THE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY.
1. The Church of God can be but one; because God is truth: and, truth
can be but one. The world may, and (as a matter of fact) does abound
in false Churches, just as it abounds in false deities; but, this is
rendered possible only _because they are false_. Two or more true
Churches involve a contradiction in terms. Such a condition of things
is as intrinsically absurd, and as unthinkable, as two or more true
Gods--as well talk of two or more multiplication tables! No! There can
be but "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". If several Churches all
teach the true doctrine of Christ, unmixed with error, they must all
agree, and, consequently, be virtually one and the self same. There is
no help for it; and sound reason will not tolerate any other
conclusion. The "Branch Theory" stands self-condemned, if truth be of
any importance: because it is inconsistent with truth. For, if one
Church contradicts the other on any single point of doctrine, then one
or the other must be false, that is, it must be either asserting what
Christ denied; or else denying what Christ asserted. They cannot,
under any circumstances, be described as _true_ Churches. This is not
sophistry or subtilty. It is common-sense. Christ promised unity in
promising truth; since truth is one. Is Christ divided? asks St. Paul.
No! Then neither is His Church.
2. How was His truth to be maintained and securely developed, century
after century, pure and untainted, and free from all admixture of
error? _Humanly_ speaking, the thing was impossible. Then what
_superhuman_ guarantee did He offer? What was to be our security?
Nothing less than the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost Himself.
Surely, then, we need not be anxious after that! Listen, and remember
it is to God you are listening. "The Spirit of Truth shall abide with
you for ever" (John xiv. 17). Non-Catholics do not seem in the least
to realise what those words mean, or that it is God Himself who
promises. But, to continue; what is the purpose of this extraordinary
and enduring presence? Why is it given? What is it for? Well, for the
express purpose of hindering divisions and sects. In order to lead,
not to mislead us. How do we know? Because God said so: "He shall
guide you into all truth" (John xvi. 13). And this truth, thus
permanently secured, was to draw all together into one body. In fact,
we have it on Divine authority, that the Church of Christ was to be as
truly a single organic whole, in which every part is subject to one
head, as is a living human body. The similitude is not of man's
choosing, but is inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. "As the
(natural) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of
that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.... Now,
ye are the (mystical) Body[7] of Christ" (1 Cor. xii.).
What can be clearer, what more explicit? Now, if the Spirit of Truth,
that is to say, the Holy Ghost, _is really_ with the Church (as God
promised He always would be), and if He is always present for the
_express purpose of "guiding her into all truth"_ (as God promised
would be the case), surely this guidance must be a great reality, and
not the mere sham that it is everywhere found to be, outside the
Catholic Church.
3. Consciously or unconsciously, Anglicans and other non-Catholics
have for centuries denied the truth of Our Lord's words and have
contradicted His clearest statements. In fact, the Church of England,
in her Book of Homilies, declares that "clergy and laity, learned and
unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children,
of whole Christendom, were altogether drowned in damnable idolatry by
the space of 800 years and more"! (Hom. on Peril of Idol., part iii.).
This is a specimen of the way in which God's promises are set aside,
and the Bible misinterpreted by outsiders while professing to make it
the foundation of their creed. Nor was this the teaching of a few
irresponsible persons. It was enforced by the whole Anglican Church.
"All parsons, vicars, curates, and all others having spiritual cure,"
were "straitly enjoined" to read these Homilies Sunday after Sunday
throughout the year in every church and chapel of the kingdom. And the
25th Article declares the second book of Homilies to contain "a godly
and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times"! Probably this
"godly and wholesome doctrine" is no longer obliged to be read and
taught by Anglicans; probably they no longer consider it either
"godly" or "wholesome," but quite the reverse. This we are quite ready
to admit. But, in the name of common prudence, who, in his senses,
would trust the salvation of his immortal soul to a Church that
teaches a thing is white in one century and black in the next, and
never knows its own mind?
Here then let us put two very pertinent questions, for our
non-Catholic friends to ponder over, and to answer, if they can.
First: How is it possible for the Church to go astray, if God the Holy
Ghost is really guiding? Second: How is it possible for the Church to
wander away into _error_, if this same Spirit be leading her into _all
truth_? Will some one kindly explain that, without at the same time
denying the veracity of God?
