized person cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven, and that baptism in the name of Jesus alone is not valid. It follows that if the Bulgarians accepted the instruction officially given them by the Pope, hundreds of them may have imagined themselves baptized when they really were not, and then, for want of baptism, their souls must have been eternally lost. Now, it seems to me monstrous to imagine that anyone could be damned for following the guidance of him whom Christ had appointed as teacher of the Church. So that if I believed the pope to hold this office, I should find myself constrained to believe that the ruling of Nicolas was right. No evasion as to the form in which the instruction was conveyed will suffice. If the Pope be Christ's vicar, it is incredible that he could be permitted officially to mislead His people into error inconsistent with their salvation.

The Vatican Council of 1870 made what must be regarded as an attempt to answer the long unsettled question, What is the test of an ex cathedra utterance? It declared that the pope speaks ex cathedra' when, performing his office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his apostolic authority,

* Respons. ad consult. Bulg. civ., Mansi. xv., 431.

« ÖncekiDevam »