PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
There are few things so important to the people of the United States
as that they shall intelligently understand what consequences will
inevitably follow the successful termination of Mgr. Satolli's mission
to this country in his capacity of deputy-pope. If he shall succeed
in breaking down our system of common schools, or in drawing away
from them all the children of our Roman Catholic citizens, and in
the general or partial substitution of the papal for the American
system of education, what will follow? There is but one answer to this
question, which is, that _religion_ will be taught in the schools; not
the religion of Christ, or the apostles, or the martyrs, or that which
prevailed throughout the Christian world for the first five hundred
years of our era--up till the fall of the Roman Empire--but that which
originated in the ambition of emperors and popes, and culminated in
such a union, of Church and State as required that the popes should be
temporal monarchs, with plenary power to rule over the consciences of
mankind. That is what Leo XIII is striving after, and what he has sent
Mgr. Satolli to the United States to accomplish. And it was to achieve
this that Pius VII united with the arbitrary monarchs of the "Holy
Alliance," and re-established the Jesuits; and Pius IX forced through
the Vatican Council of 1870 the decree which declares that all the
popes who have ever lived and all who shall hereafter live, are, and
must be, absolutely infallible. This doctrine of papal infallibility,
therefore, is hereafter to constitute the great fundamental feature in
every system of Roman Catholic education, the central fact from which
all intellectual culture shall radiate, as the rays of light do from
the sun. What it is requires no learning to explain, and what effect it
would have upon our institutions, if taught in all our schools, it does
not require the spirit of prophecy to foretell. That it would undermine
and destroy them is as palpable as that poison diffused throughout the
body will, if not removed, produce death.
The struggle between the popes--that is, the papacy--and the Church
as an organized body of Christian people, for a conciliar decree of
the pope's infallibility, was continued through a period of more
than a thousand years, during which some popes exercised it without
authority as a cover for persecution, and to justify their unlimited
ambition; others to assure themselves of impunity in the commission
of enormous crimes; while others, influenced by honest Christian
instinct and sentiment, repudiated and condemned it as demoralizing
and antichristian. The Church suffered most when this struggle was at
its highest, as is evidenced by the seventy years' residence of the
popes at Avignon; the forty years' schism; the claim of the pontifical
seat by John XXII, Gregory XII, and Benedict XIII, at the same time;
the imprisonment of John XXII by the Council of Constance; the burning
of Huss and Jerome at the stake; and the general demoralization of
the clergy, to say nothing of other things with which all intelligent
readers of ecclesiastical history are familiar. When the Church
recovered from these and other afflictions, it would be tedious to
enumerate; it was done by the influence of the good and unambitious
popes, together with that of the great body of its membership, who
combined to rebuke the claim of infallibility, because it was founded
upon the vain assumption that a mere man, with the passions and
impulses of other men, was the equal of God in wisdom and authority.
When this decree was obtained by Pius IX from the Vatican Council,
twenty-three years ago, the Jesuits won their proudest triumph since
their restoration. It made no difference with them, or with Pius IX,
or with their obedient followers, that Clement XIV was decreed to have
been also infallible when he suppressed them by a solemn pontifical
decree, reciting how they had disturbed the peace of the Church and
of the nations by their multitude of iniquities, nor how one act of
infallibility could be set aside and abrogated by another. Not even
a single thought was incited by so inconsequential a matter as this,
because everything was centered in the great object of achieving a
triumph over liberalism and modern progress, upon the Jesuit theory
that "the end justifies the means." Pius IX was present in the Council,
and one of the enthusiastic defenders of the decree afterwards gave
full vent to his extraordinary imaginings by declaring that the souls
of all present were "overwhelmed by the brilliant effulgence of the
sun of righteousness and eternal truth, reflected to-day from one
_greater than Moses_, the very vicar of Christ Jesus himself."[224]
It is not surprising that an author like this should have become the
historian of such a Council, but it is a little so that his book
should have been published in this country about two years after, in
a form so cheap as to assure it a large circulation among our Roman
Catholic population. The motive of this, however, manifestly was that
the volume should become educational in the papal schools, to take the