4. However, granting the absolute truth of Christ's promises, we may
now proceed to inquire in what way this divine and (because divine)
infallible guidance into all truth is brought about? Is it by the Holy
Spirit whispering to each individual priest or to each individual
Bishop? Emphatically not. Why not? Because, if that theory were well
founded, then every priest and Bishop would believe and teach
precisely the same set of doctrines, without any need of an
infallible Pope to guide him. For, clearly, the Spirit of _Truth_
could not whisper "yea" to one, and "nay" to another, nor could He
declare a thing to be "black" to one person and "white" to his
neighbour. In fine, we have but two alternatives to choose from. We
must confess either that the promises themselves, so solemnly made,
are lies (which were blasphemy to affirm), or else, that God directs
His Church, and safeguards its truth, through its head, or chief
Pastor; just as we regulate and control the members of the physical
body through the brain. We must either renounce all belief in Christ
and His promises, or else admit that His words are actually carried
out, and that the prayer has been heard which He made for Peter, and
for those who should, in turn, exercise Peter's office and functions,
and should speak in his name. Harken to the narrative, as given by St.
Luke: "The Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have
you [_observe, the plural number_] that he may sift you as wheat; but
I have prayed [_not for all, but_] for _thee_, that _thy_ faith fail
not: and _thou_, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke
xxii. 32) [_observe the singular number_, "thee," "thy" and "thou"].
Peter still lives, in the person of Pope Pius X., and _in virtue of
that prayer_, and through the omnipotent power of God, Peter still
"confirms his brethren," and will continue to confirm them in the true
and pure doctrine of Christ, until the final crack of doom. As the
venerable Bishop W.B. Ullathorne wrote to Lady Chatterton, soon after
the Vatican Council, _i.e._, 19th November, 1875: "There is but one
Church of Christ, with one truth, taught by one authority, received by
all, believed by all within its pale; or there is no security for
faith. If we examine Our Lord's words and acts, such a Church there
is. If we follow the inclinations of our fallen nature, ever averse to
the control of authority, we there find the reason why so many who
love this world, receive not the authority that He planted, to endure
like His primal creation, to the end."
"It is pleasant to human pride and independence to be a little god,
having but oneself for an authority, and a light, and a law to
oneself. But does this or does it not contradict the fact that we are
dependent beings, and that the Lord, He is God? This spirit of
independence, with self-sufficiency for its basis, and rebellion for
its act, is _just what_ Sacred Scripture ascribes to Satan" (p. 230).
True. And it is just the reverse of the disposition that Christ
demands from all who wish to enter into His One Fold: for He declares
with startling clearness that "unless we become as little children"
(_i.e._, docile, submissive, trustful, etc.) "we shall not enter into
the Kingdom of heaven," which is His Church.
* * * * *
5. Before proceeding further, it may be well here to draw a
distinction between the Pope, considered as the _supreme_ ruler, and
the Pope, considered as the _infallible_ ruler. The reigning Pontiff,
whosoever he may be, is always the Supreme Ruler, the Head of the
Church, and the Vicar of Christ; but he is not, on all occasions, nor
under all circumstances, the infallible ruler.
To guard against any mistake as to the meaning of our words, let us
explain that infallibility is a gift, but not a gift that the Pope
exercises every day, nor on every occasion, nor in addressing
individuals, nor public audiences, nor is it a prerogative that can be
invoked, except under special and indeed we may certainly add, very
exceptional circumstances. And further--unlike other powers--it can
never be delegated to another. The Pope himself is Infallible, but he
cannot transfer nor communicate his Infallibility, even temporarily or
for some special given occasion, to anyone else who may, in other
respects, represent him, such as a Legate, Ambassador, or Nuncio.
"Neither in conversation," writes the theologian Billuart, "nor in
discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in
consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has
defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations,
supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope
infallible." He is not infallible as a theologian, or as a priest, or
a Bishop, or a temporal ruler, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his
political views, or even in the government of the Church: but only
when he teaches the Faithful throughout the world, _ex cathedrâ_, in
matters of faith or of morals, that is to say, in matters relating to
revealed truth, or to principles of moral conduct.
"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good
pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic
definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to
the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited
by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions
of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the
constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that
doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that, alongside religious
society, there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy, there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested, in
their own domain, with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in
conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and
belonging to the domain of civil society."[8]
Further, a definition of divine faith must be drawn from the Apostolic
deposit of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of
infallibility, whether in Pope or Council. Similarly, a precept of
morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be
drawn from the moral law, that primary revelation to us from God. The
Pope has no power over the Moral Law, except to assert it, to
interpret it and to enforce it.
6. From this, it is at once realised how restricted, after all, is the
infallible power of the Pope, in spite of the alarm its definition
excited in the Protestant camp, in 1870.
Still, it must be clearly understood that whether speaking _ex
cathedrâ_ or not, the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ and the
divinely appointed Head of His Church, and that we, as dutiful
children, are bound both to listen to him with the utmost attention
and respect, and to show him ready and heartfelt obedience. Anyone who
should limit his submission to the Pope's infallible utterances is
truly a rebel at heart, and no true Catholic.
