Notices of Books.

The Pope and the Church considered in their Mutual Relations. By the Rev. PAUL BOTTALLA, S.J.

WE

E much regret that we are prevented, by circumstances of which our readers are aware, from giving this admirable volume that careful review in our present number, which we had fully intended; but we trust to supply the deficiency in October. Father Bottalla has written what is indubitably by far the ablest and most complete defence of Pontifical Infallibility, which has appeared in any part of the Church during the present controversy. It is impossible however to place before our readers any exhibition of his reasoning, without analyzing the whole: and this task, of course, we must defer to our future article. Here therefore we will confine ourselves to quoting the conclusion at which he finally arrives :

"The opinion of Papal fallibility is in itself not only erroneous but heretical, though not yet authentically declared as such by the Church. It directly contradicts the universal doctrine of the whole Church, which is infallible and irreformable. It has been often objected that the Penitentiaria, in its answers of Sep. 14 and of Dec. 13, 1831, declared that those who still held the doctrine of the Fourth Article of the Declaration could be admitted to the Sacrament of Penance and absolved. But they who urge this objection fail to remark (1) that the Congregation expressly puts as a condition that they should hold that opinion ex bonâ fide et ex animi persuasione,' and (2) that the Congregation also declared that the confessor has in his power to refuse absolution in such cases if he 'aliter judicet ex circumstantiis in peculiari casu occurrentibus.' That is to say, the Congregation admits that to hold the erroneous opinion is a grievous sin, from which bona fides alone can excuse, and consequently that only on account of their bona fides can defenders of that error be admitted to sacramental absolution. But in our day, except in the case of a most supine ignorance or of great want in mental power, we cannot easily find many instances of bona fides: especially at the present moment, when the Church has solemnly manifested its doctrine by the nearly unanimous voice of all its bishops, in union and in perfect harmony with the supreme magisterium of the Apostolic See. Consequently, even now, irrespective of any proceeding of the Vatican Council now pending, not only is it lawful for any Catholic to condemn the adverse opinion as erroneous, scandalous, proximate to heresy, and heretical in itself, according to the example of the greatest theologians; but it is the duty of every educated Catholicto believe and to profess that it deserves these qualifications. To censure Catholics because they make public this profession of Catholic faith is nothing but intolerable temerity" (pp. 383, 384).

The present volume is entirely confined to the "subject" of infallibility,

the author (p. 384) promising to treat in a future volume the extension of that prerogative. Nothing however can be more admirable, than his incidental remarks on the nature of an ex cathedrâ Act. For instance :

"For a Pontifical Letter to be a teaching ex cathedrâ, it is required that the Pope, either formally or implicitly, should speak to the Universal Church, though he may have addressed his Missives to a particular Bishop in a particular diocese. It follows that a definition ex cathedrâ must formally, or at least implicitly, import the obligation of an absolute assent to it on the part of the faithful throughout the Church (pp. 263, 264).

The italics are our own, as also in the following quotation :

"When we say that the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, we mean that he has really spoken in his capacity of Universal Doctor and Teacher of the Church, divinely appointed to guide and confirm it in the path of faith. When the Roman Pontiff resolves to grant to the Church some particular Rule of faith or morals, it is necessary that the knowledge of his intention should be conveyed into the mind of the Faithful by some of those signs which may suffice to make the inward intention known. First, there are certain solemn formulæ, which are never employed in any Papal utterance except in cases where the Pontiff intends to speak ex cathedrâ. When, therefore, he uses these forms, no doubt can exist that he exercises his infallible ministry of Universal Teacher. But, secondly, it is not true that the Pope is bound to observe strictly either those solemn formulæ which are consecrated to the purpose of conveying an infallible decision ex cathedrâ, nor even to employ any particular external form in his Missives. It is therefore indifferent whether the Pope, speaking in his capacity of Universal Teacher of the Church, uses the medium of Bull, or Encyclical, or Constitution. There are many Bulls which deal exclusively with matters which no way touch faith, and there are many Encyclicals which are evidently utterances ex cathedrà; such as the Mirari vos' of Gregory XVI. and the 'Quanta curâ' of Pius IX. . . . . Finally, that the Pope should speak ex cathedrâ, it is not necessary that he should always directly define a doctrine de fide, and condemn the contrary error as a heresy. Should such be the case, we ought to exclude, from the list of the utterances ex cathedrâ, many Pontifical Bulls published since the Council of Constance; and assert that the Pope speaking ex cathedrâ cannot condemn any error with minor censures. Many Papal Bulls, of which the Auctorem fidei' of Pius VI. is an instance, prove the contrary. At all events, speaking generally, the Church has always understood when the Pope has intended to speak ex cathedrâ in matters of faith, and all have submitted to his decisions with the interior assent of their mind. If, in some particular instances, doubt might arise among Catholics as to the intention of the Roman Pontiff, the Church affords various means of removing this uncertainty by authentic declarations" (pp. 385-8).

