ROMAN CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
ROMAN CATHOLIC
OPPOSITION TO
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
BY W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON
CHAPLAIN OF ST MARY’S HOSPITAL, ILFORD
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1909
PREFACE
The following pages have been written to show the difficulties
experienced by Roman Catholics in assenting to the doctrine of Papal
Infallibility. No attempt is here made to write a complete account of
the Vatican Council. Indeed, many subjects discussed in that Assembly
are entirely omitted. Our interest is with one doctrine alone. What is
attempted is, simply to sketch the inner history of Roman opposition to
the dogma in different countries and several centuries, until and after
the memorable Decree of 18th July 1870. We are simply concerned to show
the process by which a very considerable section of Bishops, priests,
and laity in the Roman Church were constrained to pass from one belief
to its opposite.
The literature of the subject is, of course, immense. A considerable
part of the details here recorded have never appeared in English
before. They lie buried in enormous German treatises, or in the vast
official Acta of the Council; or in the documentary collections of
Cecconi, Von Schulte, Friedrich, Friedberg, and many others; or in
scattered pamphlets and periodicals to which access is now by no means
easily obtained.
The materials for a history of the opposition to the doctrine have
of recent years largely increased. All the principal actors in the
Vatican disputes have, by this time, passed away; and a large series of
biographies have placed at our disposal private letters never published
while they lived.
But it will be obvious that an Ultramontane biographer of a Bishop
who vehemently opposed the doctrine may be gravely perplexed between
the conflicting claims of history and of edification. His loyalty to
truth, his reverence for the personage of whom he writes, his regard
for living authority, with its tremendous powers to revise, cancel,
or condemn, his proper disinclination to scandalise the faithful
by rigorous records of episcopal unbelief, or to reveal the family
disunions before an incredulous world--are elements which, when they
coexist, may, even in the sincerest mind possibly blend together in
very various proportions. At any rate the biographies of certain great
French Bishops of the Vatican struggle manifest marked reluctance and
hesitation in recording fully the facts. And even when the facts have
been fairly fully recorded, the English translator has--for whatever
reasons--condensed them, we had almost said mutilated them, beyond
recognition.
The recently published selection of Lord Acton’s letters has increased
our knowledge of his attitude toward the Infallibility Decree; but the
entire omission of correspondence during ten most critical years of the
struggle suggests, what other considerations endorse, that there is yet
considerably more remaining unrevealed.
Still, with whatever drawbacks, the resources at a writer’s disposal
to-day are vastly greater than they were some years ago.
Accordingly the following pages are written under a strong sense that
the material is ample, that the history of the minority has never yet
for English people been fully told, and with a desire to supply the
omission.
It should be added that the adverse criticisms herein repeated are
almost entirely derived from Roman Catholic sources, and are, as far
as possible, given in the actual words. Protestant criticism has been
systematically excluded. The object being simply to describe how the
doctrine of Pontifical Infallibility appeared; what difficulties,
intellectual, historic, and moral, it created; what fierce and
desperate strife its increasing ascendency awakened; how, and with what
results, moral and intellectual, it was finally regarded, not by the
outer world, nor by other religious communions, but by clergy and laity
within the limits of the Roman Catholic Church.
Since these pages have passed through the press, Turmel’s _Histoire
du Dogme de la Papauté_ has been placed upon the Roman Index of
prohibited books (5th July 1909). It is therefore among that lengthy
list of modern writings which no member of the Roman Obedience may
“dare to read or retain.” The interests of edification are conceived
by Authority as incompatible with those of historical research. Such
procedure deprives the historian of that freedom to report results
without which history cannot be written.
The author desires to express his deep indebtedness to the kindness
of the Reverend Darwell Stone, Librarian of the Pusey House, who has
read through the proof sheets of this book. He is of course in no way
responsible for its contents; but it has been the greatest privilege to
have the encouragement and aid of so critical and learned an adviser.
* * * * *
NOTE.--The number of Bishops who, though resident in Rome, absented
themselves from the Vatican Council on the day of the Decree is
variously given on page 268 as 91, on page 271 as 70, and on page 281
as more than 80. It will be noticed that these variations are due to
the authors quoted; the first being that given by Quirinus; the second
by the letter of the Opposition to the Pope; the third by Dr Newman.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
The following list of books has been compiled, partly to show the
editions to which references have been made, and partly as a help
to study. It is, of course, needless to say that such a list has no
pretensions whatever to completeness.
