Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

"902

a été changée en l'an de grâce 1439.' We have here the assertion that the Florentine decree changed the Constitution of the Church; and this in spite of the admission made by Gerson, who was himself the soul of the Fourth and Fifth Sessions of Constance, that before his time the opinion touching the superiority of the Council to the Pope was universally regarded as impious and heretical. We have proved, in the preceding section, that the opinion of the superiority of the Synod to the Pope, and of the fallibility of the latter, originated from the Western schism at the time of the Council of Constance, and others before us, as Zaccaria,903 and, in our own day, Abbé Bouix,904 have done the same. The authors just referred to, support their opinion by the names of Tapper, Duval, Raynaud, Bannes, D'Aguirre, and others, from whose works they give quotations; while, on the other side, no authority can be produced for the contrary position, and Gerson himself sides with us on this matter. But, besides this, how can it be maintained that the Council of Florence explicitly or even implicitly implied in its decree the superiority of the Council to the Roman Pontiff, when Eugenius IV., in the very Council of Florence, "sacro approbante Concilio," solemnly condemned that doctrine as contrary to Scripture and Tradition, and impious and scandalous ?905

902 Du Concile Général, 1. iii., ch. xi., n. v., t. i., p. 476.

Did the

903 Antifebronius Vindicatus, diss. v., cap. ii., sec. i., pt. ii., p. 315, seq. (Cæsenæ); Antifebronio, diss. ii., cap. x., n. vi., seq., t. ii., p. 254, seq. (Cesena).

804 De Papa, pt. ii., cap. v., t. i., p. 453, seq.

...

905❝Ipsas propositiones superius descriptas juxta sensum Basileensium intellectum . . . veluti sacrosanctæ Scripturæ et sanctorum Patrum et ipsius Constantiensis concilii sensui contrarium. . . tanquam impias et scandalosas, nec in manifestam Ecclesiæ Dei scissuram, ac omnis ecclesiastici ordinis et Christiani principatus confusionem tendentes, ipso sacro approbante Concilio

Council of Florence join with the Pope in condemning as impious, scandalous, and schismatic, a doctrine which, in the preceding Session, it had proposed as a part of the Christian revelation?

But we must be blind indeed if we fail to observe the declaration of the Synod, that the Pope received from Christ Himself the full power of feeding, guiding, and ruling the Universal Church. Gallican writers, of their own authority, introduce an exception into these words -except the General Council.906 But is the General Council greater than the Universal Church? If the Pope has full power over the Universal Church, how is it that he becomes inferior to it when he assembles in Council that same Universal Church? He is divinely appointed to feed all, to direct all, to rule all, without any exception or limitation whatever, because his power is full; how, then, can it be that when the representatives of all those who are to be fed, guided, and ruled (they themselves being comprehended in that number), become his feeders, his guides, his rulers, as soon as they meet in a General Assembly? Moreover, the Synod intimates that the Roman Pontiff is not only the true Vicar of Christ and the Head of all the Church, but also the Father and Doctor of all Christians. Here, again, Mgr. Maret and the Gallican School wish to introduce an exception and a limitation-except when they are assembled in a General Synod. Their reasoning comes to this: The father is father of his children, and the master is master of his disciples, as long as these do not meet together. If they meet, he becomes their child, their disciple. This is nonsense. The Gallicans in the Catholic Church are as illogical as the Puseyites in

damnamus et reprobamus et damnatas et reprobatas nuntiamus" (Bulla Moyses. In Actis Conc. Flor., pt. iii.

p. 1206).

906 Du Concile Général, 1. c., n. vii., p. 477.

Labbe, t. xviii.,

the Anglican Establishment. No Christ our Lord established the Church as a family, of which the Pope is the father; He formed it as a school of faith, in which the Pope is the supreme master. As, then, the father is superior in his family, and over his children, whether divided or united; and the master is superior to his disciples meeting together in his school: so also, the Pope is superior to all the Church, whether scattered all over the world, or united in a General Council. Finally, if the Pope is superior to the Council, and possesses full power over the Church, he must consequently be infallible. Were he not infallible he would be subordinate to the Council, and his definitions would be liable to its censure and correction; if he be not infallible, his authority would not be full, since it would need the sanction of a General Synod before it could impose on the Church a doctrine of faith.

