Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

out) Gallicans extended the object-matter of infallibility. Surely it is more improbable than words can say, that an Ultramontane should have been the one who, in opposition to his king-ridden rivals, restricted the Church's prerogatives.

(4) Those very writers, who speak occasionally as though the Pope's infallibility were limited to definitions of faith, never make such a restriction when speaking on the Church's infallibility. This had been urged by Dr. Ward; and we understand F. Ryder (p. 31) as admitting the fact. He replies, however, by laying down some admirable doctrine on the Church's infallibility, which it gives us sincerest pleasure to quote. She "possesses an infallibility," he says, "not only when she puts on her robes of prophecy, but inherent in her very vital action." "The Church dispersed is our infallible guide 'vivâ voce et praxi.'" By "the Church dispersed" he understands, of course, the Episcopate, acting in union with the Pope, but not actually assembled in Council; and he considers his authorities to hold that she is infallible "vivâ voce et praxi." But if she is infallible "vivâ voce et praxi," à fortiori she is infallible, when in set words she condemns some tenet as scandalous or temerarious. If therefore you put F. Ryder's two opinions together, they come to this. He considers Ballerini, Cappellari, and the rest to hold, that the Pope acting by himself is infallible only in definitions of faith; but that, when united with the Episcopate, he is infallible in all his doctrinal judgments. He cannot surely on reflection acquiesce in this as being their view; but if he does-and if he himself accepts that view-our controversy with him is so far at an end. For as to the "subject" of infallibility-whether it resides in Pope alone, or in Pope and bishops,-it is absolutely external to the present issue.

We may be very certain then, à priori, that neither Ballerini, Cappellari, nor any other Ultramontane theologian ever limited the Church's infallibility to definitions of faith.* Let us next

* Muzzarelli is not one of F. Ryder's authorities; but the Tablet quotes very pertinently a long passage from his work "de auctoritate Romani Pontificis." We can desire no better illustration of what we have been hitherto urging, than a careful examination of that passage. And it has this curious characteristic. Muzzarelli in one sentence, incidentally and without laying the slightest stress on it, requires for an ex cathedrâ utterance that it shall pronounce the special censure of heresy. But soon afterwards he quotes a passage from Maimbourg the Gallican, as expressing with singular precision the point at issue between Ultramontanes and Gallicans: and this passage does not allude ever so distantly to the particular censure of 'heresy." And if we turn to Muzzarelli's little work on Papal infallibility, we find that he assumes as a matter of course the infallibility of the "Unigenitus"; and also of Fénélon's condemnation, which exclusively

66

consider their actual words. Unfortunately Cappellari in no part of his volumes happens to speak expressly of minor censures but Ballerini does; and in close contiguity with one of the two extracts, given by F. Ryder in note C. It is perfectly certain then that, so far as Ballerini is concerned, the question can be brought to a most decisive issue. If F. Ryder's theory be the true one, Ballerini, on mentioning these minor censures, will at once say: "Here I come to the point on which I have been insisting throughout; the Pope's infallibility is confined to definitions of faith, and these minor censures therefore may be thrown overboard." On the contrary, if our own theory be correct, it will no more have occurred to Ballerini that the Pope can be mistaken in the latter class, than in the former. We will simply then translate the paragraph, that our readers may judge between F. Ryder and ourselves; putting into italics a few words here and there, to which we desire particular attention.

A few remarks must now incidentally be made, on the causes which lead some men to accuse of error those Pontifical decrees which brand certain propositions in globo with various censures, if some among such propositions appear to them to be true, and to have been uttered by pious and holy men. But how idle is such an objection, any one will readily perceive who considers the peculiar nature of such decrees. For since the censures are many, and many propositions are condemned together in globo and respectively,—in order that the justice and truth of the proscription be manifest, it is not necessary that every censure should apply to every proposition; but it suffices if any one censure apply to this or that proposition. . . Moreover, among the various censures, not all imply falsehood or heresy, but temerity; offence to pious ears; equivocalness; scandal; a captious sense ; &c. &c.: which notes may justly be applied to propositions in some sense true; but which are justly condemned by the Church . in such a way that the true sense is not

on that account to be understood as condemned, which they can bear by a sound interpretation, and in which they have been accepted by pious and holy men. If on this head any one wishes to see fuller remarks which most abundantly vindicate from error the above Pontifical decrees, let him consult

consisted of censures below that of heresy. (French translation, Avignon, 1826, pp. 7, 151.)

The Tablet in a later number refers to a well-known passage in Perrone. But we considered that passage in January, 1866; and to what we then said we may further add, that Perrone invariably speaks of Baius and Quesnel as infallibly condemned. Thus, opening his prælections almost at random, we find him saying (de Gratiâ nn. 104, 138) that the contradictory of a Baian thesis "spectat ad Catholicam doctrinam"; that Vasquez was indubitably mistaken on one point, because his view in effect coincides with Baius's (n. 108, note); &c., &c. But on F. Perrone's judgment see the Appendix to this article.

[ocr errors]

Melchior Canus de locis 1. 12, c. 10. Compare also the second dissertation of Cardinal Noris where he shows that the very same propositions and words have been in different senses at one time approved at another condemned by the Church, without any prejudice to her infallibility thence arising."-c. 15, n. 42.

Ballerini is apparently one of those comparatively few theologians, who hold that a censured proposition, while fully deserving its censure, may nevertheless be true in the very sense in which it is condemned. But this is a question absolutely irrelevant to our present issue. And any one who reads the above extract will see most clearly, that so far from admitting the Pope to be fallible in minor censures, Ballerini considered it an essential portion of his design peremptorily to rebut any such supposition.