ACTA. _Concil. Vaticani. Collectio Lacensis._ T. vii. 1892.
ACTON. _History of Freedom._
” _Sendschreiben an einen Deutschen Bischof._ 1870.
ALZOG. _History of the Church._
ANONYMOUS. _Pourquoi le Clergé Français est Ultramontane._ 1879.
” _Ce qui se passe au Concile._ 1870.
AQUINAS. _Opuscula Selecta._ Paris. 4 vols. 1884.
” _In Sententiis._ 3 vols. Parma Edit.
ARGENTRE, D’. _Elementa Theologica._ Paris. 1702.
AUGUSTINE. _Works._ Gaume’s Edition.
BARRAL. _Defense des Libertés de l’Eglise Gallicane._ 1817.
BAUNARD. _Hist. du Card. Pie._ 2 vols. Paris. 1886.
BAUSSET, Card. _Histoire de Bossuet._ 4 vols.
BELLARMINE. _De Controversiis._ Works. 11 vols. Paris. 1874.
BERGIER. _Dict. de Théologie._ 12 vols. Paris. 1876.
BERRINGTON & KIRK. _Faith of Catholics._ 1830.
BILLUART. _De Ecclesia._
BONNECHOSE. _Hist. C. Constance._
BOSSUET. _Works._ Ed. F. Lachat. 30 vols. Paris. 1864.
BOTALLA. _Infallible Authority of the Pope._
BOURGEOIS ET CLERMONT. _Rome et Napoleon._ 3 vols. 1907.
BRYCE. _Biographical Studies._
BUTLER. _Historical Memorials of the English Catholics._
_Cambridge Modern History_--_French Revolution._
CARSON. _Reunion Essays._ 1903.
CECCONI. _Histoire du Concile du Vatican._ French transl. 4 vols.
1887.
CHAUVIN. _Le Père Gratry._ 1901.
CHOUPIN L. _Valeur des Decisions Doctrinale._ 1908.
CHRISMANN. _Regula Fidei Catholicæ._ 1854.
CHRISTOPHE. _Histoire de la Papauté, pendant le XIV. Siècle._ 3 vols.
1853.
CLIFFORD, Lord. _Letters to the Earl of Winchelsea._
COBB, G. F. _Few Words on Reunion._ 1869.
CONSALVI, Card. _Mémoires._ 2 vols. Cretineau-Joly. 1864.
_Correspondant._ 10th Feb. 1906. Articles by Thureau
Dangin.
CYPRIAN. Ed. Hartel. 3 vols.
DECHAMPS. _L’Infallibilité et le Concile Général._ 1869.
DENZINGER. _Enchiridion._ 1854.
DÖLLINGER & REUSCH. _Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin._
” . _Declarations and Letters._
DUCHESNE. _Beginnings of the Temporal Power of the Pope._ 1908.
DUPANLOUP. _Observations._ 1869.
” . _Lettre sur le futur Concile Œcuménique adressée par Mgr.
L’Évêque d’Orléans au clergé de son Diocese._ 1868.
” . See Chapon. _Mgr. Dupanloup et la Liberté._ 1889.
and _Revue du Clergé Français_. 1st May 1909, p. 375.
FESSLER. _True and False Infallibility._ 1871.
FLEURY. _Histoire Ecclesiastique._ Avignon. 1777.
FOISSET. _C. de Montalembert._
FOLLENAY. _Vie de C. Guibert._ 2 vols.
FOULON. _Darboy._ 1889.
FRANZELIN. _De Traditione._
FRIEDBERG. _Aktenstücke._ 1876.
FRIEDRICH. _Documenta ad illustrandum Conc. Vat._ 2 vols. 1871.
” _Döllinger. Sein Leben._ 3 vols. Munchen. 1899.
” _Tagebuch._ 1871.
GALLITZIN. _Defence of Catholic Principles._
GARNIER. _Liber Diurnus._
GASQUET. _Lord Acton and his Circle._
GERSON. _De Auferibilitate Papæ ab Ecclesia._
” . _Life by Schwab._ 1859.
GHILARDI. _Torquemada De Plenitudine Potestatis R. P._ 1870.
GLADSTONE. _Vaticanism._
GOSSELIN. _Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages._
Transl. by Kelly of Maynooth. 2 vols. 1853.
