and the intimation of the Papal sentence to the schismatic party devolved on the Papal Legates alone. Again, the Papal Legates defend the irreformability of the sentence inflicted on Photius simply on the ground that it is a Papal sentence, not because it had been approved by the other Patriarchs. They allege the definitions and the laws of the Fathers only in support of their assertion that a Papal sentence is not open to any change or reformation. Finally, the Synod, in the second of its Decrees of faith, enacted in the Tenth Session, bore witness to the justice of the position we have taken. For in that Decree it ordered that all should keep and observe the synodical definitions of Nicholas and Hadrian against Photius, precisely because the Pope is an organ of the Holy Ghost.787 The Synod does not define that the Decrees of Nicholas and Hadrian are to be observed because they had been sanctioned by the Oriental Patriarchs, or because the guilt of Photius was evident; but because Nicholas and Hadrian are regarded by the Synod as organs of the Holy Ghost, that is to say, on account of their divine uncontrollable authority. For this reason the Eighth Synod, like the preceding, followed faithfully the judgment of the Roman Pontiff, and submitted to him, as members to their Head. 787"Beatissimum Papam Nicolaum tanquam organum Sancti Spiritus habentes, necnon et sanctissimum Hadrianum Papam successorem ejus, definimus et sancimus etiam omnia quæ ab eis synodice per diversa tempore exposita sunt . . . servari semper et custodiri cum expositis capitulis immutilata pariter et illæsa," etc. (Cap. ii. in Act. x., Conc. viii. Labbe, 1. c., p. 633). SECTION XIII. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM THE EIGHTH TO THE SIXTEENTH COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE. FROM the year 869, when the Eighth Ecumenical Synod was held in Constantinople, no other General Council was assembled in the Church till 1123, when Pope Callistus II. convened the Ninth General Council in the Lateran to ratify the Concordat of Worms, which put an end to the great contest concerning investitures between the Church and the Empire.788 The Second General Council of Lateran was called by Innocent II. in 1139, principally for the purpose of checking the fatal schism of Pier Leone, and putting a restraint on the audacity of Pier of Bruis and Arnold of Brescia, whose poisonous doctrine was spreading in the provinces of Italy and in Rome itself a spirit hostile to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff.789 A third General Synod was also held in the Lateran forty years later by Alexander III., with the view of redressing the disorders produced by the schisms of the anti-Popes, and to eradicate the many evils which had become prevalent among Christians.700 We can say that the first three Lateran Synods did not properly regard the condemnation of new errors, but matters of discipline. Nevertheless, from the Eighth to the Eleventh Ecumenical Council (869–1179), new 788 Conc. Lat. i. (Labbe, t. xii., p. 1327, seq.). heresies and new errors appeared in the Church, but they were definitively condemned by the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff, without any need being felt that the Bishops of the world should assemble. It is beyond any doubt that the doctrine of Berengarius on the Eucharist was heretical. He professed to draw it from the writings of John Scotus Erigena; he denied every kind of substantial change in the Sacra'ment of the Eucharist, and seemed only to admit the simple virtue of Christ's Humanity in the bread and wine consecrated with the words of institution. His errors were widely spread in France, and received the patronage of a strong party. Leo IX. was the first to condemn them, in a Synod held at Rome in 1050, and again in another assembled the same year in Vercelli,791 Five years after (1055) the condemnation was renewed by Victor II. in a Synod convened in Florence.792 Nicholas II. compelled the heretic to burn his own writings and to renounce his errors, in the presence of a Synod held in Rome in 1059.793 But Berengarius subsequently withdrew his retractation and returned to his vomit. In vain did Alexander II. kindly exhort him to reject his error; he remained stubborn and scornful in his perversity and hypocrisy. Finally, it was in the Synods held in Rome by Gregory VII. in 1078 and 1079, that he submitted to the condition imposed on him for a complete reconciliation with the Church. But the formula which the great Pontiff required Berengarius to sign clearly reveals the consciousness he had of his own infallibility when he framed it. The heresiarch was obliged to believe corde 791 Conc. Rom. ii. sub Leone IX. Papa; Conc. Vercellense (Labbe, t. xi., p. 1427, seq., p. 1431, seq.). . 