What we said a few pages back will abundantly explain Ballerini's slight occasional inaccuracy of expression, if indeed any such exist, in the passages extracted by our opponent.* The general scope of his argument is most undoubtedly in full accordance with our own doctrine. Clement XI. says expressly in the "Pastoralis officii" that those who will not accept the "Unigenitus," "do not adhere and assent to Us and the Chair of Blessed Peter," nor are "true sons of the Holy Roman Church." And yet, as we have so often pointed out, the "Unigenitus" contains no definition of faith whatAnd we should here therefore only further point out, as "Q" has already done in the Westminster Gazette, that F. Ryder has unintentionally given undue support to his own opinion, by changing Ballerini's "dissensiones" (p. 71) into "heresies" (p. 32), and "opiniones" (p. 71) into "judgments" (p. 32).

ever.

Ballerini's language then, instead of telling against us, counts with extraordinary strength in our favour. It is demonstratively certain that he does not deny, but on the contrary upholds, the infallibility of minor censures. And the more therefore you dwell on the apparent indications of a different opinion, presented by his occasional language,—the more you strengthen our case. It is absolutely certain that Ballerini is on our side and not on F. Ryder's; and the mere fact that Cappellari uses language strikingly similar to Balle

66

*We doubt if there is any. We know of no reason for supposing that he anywhere uses the phrases ex Catholicâ fide," ""ex Catholico dogmate," as exclusively applying to truths which cannot be denied without heresy. As to "definitiones fidei," he undoubtedly means by that term what we have called "doctrinal judgments." See c. 15, s. 10.

rini's, cannot be accepted as by itself sufficient proof, that he differs from Ballerini on the point before us.

It happens unfortunately for our purpose, that Cappellari nowhere expressly speaks of minor censures one way or the other; and that we cannot therefore obtain the absolutely demonstrative argument in his case, which we have in Ballerini's. It will be necessary in consequence to examine his argument at much greater length; though if our readers will but have the patience to follow our remarks, we are very confident they will find our demonstration no less conclusive. Cappellari indeed, we fully admit, so far as his words go, says that the Pope never speaks ex cathedrâ except in definitions of faith; that his judgment is not " definitive," unless "he qualifies the contrary doctrine as heretical," or "fulminates an anathema" against its upholders, or uses some "equivalent " expressions. If then Cappellari's full and deliberate meaning is to be measured by what he precisely says in one particular place, F. Ryder has full right to allege his authority. our side however we maintain, that no supposition can be more untenable than this. And we will preface our argument by once more drawing out in contrast F. Ryder's theory and

our own.

On

Before doing this, we must make one preliminary remark which will be found of much relevance. A definition of faith is a much more serious and solemn Act, than a minor doctrinal judgment. In a definition of faith, the Pope declares some verity as actually belonging to the Deposit. Such a verity claims to be believed by the firmest of all possible assents, an act of Divine faith. He who denies such a verity, knowing it to have been defined, is ipso facto external to the Visible Church; nor can he be admitted to the sacraments, however invincible may be his ignorance of the Church's authority. It is to be expected, therefore, that for a definition of faith the requisite marks of an ex cathedrâ pronouncement, though similar in kind, should be more pronounced and emphatic in degree than for a minor judgment. This remark is necessary, we think, for an apprehension of Cappellari's meaning.

F. Ryder holds that that theologian meant exactly what he said; that he was considering the question of minor doctrinal judgments, and deliberately expressing an opinion that they are external to the sphere of infallibility. On our side we maintain that such a supposition is simply out of the question. Cappellari's great object, we contend, was to draw a broad line between the Pope's doctrinal judgments on the one hand, and his doctrinal opinions on the other. In doctrinal judgments the Pope speaks as Pope; in doctrinal opinions he speaks as a

private doctor. His doctrinal opinions however, adds Cappellari, may be found not merely in his rescripts, private letters, and the like, but even in utterances which convey this or that doctrinal judgment; for the reasons assigned by him for some judgment proceed from him merely as from a private doctor. It became therefore very important for Cappellari's purpose, to lay down precise rules which might enable Catholics to distinguish between a Pope's private opinion and his ex cathedrâ judgment. Now, for reasons we have already explained, the particular class of doctrinal judgments which Cappellari had in his mind, were definitions of faith and no other. In laying down therefore the marks of an ex cathedrâ utterance, he was thinking exclusively about definitions of faith. But the marks of an ex cathedrâ utterance required for a minor judgment are (as we just now observed) less pronounced and emphatic in degree (though the same in kind) than those required for a definition of faith. Had his attention been called to the particular case of minor judgments, he would undoubtedly so far have modified his statement.

Here then is theory against theory. F. Ryder's is far the more simple, and on the surface far the more probable; yet we venture to predict that if you will look below the surface, you will arrive at a firm conviction that ours is the true one. Over and above the very strong general arguments which we have already drawn out, we will give here five further independent reasons applying to Cappellari in particular.

(1) Cappellari was a distinguished theologian. No one will accuse him of not knowing the fact, that S. Alphonsus and other theologians account it actual heresy to deny the Church's infallibility in her minor judgments. Nay, such ignorance is even less credible, because S. Alphonsus's statement occurs in his well-known dissertation against Gallicanism, which Cappellari must have specially read for the purpose of his book. He was also of course well aware, that no approved theologian in the whole Church had ever called in question this infallibility. If we were to grant (for argument's sake) that he felt himself at liberty to go against so great a mass of authority, it is at least very obvious that he would not have done so episodically and parenthetically; he would not have left his readers to infer so momentous an opinion; he would not have implied but expressed it.

(2) According to Cappellari, every single theological proposition, uttered by a Pope at all, is uttered by him either in his capacity of Universal Teacher or of private doctor. He denies throughout any intermediate case whatever. Now nothing can be more undeniable, than that the "Unigenitus" contains

« ÖncekiDevam »