GOYAU. _L’Allemagne religieuse._ 5 vols. 1905.
GRANDERATH. _Vatican Council._ 3 vols.
GRATRY. _Letters._
GREGOROVIUS. _Roman Journals._
GRISAR. _Lainez-Disputationes Tridentinae._ 2 vols. 1886.
GUERANGER. _De la Monarchie Pontificate._ 1870.
GUETTÉE. _Histoire de l’Eglise de France._ 12 vols. 1856.
GUILLERMIN. _Vie de Mgr. Darboy._ 1888.
HALIFAX, Lord. In _Nineteenth Century_. May 1901.
HASENCLEVER. _Das neue Dogma von der Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes._ 1872.
HEFELE. _Conciliengeschichte._ First Edition. 1855.
Second Edition.
French translation. 12 vols. _Goschler and Delarc._ 1859.
English translation. 5 vols. from 2nd edition. 1872.
(By Clark & Oxenham.)
” _Honorius und das sechste Allgemeine Concil._ 1870.
HEFELE’S letters will be found in _Schulte. Altkatholicismus and
Revue internationale de Theologie_ (pp. 485–506). 1908.
HOHENLOHE. _Memoirs._ 2 vols.
HURTER. _Compendium Theologiæ Dogmaticæ._ 3 vols. 5th edition. 1885.
HUSENBETH. _Life of Milner._ 1862.
IRENÆUS. Ed. Harvey. 2 vols. 1857.
JANUS. _The Pope and the Council._ Rivingtons. 1869.
JEROME. _Ad Rufinum. De Script Eccles._
JERVIS. _Hist. Ch. France._ 2 vols. 1872.
” _The Gallican Church and the Revolution._ 1882.
JOURDAIN. _Hist. Univ. Paris._
KEENAN. _Controversial Catechism._ 17th thousand. 1860.
KETTELER. _Le Concile Œcuménique._ Tr. Bélet. (?) 1869.
” _Liberté Antorité, Église._ Tr. Bélet. 1862.
” _Das unfehlbare Lehramt des Papstes._ 1871.
_Knabenbauer in Luc._
KRAUTHEIMER. _Catechism of the Catholic Religion._ 1845.
LAGRANGE. _Hist. de Dupanloup._ 3 vols.
LAMENNAIS. _Œuvres Complètes._ 14 vols. Paris. 1836.
” _Correspondance._ Ed. Forgues. 2 vols. 1863.
LANGEN. _Das Vat. Dogma._ 5 vols. 1870, etc.
LAYMAN (Rom. Cath.). _Reasons why a Roman Catholic cannot
accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined by
the Vatican Council._ 1876.
LENORMANT. _Les Origines de l’Histoire._
LETO (POMPANIO). _Eight Months at Rome._ 1876.
LICHTENBERGER. _Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses._ 12 vols.
LIDDON. _Life of Pusey._ 4 vols.
LIEBERMANN. _Institutiones Theologicæ._ 5 vols. 1831.
LUZERNE, DE, Card. _Works._ Migne. 6 vols.
MAISTRE, J. DE. _Œuvres._ 8 vols. Bruxelles. 1845.
MANNING. _Pastoral._ 1867.
” _Petri Privilegium._
MARET. _Du Concile Général._ 2 vols. 1870.
MARIN. _De l’Infallibilité Doctrinale._ 1870.
MARTIN, CONRAD. _Dogmatik._
MELCHIOR, CANO. _Opera._ 3 vols. Rome. 1890.
MICHELIS. _Der häretische Charakter des Infallibilitätslehre._ 1872.
MILNER. _End of Religious Controversy._ Ed. 2. 1819.
MOZLEY. _Essay on Development._
MURRAY. _Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi._ 3 vols in six parts. 1862.
NEWMAN. _Letter to Bishop Ullathorne_--_Standard Newspaper._
7th April 1870.
” _Letter to Duke of Norfolk._
NIELSEN. _Geschichte des Papstthums._ 2 vols. 1880.
OLLIVIER (EMILE). _L’Eglise et L’Etat._ 2 vols.
ORSI. _De irreformabili Romani Pontificis in definiendis Fidei
controversiis judicio._ 3 vols. Rome. 1739.
PALLAVICINI. _Hist. C. Trent._
PASTOR. _History of the Popes._ English translation. 1891.
PERRAUD, A. Le P. _Gratry ses Derniers Jours._ 1872.