place of the histories which point out the advantages we have derived
from Protestantism, and at the same time stamp the impression upon
the minds of old and young, that the pope, as the only guardian and
dictator of true Christian faith is and must continue to be--no matter
whether as a man he possesses good qualities or bad--a "greater man
than Moses," because he is infallible and Moses was not. This character
of the work is well established by the fact that, among the deplorable
evils of the times, it specifies the usurpation of the education of
youth "by unbelieving seculars;" that is, by those who, notwithstanding
their professions, know nothing of true religion because they are
Protestants; and by the further fact that the chief remedy for these
evils pointed out by him is the establishment of the "pope's sovereign
power over the world;" and by the still additional fact that, when
referring to those Roman Catholics who live under the protection of
Protestant institutions, he adds: "The Church has ever regarded it as
a matter of importance that the laws of those civil powers, to which
her spiritual children are subjected, should be formed in perfect
accordance with her own laws;"[225] that is, that as the pope has at
last, after more than a thousand years of hard struggle, been decreed
to be infallible, they shall not be considered by "the faithful" as
binding upon their consciences unless approved by him. And then,
establishing it as the foundation-stone upon which the superstructure
of the papal system rests, that the Church "has ever proved herself
the most powerful bulwark of the temporal power of temporal princes,"
he proceeds to instruct those who had not then learned what was meant
by the pope's infallibility, in what sense the Church expected them to
accept it. His words should sink deeply into the mind of every citizen
of this country who desires to know what principles of government would
be instilled into the minds of American youth if Mgr. Satolli and his
Jesuit allies should succeed in destroying our common schools, and
substituting for them parochial or religious schools. Here is what he
says:
"The Church may not wish to interfere in the purely secular concerns
of other States, or in the enactment of purely secular laws, for the
government of foreign subjects, but she _claims a right, and a right
divine, to prevent any secular law, or power, being exercised for
the injury of religion, the destruction of morals, and the spiritual
ruin of her children_. _She claims a right to supervise such laws, to
support, their use, if salutary, to control their abuse. In the domain
of morals, it is the province of the Church to reign._ Wherever there
is moral responsibility, it is her prerogative, by divine commission,
to guide and to govern, to sanction, to command, or to condemn, to
reward merit, and to punish moral delinquency."[226]
And, in further definition of infallibility, he says:
"The Council will vindicate _its authority over the world_, and prove
its right, founded on a divine commission, to enter most intimately
into _all the spiritual concerns of the world; to supervise_ the acts
of the king, the diplomatist, the philosopher, and the general; to
circumscribe the limits of their speculative inquiries; to _hold up the
lamp which is to light their only path to knowledge and education_;
_to subjugate human reason to the yoke of faith_; _to extinguish
liberals, rationalists, and deists by one stroke of her infallibility_.
Infallible dogma is a brilliant light, which every intellect must
recognize, whether willingly or reluctantly.... _The Church claims its
right to enter the world's domain, and recognizes no limits but the
circumference of Christendom; to enforce her laws over her subjects;
to control their reason and judgment; to guide their morals, their
thoughts, words, and actions_, and to regard temporal sovereigns,
though entitled to exercise power in secular affairs, as _auxiliaries
and subordinates_ to the attainment of the end of her institution, the
glory of God and the salvation of the immortal souls of men, and to
secure for them their everlasting happiness. And this order of things
she regards as true liberty--_Ubi Spiritus Domini ibi libertas_."
He insists that the Church has the right to intrude "_into the social
relations of the general community of worldings_;" and has also the
"_right to supervise the lectures of the professor, the diplomacy
of the statesman, the government of kings, and to scrutinize their
morality and punish their faults_."
Referring to the union of Church and State, and the manner in which
politico-religious opinions are brought within the papal jurisdiction,
he says:
"Political theorists nowadays presume so far as to proclaim the
right of secular States to be what they call free and independent
of the Church's laws; that is, they profess to take _their temporal
governments out of the Church_ in which God intended to place and to
bless them, and to consecrate them in and through the Church. There
are even those who have the temerity to advocate the deordination of
a Church dependent on the legislative enactments of a secular State!
