Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

looked on it as liable to error, no General Council having yet settled the question in a definitive manner. How many baseless suppositions have we here! In the view of St. Augustine, Pope Stephen, led by prudence and charity, abstained from pronouncing a dogmatical definition; succeeding Popes followed in his steps. It was by the Council of Arles, and much more by the General Council of Nicæa, that the doctrine was confirmed which teaches the validity of heretical baptism if administered in the name of the Holy Trinity. Until the time of these Councils the conflicting Decrees of Provincial Synods could not have any firm authority, nor were all doubts dispelled even from the minds of those who were most faithful in keeping the Apostolical

tradition.

It will now be easily understood that it is impossible to build on the facts of the controversy between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen, any argument whatever against Papal Infallibility. Nevertheless, the question was sure to find a place in the work recently published under the name of "Janus,' "309 in which all the rubbish of the old Gallican and Jansenistic Schools has been diligently collected. The authors show clearly that they have not at all understood the controversy on heretical baptism, or that they have purposely disguised it. "Janus" says that "the dispute had a clearly dogmatic character;" that "the opposition of Pope Stephen to the doctrine confirmed at several African and Asiatic Synods against the validity of schismatical baptism, remained wholly inoperative;" that "St. Cyprian and Firmilian denied his having any right to dictate a doctrine to other Bishops and Churches;" that "later on St. Augustine maintains that the pronouncement of Stephen, categorical as it was, was no decision of the

309 The Pope and the Council, ch. iii., sec. 4, pp. 66, 67. By "Janus." Translated from the German. London, 1869.

Church, and that St. Cyprian and the Africans were therefore justified in rejecting it;" and that, according to the holy Doctor, "the real obligation of conforming to a common practice originated with the Decree of a great Council." These assertions, which are in perfect agreement with the opinions of Mgr. Maret and of the old Gallican School, are partly false and partly calumnious. They have already been repeatedly refuted by numerous theologians, and what we have already said in this section is itself sufficient refutation; we will add here only a word on St. Augustine. What the author attributes to St. Augustine does not exist in his works; it is not found in the place quoted by the writer,310 nor in any other place; it is, in short, a mere calumny against the holy Doctor. St. Augustine does not say more on the subject than we quoted above. Orsi, therefore, and the advocates of Papal Infallibility, have no reason to give up the African Doctor, as "Janus' tells us that they do. Orsi never did rebuke him either formally or materially, except in the fancy of "Janus," nor is it more true that Bellarmine thought that he had perhaps spoken a falsehood.311 In a few lines we have 310 The reference as given in the note to p. 67, is De Baptismo, t. ix., pp. 98-111 (Op. Edit. Bened.). What an easy manner of quoting the Fathers! Does "Janus" believe that St. Augustine devotes the whole extent of thirteen pages in folio to explain the supposed assertion? What the holy Doctor says in the matter is exactly what we have stated above, which is to be found in his work De Baptismo, 1. i., cap. vii., n. 9, p. 57.

In the place

311 The writers quote Bellarmine erroneously. cited (De Eccl., i., 4) there is nothing which can refer to St. Augustine. Bellarmine speaks of St. Augustine in connection with St. Cyprian in De Romano Pontifice, 1. iv., cap. vii. But neither there, or in any other place of his works, has he ever said that St. Augustine perhaps spoke a falsehood! As to Orsi, our author does not mention any place of his works in particular; but we can confidently assert that nowhere has he rebuked St. Augustine.. This is but one specimen of the erudition and honesty of "Janus."