PERRON, DU, Card. _Les Ambassades et Negotiations._ Paris. 1623.
PERRONE. _De Traditione._
PHILLIPPS, AMBROSE DE LISLE. _Union Review._ 1866.
PIUS IX. _Brief to Archbishop of Munich._ See ACTA, _Conc. Vat._
PULLER. _Primitive Saints and Roman Church._
PURCELL. _Life of Manning._
” _Life of Ambrose de Lisle Phillipps._ 2 vols. 1900.
QUIRINUS. _Letters from Rome on the Council._ 1870.
REINKENS. _Ueber die Einheit der katholischen Kirche._ 1877.
” _Kniefall und Fall des Bischof Ketteler._ 1877.
REUSCH. _Letters in Schulte Altkatholicismus._
REVIEW. _Dublin._ 1869.
” _Home and Foreign._ 1863.
” _Rambler._ 1862.
_Revue des Deux Mondes._ 1858.
RICHERIUS. _Vindiciæ Doctrinæ Majorum._ 1683.
ROSIÈRE. _Liber Diurnus._ 1869.
RUDIS. _Petra Romana._ 1869.
RUMP. _Die Unfehlbarkeit des P._ 1870.
RYDER. _Idealism in Theology._ 1867.
SALMON. _Infallibility._
SCHULTE. _Der Altkatholicismus._ 1887.
SCHWANE. _Histoire du Dogme._ 6 vols. References to the
French translation of the _Dogmengeschichte_.
SICARD. _L’Ancien Clergé de France._ 3 vols.
_Tablet, the._ 1869.
THEINER. _Acts of the Council of Trent._
THUREAU DANGIN. _La Renaissance Catholique en Angleterre an
xix Siècle._ 3 vols. 1906.
TURMEL. _Hist. Théol. Positive._ 1906.
” _Histoire du Dogme de la Papauté._ Paris. 1908.
ULLATHORNE (Bp.). _Letter on the Rambler._ 1862.
” _Autobiography._ 2 vols.
” _Expostulation._
” _Döllingerites._
_L’Univers._ 1869.
VERON, FRANCIS. _Regula Fidei._ Ed. Sebastian Brunner. 1857.
VEUILLOT L. _Rome pendant le Concile._
VINCENT of Lerins. _Commonitorium._
WARD (BERNARD). _Dawn of the Catholic Revival._ 2 vols. 1909.
” (W.). _Life of Wiseman._ 2 vols. 1900.
” (W. G.). _Essays on the Church’s Doctrinal Authority._
WATERWORTH. _Council of Trent._ 1848.
WORDSWORTH, CH. _Miscellanies._ 3 vols. 1879.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE 1
II. THE AGE OF THE FATHERS 9
III. THE CASE OF HONORIUS 31
IV. THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD 48
V. THE AGE OF THE REFORMING COUNCILS 55
VI. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 66
VII. CARDINAL BELLARMINE 72
VIII. THE SORBONNE 79
IX. BOSSUET 85
X. OPPOSITION AMONG ROMAN CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND 98
XI. ULTRAMONTANISM IN FRANCE 143
XII. DARBOY, DUPANLOUP, MARET, GRATRY AND
MONTALEMBERT 157
XIII. OPPOSITION IN GERMANY--DÖLLINGER 188
XIV. HOHENLOHE AND FRIEDRICH 207
XV. THE IMMEDIATE PREPARATIONS 217
XVI. THE OPENING OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL 229
XVII. THE VATICAN DECISION 238
XVIII. THE MINORITY AFTER THE VATICAN DECREE 275
XIX. THE INFALLIBILITY DOCTRINE 340
XX. WHERE ARE THE INFALLIBLE DECISIONS? 356
INDEX 371
ROMAN CATHOLIC OPPOSITION TO PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
CHAPTER I
THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE
Those who do not identify history with heresy will always desire to
know how a Christian affirmation of the present compares with the past.
Whatever validity faith may attach to the teaching of the Church of
to-day, there must be reasons and reasons which demand and justify an
enquiry into the doctrine of other ages. If serious discrepancies would
cause perplexity, unforeseen harmonies would confirm. In any case the
refusal to examine is not the product of a genuine faith. For, after
all, history is, if on one side human, on another divine. Moreover,
the actual development of human thought must be of profoundest living
interest. This enquiry, then, must be undertaken in reference to the
doctrine of Papal Infallibility. For it is, in a large portion of
modern Christian life, an existing affirmation. The question is, What
relation does the doctrine bear to the facts of History? And obviously,
first of all, what does Scripture say?
