SECTION XV. DOGMATIC CHARACTER OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. ITS OBJECT AND ITS CONDITIONS. CONCLUSION OF WE have remarked elsewhere that the Apostolic See, whilst repeatedly condemning the Articles of the Declaration of 1682, did not denounce the French Clergy as guilty of schism or heresy.960 The Roman Congregation assembled at the time by Innocent XI. declared unanimously that "the Gallican Declaration could not be dealt with more moderately than by abstaining from inflicting on it the note of heresy."961 But this spirit of reserve and moderation, which marked the conduct of the Apostolic See in favour of a Catholic nation, affords no proof that the Gallican Declaration is free from error contrary to the Catholic revealed doctrine. It is strange, therefore, that many in our age believe, or affect to believe, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is actually an open question, merely because the note of heresy has not been affixed to the contrary proposition. On this subject we must make a few remarks before closing this work. First, then, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has been held for many centuries by the Universal Church, and handed down as an article of faith. It has always been professed in the practice of the whole Church since the beginning as a rule of belief, and therefore, even if it 960 The Supreme Authority of the Pope, sec. vii., p. 183. had no clear foundation in Scripture, it could not be regarded as a free point of doctrine; it must be considered as Catholic truth placed beyond all controversy, as Suarez distinctly asserts. The consent, practical and theoretical, of the greater part of the Church is equivalent to a definition. It proves evidently that the doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith, and, consequently, that it demands to be believed de fide divinâ. But moreover, as we have seen, this doctrine has a solid base in Scripture, and is most closely connected with the Constitution of the Church. An unbroken tradition regards Papal Infallibility as a promise made by Christ our Lord to St. Peter, and in him to his Successors, and therefore the Church for centuries held the belief peacefully, and without interruption by controversy. It necessarily follows that this doctrine is no longer an open question but a Catholic truth, to be believed de fide divinâ. But is it a heresy to teach the contrary? We reply that we may consider a heresy under two points of view; inasmuch as it contradicts a Catholic truth which is certainly contained in the deposit of faith, and inasmuch as it contradicts an authentic definition of the Church. If we consider it under the first aspect the doctrine of Papal fallibility is beyond all doubt a heresy. But if we consider it under the other aspect its heretical character depends upon the form in which the error is expressed. The error would be a heresy if worded in the form in which it was condemned by Sixtus IV."The Church of the City of Rome can err." The formula of Hormisdas had already defined that the Church of the City of Rome cannot err, and this formula had been signed by the whole Church. This is confessed by Bossuet himself. Moreover, it would also be a heresy if shaped on the proposition anathematised by Pope Leo X., which we mentioned in the preceding section. The thesis of Papal Infallibility, as expressed in the fourth proposition of the Gallican Declaration, has not yet been censured as heretical, but whether under that shape or under any other, it has been condemned implicitly and explicitly by the Popes before and after the famous Assembly of 1682, and it has been noted with the severest censures short of heresy by the most learned theologians of the Church. It was condemned by Martin V., Pius II., and Julius II., when they condemned as erroneous and detestable the appeal from the judgment of the Pope to the Ecumenical Council.962 If the definitions of the Pope could be reformable by the Council they would be liable to its authority, and consequently, in case of error, to appeal from the Papal tribunal to that of the General Synod would be a natural course to follow. Moreover, it was rejected and condemned by all those Popes who rejected and condemned the four propositions of the Assembly of 1682; that is to say, by Innocent XI., Alexander VIII., Innocent XII., Clement XI., Pius VI., and Pius IX.963 The last-named not only rejected with horror the doctrine of the Gallican Declaration, but also proclaimed in an open and solemn manner the 962 Martin V. in the Council of Constance, in the place quoted above; Pius II., in the Bull Exsecrabilis (In Conc. Mantuano. Labbe, t. xix., p. 259, seq.). This Bull was confirmed by Julius II. in his Bull Suspecti Regiminis (In Bullario Rom., t. v., p. 312, seq.). 