792 Conc. Florentinum (Labbe, t. xii., p. 3). 793 Conc. Rom. sub Nicolao II. Berengarii abjuratio (Labbe, t. xii., p. 46). and ore the doctrine of the real substantial presence of Christ our Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and to take an oath on the Gospel to attest the sincerity of his profession.794 A profession of faith which commands our reason to submit without reserve, is an infallible utterance of the official organ of the Holy Ghost in the Church. Gregory VII., like his predecessors, was really an organ of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, his Decree against the heresy of Berengarius, without any Ecumenical Council, was sufficient to counteract the artifices of the heretic, and to put an end to the controversy. Gregory VII. had a strong persuasion of his own infallibility as a Successor of St. Peter in the Roman See, and he was aware that the belief in that Papal prerogative was deeply established in the Universal Church. In the Apologeticus for his Decrees, he openly intimates that the decisions of the most holy Pontiffs should be venerated with greater devotion than those of the first four General Councils, because the latter require the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, while the former stand in no need of any confirmation whatsoever.795 On this account he solemnly declared, in a Synod held at Rome, that "Romana Ecclesia nunquam erravit, nec in perpetuum Scripturâ testante errabit."796 And again Quod Catholicus non habetur qui non concordat Romanæ Ecclesiæ;" "797 and at the same time he declared that "Sententia Papæ a nullo debeat retractari et ipse 794 Ego Berengarius corde credo et ore confiteor," etc. (See it in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbol. et Definit., p. 133. Wirceburgi, 1867). 795"Decreta SS. RR. PP., si possemus, etiam studiosius quam illa quatuor, concilia venerari et observare deberemus," etc. (Apologeticus super Decreta, n. iii. Edit. Migne, Op., t. i., p. 754. Labbe, t. xii., p. 552). 796 Dictatus Papa Gregorii VII., n. 22 (Labbe, t. xii., p. 341). 797 Ibid., n. 26. omnium solus retractare possit."798 Nevertheless, his principles even in that age were fully acknowledged, and unanimously professed in the Church. Ivo Carnotensis, a Bishop highly esteemed in France both in his age. and afterwards, pointedly said in his letter to Richer, Archbishop of Sens, that resistance to the judgments and the Decrees of the Apostolic See is a sure mark of heretical pravity.799 And he appeals to the traditional teaching of the Church, especially to that of Pope Gelasius and of St. Gregory 1.800 Likewise, the Council of Quedlinburgh (1085) expressly maintained the same maxim, as having been laid down by the Fathers of the Church; the assembled Bishops examined the doctrines of the holy Fathers (say the synodical Acts) on the Primacy of the Apostolical See, to the effect that no one has power to re-examine its judgment or to pronounce any sentence on it. And all the Synod, with unanimous and public consent, praised and confirmed this teaching. 801 From this we must conclude that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, proclaimed and put in practice by Gregory VII., does not date merely from the year 1080, as "Janus" has had the boldness to assert, nor was it built on forgeries of the Hildebrandine era, still less was it called up as a means to support the system of the Papal universal domination.s These 798 Dictatus Papa Gregorii VII., n. 18 (l. c.). 802 799 See Ivo Carnot., Epist. viii. (Op., t. ii., p. 18. Edit. Migne, PP. LL., t. clxii.). "Cujus (Apostolicæ Sedis) judiciis et constitutionibus obviare, plane est hæreticæ pravitatis notam incurrere.” 800 Ibid. (1. c., p. 19). 801 "Cum ergo omnes juxta ordinem suum consedissent, prolata sunt in medium decreta sanctorum Patrum de primatu Sedis Apostolicæ : quod nulli unquam liceat ejus judicium retractare, et de ejus judicio judicare. Quod de totius Synodi publica professione laudatum et confirmatum est" (Synod. Quintilineburgensis. Labbe, t. xii., p. 680). 802 The Pope and the Council, sec. vii., p. 100, seq. By “Janus.” London, 1869. |