The Ultramontane, so far as he founds the doctrine on Scripture
language, finds it chiefly in the words of our Lord to St Peter:
“I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren.”[1] Now seeing that this dogma of
Papal Infallibility would be, if true, no less than fundamental, it is
necessary to dwell at length on the asserted scriptural witness to the
same. For those who believe that fundamental Christian truth must be
traceable to the records of Revelation must test each doctrine by what
is told them there. And we are here concerned with the express words
of Christ. And the issues which depend on a right understanding of the
Redeemer’s words are, as all Christians will acknowledge, momentous.
[1] Luke xxii. 32.
The Roman interpretation of this passage maintains the following
points:--
1. That Christ here confers on Peter an exclusive prerogative, on the
ground of Peter’s superior position;
2. That this prerogative is infallible insight;
3. That thereby he was enabled to give infallible instructions to his
brethren;
4. That this prerogative extends to all Peter’s successors and to none
but those--the prerogative being as exclusive in its range as it was in
its origin.
There is, however, another interpretation which has been in substance
and in many details accepted by members of the Roman Church, and which
is unable to find any of these doctrines in the words of Christ.
There are clearly four points to be considered: Christ’s Prayer;
Peter’s Faith; Peter’s Brethren; Peter’s Successors.
i. _First, then, Christ’s Prayer: I have prayed for thee._
1. Certainly it was an _exclusive_ prayer. Satan hath desired to have
you, collectively; but I have prayed for thee, Peter, individually.
Christ here prays for the one: for the others, on this occasion, He
does not pray.
Does not this imply, asks the Ultramontane, the superiority of the
individual thus selected and distinguished? Does not Christ here place
the security of the many in the security of the one? If the leader and
chief is protected, those who follow him and obey him will be secure.
This exposition labours under the double defect of assuming a theory of
Peter’s supremacy and of ignoring the historical circumstances which
prompted Christ’s words. That the prayer was exclusive is true. But
exclusive petition does not necessarily imply the greater superiority
of the person prayed for; it may equally well imply his greater need.
Remembering that Peter alone was on the verge of a triple denial, no
wonder he became the object of an exclusive prayer. If his confident
self-reliance, together with his impulsive temperament, laid him
open to perils from which the Twelve were exempt, what else could
his Master do than offer special intercession for him? To build a
theory of permanent prerogative as universal teacher on the fact of
Christ’s exclusive petition is therefore to forget that the historic
circumstances, which elicited our Lord’s concern, suggest a totally
different explanation.
2. Moreover, while we are reminded that Christ’s prayer was exclusive,
we should also be reminded that it was _conditional_.
It seems at first sight a natural outcome of Christian piety to assume
that whatever Christ prayed for was certain to come to pass. Is it not
written, “I know that thou hearest me always”? But the effectiveness
of Christ’s prayers must take into account our human independence. To
say that the prayer of Christ must necessarily realise its design, is
really to reduce mankind to a mechanism upon which the Spirit plays.
But this is false to Christian teaching and human experience. The
prayers of Christ are invariably conditional upon the human response.
They demand human co-operation. The prayer for Peter unquestionably
implies that the resources needed to discharge his function would
be placed at his disposal, provided that he yielded his will to the
offered grace. But that Peter would invariably fulfil the essential
conditions, Christ’s petition does not affirm and cannot even suggest.
It cannot mean unconditional security, exemption from the liabilities
of human weakness and imperfection, apart from all considerations of
personal effort and moral state.
ii. _The second object for our analysis is Peter’s Faith--and here
two points arise:--What is meant by “faith” and what is meant by
“fail.”_
1. Now when our Lord says “faith,” the meaning is in general not
difficult to ascertain. The faith which, if present, could remove
mountains, or, if absent, hinders His merciful works, is plainly not
so much an intellectual assent to a number of propositions, as a moral
relation to a Person; a devotion to Himself, demanding qualities, not
only of the intellect, but also of the affections and of the will.
It is a quality inseparable from love. It may exist in many varying
degrees.
2. What, then, is meant by “fail”? The Greek term here translated
“fail” sometimes describes an eclipse, which to the primitive
imagination suggested death, much as we talk of the dying day. “Thou
art the same and thy years shall not fail,”[2] means shall not cease,
or come to an end.