Statesmen know the objects of your transitory existence: it is to
enact secular laws, for secular jurisprudence, and for the secular
commonweal, and then to live in the Church; to co-operate with the
Church; to be sanctified through the Church; and by this happy union to
enjoy the reciprocity of the Church's influence over the consciences of
your subjects, which is the solid foundation of their loyalty and your
stability; and to assist the Church in promoting what is useful for
saving their souls, which should be to you also an object of paramount
solicitude. Is the world, then, come to this!--that social diplomatists
should _sever the State from the Church_, or domineer over Christian
society? Is nature to separate from grace, and set up a dynasty for
itself? No, no; _Quis separabit?_ The _holy alliance of Church and
State constitutes the union of the soul and body--the life and vigor
of Christian society_! It is time that a General Council shall teach
statesmen this salutary lesson, and that they may not put their foot on
the steps of Peter's throne; that it is their duty to co-operate with
the Church; and that in all matters appertaining to the order of grace,
their position is, to _sit down and listen respectfully before the
Church's teaching chair_."[227]
Nothing short of the importance of the matters involved in the doctrine
of the pope's infallibility, and the consequences which are expected
to follow it, can justify such lengthy extracts from a single book.
But these considerations do, for the reason that as books like this
are seen by few, and read by still fewer, a better opportunity for
understanding the objects to be accomplished by them is furnished by
this method to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Multitudes of the
latter are deceived and misled into the belief that the doctrine of
the pope's infallibility is necessary to the Church, whose Christian
teachings they revere; whereas, if they, by intelligent instruction
and thoughtful reflection, were assured, as the fact really is, that
it pertains alone to the power and authority of the popes--that is,
to the papacy, and not the Church--it is believed they would neither
assent to it themselves, nor allow it to be taught, as a necessary
dogma of faith, to their children, either in schools under the auspices
of the Church or elsewhere. It would be unfair to them to doubt that
they would reject it, if assured, as these extracts would assure them,
that infallibility requires the destruction of every form of popular
government in order that a grand papal confederation may be constructed
for the government of the world, under the sole dominion of the pope.
They would, upon proper investigation, see and know that the Council
which passed the decree was not a representative body with authority to
bind their consciences, but that it was, on the other hand, composed
of those who were indebted alone to the pope for all the authority
they possessed, and that he could strip them of their robes at his own
pleasure in case of disobedience to his commands. And they would learn
also that instead of the decree having been passed unanimously by the
whole Council--as they have been instructed--there were 157 absentees,
who withdrew because of it, leaving those only to vote who were in its
favor; that, in point of fact, it was a conflict between the Church,
as it had existed under more than 250 popes before Pius IX, and the
papacy, and that the victory was won by the latter, to the discomfiture
and regret of vast multitudes of their devout Christian brethren in
all parts of the world. The Council consisted of 692 members. There
were but 535 present when the decree was passed, showing, as stated,
157 absent. Of these, 63 of the diocesan bishops and representatives
of what are called "the most illustrious sees in Christendom," signed
a written protest against papal infallibility. Of those present,
533 voted for the decree, and 2 against it--one of whom was from the
United States--but these were so carried away by the excitement that
they gave in their adhesion. Many of the absentees had left Rome in
disgust, having signified their opposition before leaving. On the day
of the vote, there were 66 in Rome who refused to attend the session.
Among these were 4 cardinals, 2 patriarchs, 2 primates, 18 archbishops,
and the remainder were bishops. The result, consequently, was a mere
triumph of the majority over the minority, as occurs in legislative
bodies. The pretense of unanimity is without foundation, except as
regards the votes actually cast. To compare a result thus obtained to
the direct intervention of Providence, in imitation of the delivery
of the law to Moses, indicates the possession of an exceedingly high
faculty of invention; it borders closely upon delusion. Therefore, it
may well and appropriately be said that the description of the scene
by the author, from whose book the foregoing quotations are extracted,
has, in calling Pius IX "greater than Moses, the very vicar of Christ
Jesus himself," so far transcended the bounds of reason as to make
their author appear like one who lives only in an ethereal atmosphere.
There is no authority for saying that he is a Jesuit; but if he were
found in companionship with one known to be so, it would be puzzling to
tell which was "the twin Dromio," because, beyond all doubt, they would
be "two Dromios, one in semblance."
