Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

every one to clench the whole. Never was there a more simply doctrinal composition, than the Bull "Unam sanctam." This will be admitted alike by Catholic, Protestant, and infidel. There is not a single disciplinary command in it from first to last: it is occupied exclusively, either with laying down a certain definite doctrine on the due relation between Church and State, or else in giving reasons for that doctrine. Now Cappellari, in the chapter which succeeds the present, speaks of that Bull as having "for four centuries served as a rule to the Catholic universe" (p. 279). He cannot therefore possibly suppose, that it is the mere expression of Boniface VIII.'s private opinion; he must hold, on the contrary, that it is an utterance ex cathedrâ. Yet Cappellari's own six tests are not applicable to this Bull at all, unless you soften down (as we have done) their more rigorous meaning. It is not in form addressed to the whole Churcheither Ecclesia Credens or Ecclesia Docens-but is headed "In perpetuam rei memoriam." It does not in so many words express an express will to oblige consciences; " you can only say (and that indeed with perfect truth) that its whole structure, tone, and texture imply an authoritative and ex cathedrâ character. Lastly, its general teaching, though infallibly true, will not (we suppose) be considered by any one as de fide. At all events (which alone is to the purpose) neither directly nor by implication does the Bull pronounce an anathema on those who dissent from any portion of its teaching as to the due relations between Church and State.

66

If our readers have had patience to follow this long train of argument, we cannot doubt they will have long since confidently arrived at our own conviction. They will be as convinced as we are, that nothing was more absolutely external to Cappellari's thoughts, than any dream of disparaging the Church's infallibility in her minor judgments.

But now, lastly, even if it could be maintained with any kind of plausibility that Cappellari the theologian denied this infallibility, no one can doubt that Gregory XVI. the Pope affirmed it; and that those "supernatural lights" of which Cappellari speaks "illumined his intellect" in that particular. His Encyclical, the "Mirari vos," was no definition of faith; yet see the view he takes of its authority. Without again troubling our readers by a detail with which they are now familiar, let them look to a subsequent Encyclical-the" Singulari nos" issued on June 23rd 1834. In this second Encyclical he speaks of that "Catholic doctrine" concerning obedience to kings, indifferentism, liberty of conscience, and the like, which, "in accordance with the authority committed to us (pro auctori

tate humilitati nostræ tradita) we defined" in the "Mirari

vos.'

The argument deducible from facts for the infallibility of the "Mirari vos" is really weakened by its very strength. The proofs of Gregory XVI.'s intention are so multifarious, that the cogency of each one is inadequately apprehended. It is for this reason that we will here confine ourselves to this later Encyclical. If in the "Mirari vos" he had not been issuing a definition ex cathedrâ,-then, in the "Singulari nos" he solemnly declared to the whole Episcopate what he knew to be a falsehood: that falsehood being nothing less than the mendacious allegation of a pretended dogmatical fact, and the solemn promulgation of a false and spurious rule of Catholic belief.

[ocr errors]

It is not more certain then that Gregory XVI. was Pope at all, than that he issued the "Mirari vos ex cathedrâ. And let us now, with this fact well established in our mind, look back on the treatise which he wrote before his elevation to the throne. According to our own view of that treatise, the "Mirari vos" possessed all the marks, internal and external, assigned therein as requisite for an utterance ex cathedrâ. And if a new edition of this work was printed at Rome under the author's supervision the very year when the “ Mirari VOS appeared, considerable probability thence accrues, that we have rightly interpreted its tenor. But let us suppose, for argument's sake, that F. Ryder had apprehended Cappellari's treatise correctly: what would follow? It is Cappellari himself who points out how serious are the errors into which a Pope may fall, when writing as a private doctor: and if an actual Pope, how much more a merely prospective one! It is the strangest way possible of showing respect for Cappellari's work, to violate its principal maxim. We say, with Cappellari himself, that where the Pope and the theologian are at variance, it is not the Pope who may be adusted with the theologian, but the theologian who must be corrected by the Pope.

Moreover it is most certain that, in the year 1832 at all events, Cappellari the theologian was in completest harmony with Gregory XVI. the Pope. Supposing therefore he had once thought otherwise, it is absolutely certain that he had changed his opinion, at a time when his opinion, even as a private theologian, carried with it an authority indefinitely greater.

*This was stated by a priest writing in the Tablet without any signaturè, We We are not otherwise acquainted with the fact.

To conclude. F. Ryder may possibly say that, even if his citations do not warrant his conclusion, they have nevertheless real force against our own doctrine on the infallibility of Encyclicals. This is of course in itself quite possible; and we will not fail therefore in our next number to notice the allegation. In our present article, however, we have dealt exclusively with the inference which F. Ryder himself would draw from his authorities. And on this head we thus sum up our argument. He alleges that certain approved theologians deny the Church's infallibility in her minor censures. Against this supposition there are three tremendous à priori improbabilities. It is improbable, in a degree which it is difficult to exaggerate, (1) that approved theologians shall have denied what the Church so indubitably teaches; (2) that a number of theologians should have implied, what confessedly no one of them ever expressed; and (3) that a number of theologians should have been permitted to advocate as true, what another number have been permitted to denounce as heretical. These improbabilities, however, do not of course dispense us from the obligation of examining F. Ryder's citations. We have done so therefore in detail; our conclusion being, that not one of those whom he adduces really held the tenet which he ascribes to them. The primary and direct argument for the Church's infallibility in these minor judgments, must ever be, of course, her own express and emphatic teaching. Yet there is another argument also for the same doctrine-secondary indeed in kind, but equally complete and absolute in degree; viz., the unanimous testimony of approved theologians.