a good specimen of the erudition and honesty of writers who, while professing to be Catholics, undertake a scandalous attack against the Church and its Head. But before concluding this section, let us add some other remarks on what "Janus" says concerning the authority of the Pope during the first three centuries. It seems that "Janus" knows very little, not only of Scripture, but also of that very historical science of which he seems to think himself a great master. He tells his readers that for thirteen centuries an incomprehensible silence reigned throughout the whole Church about that extensive authority of the Pope, and still less was any hint given that all certainty of faith and doctrine depends on him.312 Whoever has carefully read what we have written in the previous volume of this work will be able to judge of the historical correctness of this assertion. writers complain that, during not a single dogmatic Decree a Pope, nor a trace of the existence of any such document.313 It is true that no Decree exists of that kind preserved in its integrity. But how can they prove that there is no trace of the existence of any? Have we not already mentioned several Decrees issued by the Popes against heretical leaders and sects? If the records of history had preserved for us more documents, we should know how the Roman Apostolic See condemned the heresies of that ancient age, and strengthened the faith of Catholics. The few which

Moreover, the learned the first four centuries, can be found issued by

still remain tell us sufficiently that the Popes were from the beginning constant in their task of the guardians of faith, and, consequently, to them in justice it belonged to pronounce dogmatic decisions against all heretics, and to point out and declare the faith of the Catholic 312 The Pope and the Council, 1. c., p. 64. 313 Ibid., 1. c.

Church. We have said enough on this subject, and the following sections will confirm our assertion to demonstration. We have already spoken of the case of Dionysius of Alexandria, which is alone sufficient. for our purpose, nor does the importance of this case in any way depend, as "Janus" would have it do, upon the question whether or not the act of the Pope was known beyond the limits of Alexandria. The fact is that even at that age extraordinary wisdom and authority were exhibited by the Apostolical See in defending and explaining the dogmas of faith, and in fixing the forms of words by which they were to be expressed. We will invite our readers to peruse the remarks of the learned Hagemann on this subject.314 He openly complains that even Catholics often appeal to the Greek writers, and spare no praise in favour of their subtlety in controversy, while the Popes since the beginning always manifested incomparable wisdom in exploding and condemning errors and heresies, and in explaining Catholic truths.3 But even if no dogmatic Decree of faith had been put forth by the Popes in the first three centuries of the Church, it would not follow that they had not authority to exercise this power had they thought it necessary. Here, as often, our adversaries confound the exercise of power with the right. In addition to this want of logic, they prove themselves wanting in the elements of theological doctrine. Because, if in the fourth or fifth century we see the Popes in full exercise of that supreme prerogative in causes of faith, without any protest on the part of the Episcopal body, we must conclude that those prerogatives which are clearly seen in the Papal Acts of the fourth or fifth century, must have been an inheritance transmitted to 314 Die Römische Kirche, ii., 4, p. 117; ii., 6, p. 131. Freiburg, 1864.

315 Ibid., ii., 6, p. 129.

the Popes from Christ our Lord, through St. Peter's ministry for the Universal Church cannot remain in error for so many centuries in a matter which is vital in itself and forms an essential part of the constitution of the Church. Thus the argument recently urged by Dr. Frohschammer against the work of "Janus" is fully justified.

SECTION VII.

GENERAL COUNCILS AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

IN the work of Monseigneur Maret against Papal Infallibility we find two principal errors which form the basis of the whole structure. These are a false statement of fact and a false deduction in logic. The author begins by adulterating the doctrine on the constitution of the Church as explained by the champions of Papal Infallibility. Drawing a line of demarcation between what he wrongly calls the Italian School of Bellarmine and the School of Paris and Bossuet,316 he says that the theologians of the first "conviennent que les évêques peuvent participer au gouvernement général de l'Eglise dans la mesure que le Pape détermine." But he adds that, "malgré ces aveux et ces concessions, il n'en est pas moins évident que, dans le systéme de cette école, le Pape posséde la monarchie pure, indivisible, absolue, illimitée."317 Accordingly he strives to represent the

316 The School which Mgr. Maret calls Italian, but which is really the Roman, or Catholic School, embraced within its pale even the French theologians of the Sorbonne. M. Gérin has clearly demonstrated this in his excellent work L'Assemblée du Clergé de France de 1682, ch. viii., p. 333, seq.; App. A, B, p. 481, seq., p. 522, seq. We will return to this subject in another section of the present book.

317 Du Concile Général, l. ii., ch. i., t. i., p. 130.

« ÖncekiDevam »