The Holy Scripture is far from contemplating the exceptional cases of
infallible definitions when it lays down the command: "Remember them,
who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God,
whose faith follow". And, "_obey_ them that have the rule over you,
and _submit_ yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that
must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief".
The margin in the Protestant Version (observes Cardinal Newman) reads
"those who are your _guides_," and the word may also be translated
"leaders". Well, whether as rulers or as guides and leaders, whichever
word be right, they are to be _obeyed_.
7. From this it is evident enough that assent is of two kinds. There
is firstly the assent of Divine Faith; and secondly there is the
assent of religious obedience. Neither can be dispensed with. Both are
binding. All we affirm is that the one is not the other, and that the
first must not be confused with the last. A special kind of assent,
that is to say, the _assent of Divine Faith_ must be given to all
those doctrines which are proposed to us by the infallible voice of
the Church, as taught by Our Lord or the Apostles, and as contained in
the original deposit [_fidei Depositum_]. They comprise (_a_) all
things whatever which God has directly revealed; and (_b_) whatever
truth such revelation implicitly contains.
These implicit truths are deduced from the original revelation, very
much as any other consequence from its premisses. For example. It is a
truth directly revealed, that the _Holy Ghost is God_. But, since God
is to be adored: the further proposition:--_the Holy Ghost is to be
adored_; is also contained, though only implicitly, in revelation;
and is therefore, equally, of faith. So again; that Christ is man, is
a fact of revelation; but the further proposition--Christ has a true
body--though not explicitly stated, is implicitly affirmed in the
first proposition. All consequences, such as the above, which are seen
immediately and evidently to be contained in the words of revelation,
must be accepted as of faith. Other consequences, which are equally
contained in the original deposit, but which are not so readily
detected and deduced, _must be explicitly_ accepted as of faith, only
so soon as the Church has publicly and authoritatively declared them
to be so contained; but not before. Thus, to take an illustration, the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is a fact contained from
the beginning, implicitly locked up, as it were, in the deposit of
faith, left by the Apostles. Were it not so it never could have been
defined; for the Church does not invent doctrines. She only transmits
them. Yet, this doctrine is not so clearly and so self-evidently
included, and lies not so luminously and unmistakably on the very
surface of revelation as to be at once perceptible to all. Hence,
before its actual definition, a Catholic might deny it, or suspend his
judgment, without censure; whereas, to do either the one or the other,
after the Church has solemnly declared the doctrine to be contained in
the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, would be nothing short of
heresy.
"The Infallibility, whether of the Church or of the Pope," says
Cardinal Newman, "acts principally or solely in two channels, (_a_) in
direct statement of truth, and (_b_) in the condemnation of error. The
former takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter
stigmatises propositions as 'heretical,' 'next to heresy,'
'erroneous,' and the like" (p. 136).
The gift of Infallibility, observes Cardinal Manning, "extends
_directly_ to the whole matter of divine truth, and _indirectly_ to
all truths which, though not revealed, are in such contact with
revelation that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded,
expounded, and defended, without an infallible discernment of such
unrevealed truths" (_Vatican Decrees_, p. 167).
8. To sum up: Persons who refuse to assent to doctrines which they
know to be directly revealed and defined, or which are universally
held by the Church as of Catholic Faith, become by that very act
guilty of heresy, and cut themselves adrift from the mystical Body of
Christ, and are no longer His members. If, on the other hand, their
assent is refused only to doctrines closely connected with these
dogmatic utterances, and which, as such, are proposed for their
acceptance, they become guilty, if not of actual heresy, then of
something perilously akin to it, and are, at all events, guilty of
serious sin.
We may observe, in conclusion, that the Infallibility of Pontifical
definitions, as Father Humphrey so pertinently reminds us, does not
depend upon the reigning Pontiff's possession of any real knowledge of
ancient Church history or theology, or philosophy or science, but
_simply_ and solely upon the assistance of God the Holy Ghost,
guaranteed to him in his exercise of his function of Chief Pastor, in
feeding with divine doctrine the entire flock of God. Our Anglican
friends seem penetrated with the utterly false notion of justification
by scholarship alone; which is as untrue as it is unscriptural.
Indeed, their justification by scholarship is likely to lead to very
undesirable and deplorable results.
In the foregoing chapter we have considered especially the Pope's
Infallible authority, and the assent and obedience due to it. In our
next it remains for us to consider the proper attitude of a loyal
Catholic towards the Sovereign Pontiff as the supreme ruler and
governor of the Church of God, even when not speaking _ex cathedrâ_.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 7: The word _soma_, observes Mgr. Capel, is never used in
Greek to express _mere_ association or aggregation (_Catholic_, p.
13).]
[Footnote 8: From a Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops, which _received the
Pope's approbation_.]