As we find that various reports have been circulated, to the effect that F. Perrone disapproves our view on the extent of infallibility, we have thought it better on reflection to enter at somewhat greater length, on the doctrine of this distinguished theologian. We are not aware that he deals expressly with the question of minor censures in any part of his works, except in his recently published treatise on the theological virtues (A.D. 1865). The passage to which we refer is in the first part of that work, and extends from n. 499 to n. 522. It thus commences:

An opinion seems to have prevailed among some, that any doctrine or proposition, which has not been branded as heretical, may be thought a matter of small moment (parvi facienda sit); just as though a man would be guilty of no fault who, excluding formal heresy, should not fear to assert a conVOL. IX, NO, XVIII. [New Series.]

2 L

demnable proposition which should be akin to heresy. For the purpose of uprooting so pernicious a persuasion I have thought it worth while, &c. &c.

F. Perrone then divides censures into "doctrinal" and "judicial." "Doctrinal" censures are merely those ascribed to propositions by this or that theologian; but "judicial censures" are those pronounced "by legitimate authority, especially by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council." Of a "judicial" censure he lays down that it

Has the power of binding in conscience: because it has efficacy in God's sight (coram Deo valeat), Who has appointed the Church to be magistra and judge in all those things which in any manner (quoquo modo) appertain to faith and morals.

Here observe, firstly, how distinctly F. Perrone declares, that the Church's magisterium extends to all things in any manner appertaining to faith and morals. And observe, secondly, that those judicial censures which are pronounced by the Church herself, are considered by the author as part of her magisterium. Now, that F. Perrone considers the Church infallible in her magisterium, is admitted even by F. Ryder (p. 31); F. Perrone therefore must regard her as inclusively infallible in that particular part of her magisterium, which is here under consideration.

The author belongs to that far more numerous body of theologians, who hold that every condemned proposition is quite certainly untrue in the sense in which it is condemned. The censured doctrine, he says, "necessarily not only must be false, but carries with it a certain excess over the common grade of falsehood" (n. 500). He then proceeds (nn. 501521) to recite and explain those particular censures which the Church most frequently uses; and in this detail we need not follow him.

Finally, as to the guilt incurred by those who maintain condemnable propositions. He is speaking, be it observed, of propositions which the Church herself as yet has not actually censured.

We must add, he says, as regards the asserters or maintainers of such condemnable propositions, that they are not free from sin, and that mortal (haud culpâ carere eâque gravi), if this be done knowingly and deliberately. Because for the most part such things are blurted out (effutiuntur) from a certain rashness; from love of novelty: and their authors meanwhile expose themselves to a serious danger of error, from which they will afterwards hardly or not at all be able to draw back their foot; and, besides, they give others scandal.

It seems pretty clear that F. Perrone is here speaking, not of those merely who externally "assert or maintain" such propositions, but of those also who interiorly accept them as true. For he says that those whom he mentions " expose themselves to serious danger of error;" and, of course, such danger is incurred, not less by assenting to a proposition, than by externally maintaining it.

So much then on those " condemnable propositions," which the Church has as yet not censured. "Persons," he very naturally adds, "exhibit themselves still more in fault, if the question concerns propositions already condemned by the Church or by Roman Pontiffs."

To complete our exhibition of F. Perrone's view on the Church's minor doctrinal judgments, we will here reprint a letter recently addressed by Dr. Ward to the Westminster Gazette:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "WESTMINSTER GAZETTE."

[ocr errors]

SIR, A few weeks ago the Tablet quoted a passage from Father Perrone's "Prælections," as being inconsistent with those views, which I for one, with many others, have been recently advocating on the extent of infallibility. Moreover, several reports have been in private circulation, that that distinguished theologian dissents from such views. For myself, I have never consciously had any wish in the whole matter, except to ascertain and follow the Church's teaching; and as I was very desirous of gaining any fresh light, I thought it the best thing to obtain, if I could, some direct information on Father Perrone's opinion.

I wrote, therefore, to a most kind friend of mine-a Jesuit Father living in Rome-and asked him if he could obtain for me some authentic reply, which I might be at liberty to publish. The controversy between Father Ryder and myself turns on two main questions: (1) The infallibility of minor doctrinal censures; and (2) the infallibility of doctrinal Encyclicals. I selected instances, therefore, of each. As to the former, I mentioned the "Unigenitus" and the "Auctorem fidei," both of which abound with these minor censures: in the one expressed "in globo;" in the other "specifically." I asked my friend to inquire of Father Perrone, whether he would say totidem verbis that these two Bulls " are infallible decisions of the Church." As my instance of doctrinal Encyclicals, I took the "Mirari vos." I drew attention to the subsequent Encyclical "Singulari nos," wherein Gregory XVI. declared that in the "Mirari vos" he had "defined Catholic

« ÖncekiDevam »