What was expected to be accomplished by the decree of the pope's
infallibility, by solemnly declaring that God had but one
representative upon earth, and that he was so endowed with divine
wisdom that he alone could prescribe the universal rule of faith,
and was endowed with sufficient authority to enable him to exact
and enforce obedience to his commands? Let the thoughtful mind,
desirous to obtain a satisfactory answer to this question, ponder
well upon the teachings of universal history--the birth, growth, and
decay of former nations. Upon innumerable pages he will find it
written, more indelibly than if it had been carved upon metal by
the engraver's tool, that, from the very beginning of the Christian
Church at Rome--whensoever that was--papal infallibility had never
been recognized or established as a dogma of religious faith. If the
Apostle Peter was the first of the popes--as alleged--then, up till
the pontificate of Pius IX, there were two hundred and fifty-eight
popes, to say nothing of the numerous anti-popes. There were, besides,
numerous General and Provincial Councils, beginning with that at Nice,
under Constantine, in 325, and ending with that of the Vatican, in
1870--the period between the two being one thousand five hundred and
forty-five years. And yet, during all this long, protracted period,
there is not to be found, among the articles of religious faith
announced from time to time by the Church, one single sentence or
word or syllable which requires it to be believed that the pope is
infallible! Is all this history mythical? Has it led "the faithful"
into error and sin? Were only those popes obedient to the divine law
who believed themselves infallible, and acted accordingly, while
those who did not were heretics? Why were General Councils necessary
to obtain the universal consent of the Church, if the popes were
infallible and could decree the faith of their own accord? When popes
disagreed--as did John XXII and Nicholas III and Innocent III and
Celestine and Pelagius and Gregory the Great--upon important questions,
how were they to be decided?[228] Were the popes who denied their own
infallibility destined to be cut off in eternity from the presence of
God for their heresy? Edgar enumerates eight of these who directly
disaffirmed their belief in it,[229] and there were many others who
did not affirm it. Were all these heretics? And were also the great
Church historians, such as Launoy, Almain, Marca, Du Pin, Bossuet,
and others--and the whole body of French or Cisalpine Christians--all
heretics? And what is to be said of the General Councils of
Pisa, Constance, and Basel, all three of which denied the pope's
infallibility in terms of strong condemnation? It would be easy to
multiply these questions; but it is sufficient to say that if the popes
who denied infallibility were heretics, then the line of apostolic
succession is broken by the removal of several important links in the
chain, and the attempt to trace back the present Roman Church to the
apostolic times, and to the Apostle Peter, is an entire and humiliating
failure. And it is an unavoidable inference from a long line of facts,
well proved in history, that but for the unfortunate alliance between
the ambitious popes and the Jesuits to build up and strengthen their
power at the expense of the Church, the Christian world of the present
day would have taken no interest in the prosecution of that inquiry.
The Church is of less consequence to the Jesuits than their own
society, and as they have invariably condemned it when not upon their
side, so there has been no time since the death of Loyola when they did
not consider its humiliation by them as promotive of "the greater glory
of God," when thereby their own power and authority could be enlarged.
When Pius IX, in 1854, signalized the close of the eighth year of his
pontificate by issuing his decree to the effect that thenceforward
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary should be accepted as a
dogma of faith, he acted of his own accord and without convening a
General Council. It is fair to say, therefore, that he considered this
an act of infallibility, then, for the first time, put in practical
execution. It was, doubtless, an experiment, practiced with the view to
ascertain whether or no it would obtain the approbation of those whose
consciences were to be influenced by it. The experiment was successful,
and inasmuch as it involved only a question purely of a _religious_
character, no special or injurious consequences followed. Protestants
did not regard themselves warranted to complain of it, for the plain
reason that the religious faith of Roman Catholics concerned themselves
alone. Pius IX, however, intended by this decree something more than
merely to add a new dogma to the faith. Undoubtedly, his object was
to employ this exercise of infallible power, so that, if accepted with
unanimity by the membership of the Church, that might be considered
such an indorsement of the doctrine as would justify him in convening a
General Council, and having it decree that, not himself alone, but all
other popes, both good and bad, were infallible.