....

To the former of the above quotations Father Bottalla very kindly appends the following note :

"In this matter we agree perfectly with the view of Dr. Ward, expressed by him especially in his Thesis X. "de Infallibilitatis Extensione,” p. 33, seq." (p. 386, note).

Father Bottalla does not seem to have fallen in with Dr. Murray's conclusive and powerful treatise on S. Peter's supremacy, in the "Irish Annual Miscellany." He would have found in it a very strong corroboration to the argument which he derives from the word "Petrus."

When does the Church speak infallibly? By THOMAS FRANCIS KNOX, of the Oratory. Second Edition. London: Burns, Oates, & Co.

WE

E are truly delighted to find that a second edition has been called for of Father Knox's admirable work; for we heartily agree with the "Civiltà Cattolica" that on the whole it is the most complete and orthodox exposition of the Church's integral doctrine on Infallibility which has appeared in any part of Christendom. He has taken advantage of the opportunity to make very considerable additions, especially with reference to circumstances of the moment. We conclude with two or three quotations taken from the new matter.

"Throughout the long course of eighteen centuries, not a single instance can be adduced of any one, whether bishop or layman, having refused submission to a dogmatic decree of the Sovereign Pontiff without being looked upon in consequence as guilty of grave sin" (p. 30).

"Nothing is clearer, from the whole history of the Church, than that the Sovereign Pontiffs have never tolerated any practical doubt of their infallibility on the part of the faithful, but have exacted from all the most unreserved submission to whatever they might decree. But they have gone beyond this, for they would not suffer without a protest their decrees to be judged by the bishops of the Church, even though the judgment resulted in an act of submission. Who has constituted you judges over Us?' Clement XI. wrote to the bishops of France (A.D. 1706), Does it belong to inferiors to pass decrees about the authority of their superior and to examine his judgments? Ask your forefathers, and they will tell you that it is not the part of individual bishops to discuss, but to fulfil, the decrees of the Apostolic See. Assuredly if you had considered the form of Our Apostolic constitution, which was not devised by Us, but has been used by Our predecessors through a long series of ages, you would have seen that We neither asked your counsel, nor requested your suffrages, nor waited for your opinon; but We enjoined upon you obedience that obedience, namely, which at your consecration you promised by a solemn oath to pay to the Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Holy Roman Church, and Us and Our Apostolic mandates"" (p. 31).

"Condemned virtually again and again by the Church; repudiated by the overwhelming majority of Catholics; leading, if acted upon, to heresy and schism; opposed to the tradition and teaching of the Apostolic See; stigmatized by theologians as heretical or erroneous; unknown for fourteen centuries in the Church; begotten in times of disunion and bewilderment; nursed by lawyers and statesmen as a weapon against the Vicar of Christ; imposed on a reluctant clergy by a tyrannical king; the new-found ally of modern liberalism; illogical and self-contradictory as a system;Gallicanism has lived ignobly and will die ignobly. A year ago it seemed an extinct thing-the relic of a past age, when suddenly, amid the plaudits of the anti-Christian press of Europe, it was galvanized into the semblance of a momentary vitality, and at once proved itself to be the same that it ever had been, by the noisy disloyalty of its behaviour towards the Apostolic See. But the times are altered. The relations of Church and State are not what they once were. Monarchs, if they have the will, have no longer the power, to shield from formal condemnation this pernicious error. Its unexpected resuscitation, and the new manifestation of its spirit and ten

dencies, which has astonished and scandalized the faithful, will be its deathwarrant. Many who might have wished it let alone, as not worth a formal condemnation, now desire, with good reason, that it may be crushed for ever. Hence it is that all eyes are fixed upon the Fathers of the Church now gathered in Ecumenical Council round the Chair of Peter at Rome, in prayerful expectation that, ere long, a decree may thence go forth relegating this evil doctrine to the outer darkness of heresy, and proclaiming as a dogma of the faith that the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, cannot err from the truth, whenever in his Master's name and authority he teaches the Universal Church" (p. 38).