The words of the decree of Florence are so clear that for some time the Gallican School thought it advisable to deny the authority of the Synod, while they admitted that of the Assembly of Basle. The Cardinal of Lorraine declared in the Synod of Trent that the University of Paris did not hold the Synod of Florence as Ecumenical.907 But they were forced to give up that ground of defence, and the Dominican Natalis Alexander, in a learned dissertation, proved to demonstration the legitimacy of the Council and its authority in the Church.908 Thereupon the Gallicans had recourse to another means; they misinterpreted the clause of the Decree. But, Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim, says the Latin poet, and the

907 Pallavicini, Hist. du Conc. de Trent, 1. xxi., ch. vi., nn. 20, 21, t. iii., p. 335 (Paris, 1845); Fleury, Hist. Eccl., 1. clxiv., n. lxxiv., t. xxxiii., p. 364 (Paris, 1768).

908 Hist. Eccl., xviii., diss. x., art. i., p. 604. Edit. Mansi,

1790.

The Gallican

proverb now received a fresh fulfilment.
writers argue that the words "quemadmodum etiam in
gestis Ecumenicorum Conciliorum et in sacris canonibus
continetur," especially if compared with the Greek text,
assert the subordination of the Pope to Councils, and
consequently his subjection to the laws which these
should enact. This interpretation, originating with
De Marca and Bossuet, has been traditional among the
Gallicans, and, as we might expect, Mgr. Maret has
given it room in his work,909 and Dr. Döllinger also
produced it in his recent letter against the petition of
the Bishops to the Pope in favour of the definition of
Papal Infallibility. These writers assert that the Greek
text must be rendered by " secundum eum modum qui
et in gestis Ecumenicorum Conciliorum et in sacris
canonibus continetur," and they maintain that the
words of the Latin text must also be understood in
the same manner. Dr. Döllinger goes so far as to add
that the particle etiam in the Latin text is a forgery
of Abraham Bartholomeus. To begin from this last
assertion, we must remark that the etiam is found in
all the most ancient manuscripts in which the Acts of
the Synod of Florence are preserved, as well in the
Vatican library as in those of Florence, Bologna, and
Paris. Moreover, the very particle is found in the two
authentic copies of the Act of Union kept in the
archives of the Vatican and in the Laurentian library
of Florence,910 in which are to be seen the autographs
of Pope Eugenius IV. and of the Emperor Palæologus

909 Du Concile Général, 1. iii., ch. xi., n. xiv., t. i., p. 488, seq.
910 See the Civiltà Cattolica, vol. ix., series vii., p. 397, seq.
The writer, while refuting the baseless assertions of Dr. Döllinger,...
produces fac-similes of the clause from manuscript copies in the
Vatican library. See also the learned letter written by Canon
Cecconi on the subject, and inserted in the Armonia of Turin
on February 1, 1870.

and, in that of Florence, together with the signatures of all the Bishops, Greek and Latin. This is enough to dispose of the baseless assertion of Dr. Döllinger.

As to the main point in question, we add only a few remarks.911 (1.) The text of the decree accepted by the Greeks was the Latin,912 wherefore the passage is to be explained from this. (2.) If the clause be taken in the Gallican meaning, the decree would be in contradiction with itself, and would in this clause upset what it had declared in the foregoing part. (3.) The Greek text is a literal translation of the Latin, and if the zaðöv póñoV zaí is simply compared with the "quemadmodum etiam” the meaning will be seen to be the same.913 (4) Finally, the Acts of the Council clearly show what was the meaning of the clause in question. Before the Greeks had fully accepted the decree worded by the Latins, the Provincial of the Dominicans was commissioned publicly to explain every clause. Now the Greek Acts of the Council say that he "auctoritatibus canonum, legum et epistolarum sua dicta confirmavit," and this is evident from the speech as preserved in the Latin Acts.914 In accordance with this, Cardinal Julian, in his relation to Pope Eugenius, states that the Greeks

911 See the observations on the matter in the preceding volume, The Supreme Authority of the Pope, sec. viii., p. 204, seq.

912 Acta Lat. Conc. Florentini, coll. xxxi. (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 1177).

913 Mgr. Maret himself is forced to confess that in some copies preserved at Paris the particle v is wanting in the second member of the sentence, and that a Greek scholar assured him that in that case the particle zaì cannot have any other meaning than that of the Latin etiam (Du Concile Général, l. iii., ch. xii., nota, t. i., p. 489, seq.).

914 Acta Græco-Latina Conc. Florentini, Sess. xxv. (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 510). In the Latin Acts the speech of the Dominican Provincial is given at length in Collat. xxii. (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 1152, seq.).

« ÖncekiDevam »