This is not said reproachfully, but rather to indicate the shrewdness
and sagacity practiced by him to influence the large body of believers
in the Church. The whole history of the papacy at that time proved
that it was essential to its future success that the doctrine of
infallibility should be extended beyond mere questions of religious
belief, so as to embrace other matters connected with the revolutionary
movements then in progress in Europe, which were threatening to
undermine, if not destroy, the papal power; that is, the temporal
power of the pope. Revolutionary disturbances are always threatening
to those against whom they are directed, and Pius IX, believing, as he
undoubtedly did, that such as then existed in Europe were directed,
or would be if not checked, against his temporal power, deemed it
necessary to obtain, if possible, the sanction of a conciliar decree to
the exercise by him of new powers in addition to those then universally
conceded to him over religious questions and affairs. Thus he designed
to obtain the express or implied assent of the Church to his exercise
of jurisdiction over _politico-religious_ matters, in order that he
might be enabled to promulgate such decrees as would, through the
agency and influence of "the faithful" among the different European
nations, arrest the progress of the revolutionary movements, and
save his temporal power. Hence, when the decree of infallibility was
interpreted by him in the light of these events and his own purposes,
he had no difficulty in concluding that it had given him jurisdiction
over all such _politico-religious_ questions as bore, either directly
or indirectly, upon the spiritual or temporal interests of the Church
in all parts of the world. That his successor, Leo XIII, agrees with
him in this interpretation no intelligent man can deny. If he were not
influenced to do this by his desire to regain the temporal power which
was taken away from his predecessor, his education and training by the
Jesuits would impress his mind with the conviction that a temporal
crown upon his head is a positive necessity, in order that he may
promote "the greater glory of God." Consequently, when it is thus made
too plain and palpable to admit of fair denial, that the infallibility
of the pope is the chiefest and most fundamental dogma of faith--the
foundation of the whole system of papal belief--it is positively
obligatory upon us, in this country, to understand its full import and
meaning. If anything were required to make this obligation more binding
than it is, it is found in the facts now confronting us, that our
public schools are pronounced "godless" because this religious dogma
is not taught to our children, and that it is taught to Roman Catholic
children in parochial schools, mainly under Jesuit control.
Tedious as the evidence already adduced may seem to be to those
who look at such matters as these only by casual glances, it
is indispensable to a thorough knowledge of the truth that the
politico-religious matters which this decree has brought within the
jurisdiction of the pope should be plainly and distinctly made known.
Without this knowledge, our tolerance may seem to invite dangerous
encroachments, by the Jesuits and those obedient to them, upon some of
the most highly cherished principles of our Government. We have seen,
from one papal author, what is meant at Rome by a religious education,
and shall, in the next chapter, see cumulative proof from another,
probably more influential.
From this latter author, even more distinctly than from the former,
we shall see how absolutely we should be subject to the commands of
the pope; how we should be domineered over by his ecclesiastical
hierarchy and their Jesuit allies; how all our actions, thoughts, and
impulses, would be held in obedience to ecclesiastical and monarchical
dictation; and how we should have, instead of a Government of the
people, one under the arbitrary dictatorship of a foreign sovereign,
who can neither speak our language nor understand our Constitution
and laws. We might be permitted to manage our secular affairs--such
as relate to the transaction of our ordinary business--but in
everything we should consider as pertaining to the Church or himself,
he would become our absolute and irresponsible ruler. Church and
State would be united, and all the measures provided by the framers
of our Government for the protection of our natural rights--such as
the freedom of religious belief, of the press, and of speech--would
be destroyed. Free government would be at an end, and a threatening
cloud would hover over us like the pall of death. We should be turned
back to the Middle Ages, and all the fruits of the Reformation would
be lost, without the probability of ever being afterwards regained
by our posterity. A careful scanning of what follows will show that
this picture is not overdrawn. And if it is not, the obligation to see
that these calamities shall not befall us, rests as heavily upon the
Roman Catholic as it does upon the Protestant part of our population.
A common spirit should animate the hearts of all, no matter what their
religious belief, and stimulate them to joint protest and mutual
defense. Those who brave the dangers of navigation upon the same vessel
at sea, must, when the storm rages, unite together in heart and hand,
or run the risk of sinking in a watery grave. So it is with those whose
lives and fortunes and earthly interests are under the protection of
the same civil institutions; if they become divided into angry and
adverse factions, under the dominion of unrestrained passions, they
invite the spoiler to undermine the foundations of the fortress which
shelters and protects them.
That the Jesuits, in the war they are now making, and have always
made, against civil and religious liberty, constitute such a spoiler,
history attests in numerous volumes. Wheresoever civil government has
been made obedient to the popular will, they have labored indefatigably
for its overthrow. To that end monarchism has been made the central
and controlling principle of their organization--so completely so that
their society never has existed, and could not exist, without it.