S. Joseph and the Vatican Council. By Rev. FATHER GALLWEY, S.J. London: Burns & Oates.

THE

HE only adverse criticism which we are tempted to make on this admirable pamphlet is, that the connexion of S. Joseph with its argument is not (to us at least) very apparent. Otherwise we have nothing to express but praise and gratitude, and we will at once proceed to give our readers some little taste of Father Gallwey's quality. One strange objection has been made against the doctrine of Pontifical Infallibility, founded on the supposition that the Church may at some future time be perfectly flooded with infallible definitions. We cannot better reply to this objection than in Father Gallwey's words :

"Even if the exaggerated foreboding should have its fulfilment, so that the time should come when we might expect some new definition every morning, yet so long as the watchful providence of God is pledged not to suffer any false oracle to emanate from the Apostolic See, such daily pronouncements, so far from being an evil, would be like the daily provision of manna. Who will say that it is a curse to have truth in abundance? The Psalmist cries out, Save me, O Lord, for truths are dying out (Psalm xi.), but I know of no inspired text that cautions us against knowing too much of truth. Life eternal, our Blessed Saviour tells us, consists in this, that we know His Father and Himself. And we are often reminded of that truth which blessed S. John sets before us, that when we know God fully we shall necessarily become like to Him. If this be so, as it surely is, how can it be an evil to have our errors corrected, and to learn more and more of God's truth, for each truth is a foretaste of Heaven?” It is objected again "that the Popes, as soon as they find themselves infallible, will become bold and grasping." Father Gallwey replies:

new.

"To the Popes, at least, the definition, if pronounced, will teach nothing I say 'at least to the Popes,' because in reality I believe that to the great mass of the Catholic people throughout Christendom the definition will bring no change of thought or sentiment. I have before me a familiar letter, written without study-an expression of the thoughts and instincts that come up unbidden; and it seems to me, though not theologically accurate, to represent fairly enough the average mind of the Catholics with whom I have mixed in my lifetime. From my childhood,' the writer

says, 'I have been taught to believe in the infallibility of the Pope; and it was a puzzle to me why it should be under discussion now.' But whatever may be thought of the sentiments of others on this point, I think that there can be no hesitation about the mind of the Popes. In their dogmatic Letters in their dealings with the Bishops, whether dispersed or in Council assembled, they make no secret of the fact that they consider themselves the appointed Guides and Teachers of the whole flock-people, Priests, and Bishops, whether in Council or out of Council. Consequently, we must not imagine that the morning after the definition the Holy Father will rise with the consciousness of any new mantle fallen from Heaven upon him, or any new tiara set upon his head."

So true is this, that, in Father Gallwey's judgment (p. 30), even apart from any definition of the Vatican Council, the dogma of Pontifical Infallibility" cannot be impugned without criminal rashness."

"In past history and in the living Church the Popes in their dealings with the Church, whether dispersed or assembled, without the slightest attempt at any concealment, assume that it is their place to teach the whole flock without any exception, and to teach Ecumenical Councils what to define, and afterwards revise and correct their definition if need be. On the other hand, Councils assembled, and Bishops in their scattered dioceses, so far from pronouncing anathemas on these assumptions of the Popes, seem never tired of reminding the Popes and reminding the Faithful that they also assume that the voice of Peter is the voice of Christ."

A final objection noticed by Father Gallwey is, that a definition of Pontifical Infallibility will work a great change in the demeanour of the Pope towards the Church." Father Gallwey replies :

"Supposing that the definition do strengthen the hands of the Vicar of Christ, and add boldness to his action, is it clear that this will be an evil? Is the world at present over-governed? Is it a gain to your children that pamphlets filled with poison should remain in their hands till a General Council shall assemble to anathematise them? Would morality be less pure, ceremonial less becoming, the example of clergy and laity less edifying in any Catholic land, if the influence of the Apostolic See could make itself more felt there. It is not by invoking Cæsar, it is not by deifying what is sometimes called the sovereign people, that the Christian Church is to be protected against despotism. Our safeguard is in true and sincere obedience, for such obedience constrains the providence of our God to watch lest harm come to us through the machinery which He Himself has created."

Father Gallwey concludes by alluding (p. 37) to the "failings real or imaginary," found "in the advocates of truth." It is evident of course, that nothing short of a miracle could secure impeccancy in orthodox believers.