1. If an Encyclical Letter, addressed by the Pope to all Catholic bishops, contain any doctrinal instruction, that instruction must be infallibly true. This, we consider, should be regarded as a Catholic axiom; and the only question that can possibly be raised is, whether Encyclicals ever do convey doctrinal instruction. See on this head the second note to p. 156 of our last number. 2. Whatever doctrinal instruction the Pope expresses, in some form different from the Encyclical, must (of course) be considered as issued ex cathedrâ, just so far as there is reason for knowing that it is intended for the Universal Church. Three different characteristics have been mentioned by dif ferent writers, either of which would suffice to show that a particular document is thus universally intended. The characteristic on which we ourselves have always laid the greatest stress is, that the document shall have been published by the Pope's command. Dr. Murray adds that if, in any utterance officially put forth, the Pope pronounces on a tenet some theological censure, by that very fact, and from the nature of the case, he is addressing the Universal Church. See October, 1866, p. 522. Lastly, F. Schrader lays down. that wherever such words occurred in a Pontifical Act, as "motu proprio," ""ex certâ scientiâ," "ex plenitudine po testatis," or the like, there the utterance is undoubtedly ex cathedrâ. See April, 1867, p. 499. For ourselves, we have always been disposed to lay the greatest stress on the first of these three characteristics. By the very fact of commanding the publication of some pronouncement, the Pope addresses it to the Universal Church; for what else can the command of publication mean? And in the "Quanta curâ" Pius IX. especially draws attention to this characteristic. "In many published Encyclical Letters and Consistorial Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters," he says, "we condemned the chief errors of this our most unhappy age." Indeed there is a sentence in the Allocution, "Übi primùm" (Récueil, p. 208), which almost says in so many words that the command of publication invests any Pontifical utterance with the Encyclical character. "Since we have resolved," says Pius IX., "to publish this our Allocution, on this occasion we address our discourse to our other Venerable Brethren also, the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops of the whole Catholic world." By the very fact of publication then he addresses the Universal Episcopate. Such is the view we would maintain, on the authority of those minor Pontifical Acts which are here in question. Doctrinal Encyclicals, formally addressed to the whole Episcopate, are primarily and most obviously ex cathedrâ: but those others also must be considered ex cathedrâ, which, in any one of the three above-mentioned ways, are invested with an Encyclical character.* Nor will Dr. Pusey find any instance, either of Pius IX. or of any previous Pontiff claiming infallibility for any utterance of lower authority than these; for any utterance which he has not put forth in his capacity of Universal Teacher. Here, then, we will sum up our general position towards Dr. Pusey, in regard to the infallibility claimed by Pius IX. for his various declarations. We admit our author's first main proposition, that infallibility is claimed for the Encyclical and Syllabus; but we deny the inference which he would thence draw, that infallibility is claimed for statements unconnected with the Deposit. We admit again our author's second main proposition, that infallibility is claimed for those various Pontifical Acts from which the Syllabus is compiled; and we admit, also, his inference that, by parity of reasoning, infallibility is claimed for all other Pontifical Acts,which possess the same characteristics. But we totally deny his two other attempted deductions. We totally deny that infallibility is claimed for any Acts which were not put forth by the Pope in his capacity of Universal Teacher; and even as regards those Acts which were so put forth, we totally deny that infallibility is claimed for their preambles, their arguments, or their obiter dicta. We are next to consider Dr. Pusey's second contention; viz., that the infallibility now claimed for the Church exceeds that claimed for her by Bellarmine (pp. 291-2). There is not a vestige of foundation for this statement, as we shall immediately show; but we cannot regard it as one of very serious moment. We never heard of Bellarmine's election to the Supreme Pontificate. If Pius IX. really claimed a There is a small discrepancy between the statement in the text and one which is to be found in the Preface to Dr. Ward's volume on "Doctrinal Decisions." In that Preface (pp. ix, x) he speaks as though Allocutions, as such, were no less primarily and obviously ex cathedrâ, than Encyclicals addressed to the Universal Episcopate. One or two theological friends however, who cordially concur in his general doctrine, have given him reasons which convince him that the statement in the text is truer and more satisfactory. We may be allowed to remind our readers, that no theologian has hitherto methodically treated this particular question, on the infallibility of less solemn Pontifical Acts; and that much remains to be done before a complete theory can be exhibited. In his letter to F. Ryder, Dr. Ward "takes for granted" that he "may have made minor and incidental mistakes in treating so large a question" (p. 31). And so Ultramontanes have ever held. The Pope cannot err, they say, in the matter of faith and morals, nor in universal discipline. We are next then to consider what are those teachings of the Syllabus, which Dr. Pusey considers external to the circle drawn by Bellarmine. And we may at once pass over such particulars as those mentioned in pp. 297-8: viz., the Church's temporal power, whether direct or indirect; the sinfulness of the principle of non-intervention; the divinely-given immunity of clerics and of things clerical, in certain particulars, from secular law. On all these heads Dr. Pusey, not being a Catholic, may very naturally differ from the Syllabus: but he cannot deny that, if such doctrines of the Syllabus be truths at all, they are truths of Revelation or of essential morality; and that they are therefore most indubitably within the sphere, which Bellarmine allows to Papal infallibility. There remain then after all but three particulars to be considered. Dr. Pusey complains (pp. 293-4) (1) that Pius IX. claims infallibility on matters of fact; (2) that he claims to declare infallibly the necessity, under present circumstances, of his civil princedom (p. 300); and (3) that he claims to declare infallibly the expediency even in the present age, under certain circumstances, of prohibiting by law the practice of non-Catholic worship (p. 296). Let us take these particulars in order. Firstly then, Dr. Pusey takes no pains whatever to explain what he precisely means by "a fact." In one sense the Trinity and the Incarnation are "facts." We must assume him however to mean by the term, "facts which of themselves are cognizable by experience." And we must add that it is perfectly monstrous to doubt, whether Bellarmine would or would not have included many such "facts," as within the limits of infallibility. Look, e. g., at the innumerable facts cognizable by experience, which are recorded in Scripture. Does Dr. Pusey doubt that Bellarmine would have ascribed to the Pope a power of infallibly condemning any tenet, which should contravene those facts? Or suppose some misbeliever to assert, that no ante-Nicene Christian professed belief in the Son's Eternal Generation; or that the Apostles permitted polygamy to their heathen converts; or that the semi-Pelagians were condemned for considering Christ to have died for all men. Such allegations of fact would be entirely analogous to those recounted by Dr. Pusey in pp. 294-5: yet we really believe he would himself ascribe to the Church a power of infallibly condemning them; and at all events (which alone is to the purpose) he will not dream of doubting that Bellarmine ascribed to her such a power. |