They warred malevolently upon the best of the popes, and defied the
authority of the Church for more than a hundred years--never abating
their vengeance, except when the pontifical chair was occupied by a
pope who submitted to their dictation. They are, to-day--as at every
hour since the time of Loyola--compactly united to destroy, as sinful
and heretical, all civil institutions constructed by the people for
their own protection, and substitute for them such as are obedient to
monarchs and their own interpretation of the divine law. And now, when
the pontifical authority is vested in a pope whose youthful mind was
impressed and disciplined by their teachings, and they stand ready to
subvert every Government which has separated the State from the Church,
and secured the freedom of conscience, of speech, and of the press,
and are straining every nerve to obtain the control of our system of
common-school education, so as to instill their doctrines into the
minds of the American youth--the times have become such that all the
citizens of the United States, irrespective of their forms of religious
belief, should form a solid and united body in resistance to their
un-American plottings.
Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, who signed our Declaration of
Independence, was a Roman Catholic, but not a Jesuit. He loved his
Church, and adhered to its faith, which did not then require him
to believe that its pope was infallible; and with his mind filled
with patriotic emotions, he stood by the side of Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Franklin, and fifty-four other patriots, and united with them
in separating Church and State, in establishing a Government of the
people, in guaranteeing the absolute freedom of religious belief; and
when he and they looked upon the great work they had accomplished,
they solemnly declared that it was in obedience to "the laws of nature
and of nature's God." He who now insists, as the Jesuits do, that in
all this he violated his Christian conscience by offending God in the
perpetration of an act of heresy, not only asperses unjustly the memory
of this unselfish patriot, but wounds the sensibilities of every true
American heart. At the time our independence was established Pius VI
was pope. He had not been declared to be infallible, and the Jesuits
did not exist as a society under the protection of the Church; for they
had been suppressed for their innumerable offenses against the Church
and the nations, by his immediate predecessor Clement XIV, and were
wanderers over the earth, seeking shelter under heretical princes and
States, where they were allowed to plot against the Church. The pope,
therefore, possessing only _spiritual_ jurisdiction, did not pronounce
a pontifical curse upon our infant institutions, not only because they
were not within that jurisdiction, but because they secured, by proper
guarantees, the freedom of religious belief to Roman Catholics. He
had his hands full in attempting to deal with the French Revolution,
over which he supposed his jurisdiction to extend, because France
had, for several centuries, recognized the spiritual dominion of his
predecessors and their right to regulate its faith. Consequently, he
took the side of Louis XVI against the people of France, and denounced
the Legislative Assembly, and avowed his purpose to maintain all the
prerogative rights of the "Holy See." He, accordingly, issued an
encyclical proclamation, in which he condemned the efforts of the
French people to establish a Republic, and the Legislative Assembly,
in these words: "That Assembly, after abolishing monarchy, _which is
the most natural form of government_, had attributed almost all power
_to the populace, who follow no wisdom and no counsel, and have no
understanding of things_." He further instructed the bishops that all
"poisoned books" should be removed "from the hands of the faithful by
force and by stratagem." He declared that "the _priesthood and tyranny
support each other_; and the one overthrown, the other can not long
subsist." He denounced the liberty after which France was striving, in
imitation of our Revolutionary example, as tending "to corrupt minds,
pervert morals, and overthrow all order in affairs and laws," and the
equality of man as leading to "anarchy" and the "speedy dissolution" of
society.[230]
And inasmuch as this same pope, Pius VI and the present pope, Leo XIII,
have been solemnly decreed to be infallible, incapable of error in
matters of faith, and standing in the place of God upon earth--and Leo
XIII has never repudiated these teachings of Pius VI or many others
of like import by other popes--and the decree of infallibility has so
enlarged his spiritual jurisdiction as to bring all politico-religious
matters throughout the world within its circle, and the Jesuits have
been re-established under their original constitution as it came from
the hands of Loyola, and are still full of life and vigor, which they
constantly display in their tireless efforts to control the education
of American youth, the obligation imposed upon all our people, of every
religious creed, to discover in what direction we are drifting, is
positive, absolute, and indispensable.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 224: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page
272.]
[Footnote 225: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page
10.]
[Footnote 226: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Page
11.]
[Footnote 227: The Council of the Vatican. By Thomas Canon Pope. Pages
12 to 15.]
[Footnote 228: Ecclesiastical History. By Du Pin. Vol. XV-XVI, p. 260.]
[Footnote 229: Variations of Popery. By Edgar. Page 188.]
[Footnote 230: Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor.
Vol. II, pp. 461 to 470.]