963 Innoc. I., in Resp. ad Epist. Cleri Gall. (In Sfondrati, Gallia Vindicata, diss. i., sec. viii., p. 345); Alexandro VIII., in Bulla Inter Multiplices (Bullarium Rom., t. x., p. 38, seq.); Innoc. XII., in Allocutione Consistoriali, an. 1682 (Examen du quatrième Art. de la Déclaration, p. 170. Paris, 1809); Clem. XI., in Brevi, 15 Jan., 1706 (Observations sur un Mémoire adressé à l'Episcopat Français, par Gousset, p. 80. Liége, 1853); Pius VI., in Bulla Auctorem fidei, n. 85 (In Bullar. Rom. Continuatio, t. ix., p. 395); Pius IX., in Allocut., 17 Dec., 1847 (Acta Pii IX., pt. i., P. 72). infallibility of the Roman Church and its Pontiffs, whose magisterium he declared infallible and irreformable.964 Finally, Alexander VIII., in a list of thirty-one propositions, which he condemned as scandalous, erroneous, schismatic, bordering on heresy, and heretical respectively, included the following, that "the assertion regarding the Roman Pontiff being superior to the Council, and his infallibility in defining questions of faith, is futile and has been often exploded." 965 Now, if we compare these condemnations of the Pope's fallibility, and the decrees and definitions bearing on Papal Infallibility, with the universal persuasion of the Church before the Council of Constance, and again after the Synod of Florence down to the time of the Declaration of 1682, we shall be forced to conclude that the opinion of Papal fallibility is in itself not only erroneous but heretical, though not yet authentically declared as such by the Church. It directly contradicts the universal doctrine of the whole Church, which is infallible and irreformable. It has been often objected that the Penitentiaria, in its answers of Sept. 14 and of Dec. 13, 1831, declared that those who still held the doctrine of the Fourth Article of the Declaration could be admitted to the Sacrament of Penance and absolved. But they who urge this objection fail to remark (1.) that the Congregation expressly puts as a condition that they should hold that opinion ex bona fide et ex animi persuasione, and (2.) that the Congregation also declared that the confessor has in his power to refuse absolution in such cases if he "aliter judicet ex circumstantiis in peculiari casu occurrentibus." That is to say, the 964 In Epist. Encycl., 9 Nov., 1846 (Acta Pii IX., pt. i., p. 10, seq.); In Epist. Encycl. ad Episc. Italiæ, 8 Dec., 1849 (Acta, p. 209). 965 Prop. 31, damnatæ 7 Dec., 1690; Prop. 29 (In Denzinger, Ench., p. 345). Congregation admits that to hold the erroneous opinion is a grievous sin, from which bona fides alone can excuse, and consequently that only on account of their bona fides can defenders of that error be admitted to sacramental absolution. But in our day, except in the case of a most supine ignorance or of great want in mental power, we cannot easily find many instances of bona fides, especially at the present moment, when the Church has solemnly manifested its doctrine by the nearly unanimous voice of all its Bishops, in union and in perfect harmony with the supreme magisterium of the Apostolic See. Consequently, even now, irrespective of any proceeding of the Vatican Council now pending, not only is it lawful for any Catholic to condemn the adverse opinion as erroneous, scandalous, proximate to heresy, and heretical in itself, according to the example of the greatest theologians ; 966 but it is the duty of every educated Catholic to believe and to profess that it deserves these qualifications. To censure Catholics because they make public this profession of Catholic faith is nothing but intolerable temerity. But what is the object of Papal Infallibility? Exactly the same as that of Church Infallibility. No reason whatever exists for giving more to one and less to the other. The divine promises, the traditions and the constant practice of the Church, are altogether in favour of this teaching.967 As to the extension of Church Infallibility, we shall treat it at length in the third part of this work, when we shall have occasion to confirm the doctrine which we have just laid down. Calumnies and 966 Bouix has given a long list of theologians and of the . censures with which they have marked the error of Papal Fallibility (De Papa, pt. ii., sec. iv., cap. i., prop. iv., t. ii., pp. 241—253). 967 In the Schema of Papal Infallibility presented to the Vatican Council, its object is declared coextensive with that of Church Infallibility. |