[2] Heb. i. 12.
3. Accordingly, by “a faith which should not fail,” our Lord described
a personal devotion to Himself, which should never cease to exist. But
we must carefully distinguish between the inward quality of faith and
its outward expressions. St Peter, in the subsequent denial, failed;
not in his inward belief, but its outward expression. The failure
was not in his thoughts but in his words. As a fact, his outward
expressions of faith were not protected from error. He said exactly
what his intellect contradicted, what he knew was false. The natural
inference is that the prayer of Christ was concerned with Peter’s
inward spiritual state, not with the outward phrases. A very able Roman
writer saw this plainly enough. Consequently, he says, Christ demanded
here for Peter _two_ privileges--not merely one: first, that he should
never lose his faith; secondly, that as Pope he should never teach
anything contrary to the faith. That is what the Ultramontane position
would require. But that is exactly what did not happen at the denial.
The prayer of Christ did not secure St Peter from false expressions.
Nor did it secure Peter’s personal devotion from a temporary eclipse.
But even if Peter’s dogmatic insight remained unclouded, that would
help his brethren comparatively little if his official utterances could
be mistaken. And it was expressly in his utterances that he did fail.
iii. _The third theme for analysis is the Strengthening his Brethren._
1. Now to strengthen is to give support. It is employed several times
by St Paul. As when he says: “I long to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be _established_.”[3] He
says he sent Timothy “to establish you, and to comfort you concerning
your faith.”[4] He speaks of “stablishing your hearts unblameable in
holiness”;[5] prays that God will “comfort your hearts and stablish
you in every good word and work”;[6] and says “the Lord is faithful,
who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.”[7] So St Peter desires
that God would “stablish, strengthen, settle”[8] the Christian; and
says that Christians are “established in the present truth.”[9] The
Revelation of St John again says: “Be watchful and strengthen the
things which remain, which are ready to die.”[10]
[3] Rom. i. 11.
[4] 1 Thess. iii. 2.
[5] 1 Thess. iii. 13.
[6] 2 Thess. ii. 17.
[7] 2 Thess. iii. 3.
[8] 1 Peter v. 10.
[9] 2 Peter i. 12.
[10] Apoc. iii. 2.
This scriptural use of the term “strengthen,” or “stablish,” shows
conclusively that any kind of moral support may be intended. The
strengthening may be that which Divine Grace supplies; or that which
comes from the knowledge of the Truth; or that which comes from the
encouragement of Christian ministers. But in no solitary instance is
there any suggestion of infallibility as essential to enable one to
be a strengthener. Thus, “when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren,” would naturally mean, When thou hast by repentance recovered
from thine own moral infirmity, do thou become a moral support to the
impulsive and the weak. It is a merciful promise to St Peter before his
sin, of restoration to Apostleship after the sin had been committed.
It suggests that even through the denial he may gain a humility and
self-knowledge which may enlarge his sympathies and increase his
strength. It is all in the moral rather than in the purely intellectual
sphere.
2. But further: The utterance, “strengthen thy brethren,” is a
command and not a promise. We cannot infer, from a duty enjoined, its
invariable fulfilment. Otherwise, we are all perfect: For this command
is laid upon us all. Moreover, whatever Peter may have done, what is
certain is that at Antioch he did not strengthen his brethren. All
human analogy would suggest a more or less imperfect human endeavour to
fulfil a divinely appointed ideal.
iv. _The fourth and last point for consideration is Peters
Successors._
1. Now, first, our Lord does not mention them. They are not mentioned
even by implication. There is no necessary implication, unless we
assume, _à priori_, as some Roman writers do, that such a prerogative
could not be restricted to a single generation, nor to the Apostolic
Age;[11] and therefore that the function of Peter in strengthening his
brethren must be continued to his successors to the end of time. But
by no process of interpretation can this be derived from the words
of Christ. It can be read into them: it cannot be read out of them.
Whether false or true, it is certainly not what our Lord has said.
[11] So Vat. C., cf. _Knabenbauer in Luc._
Moreover, since the prerogative here conferred on Peter was the
prerogative of sympathy learnt by the humiliations of failure, not the
gift of Infallibility, its perpetuation among his successors could not
confer upon them what it did not confer on him. If our exposition of
this prayer of Christ be correct, the extension of the prerogative over
a series of successors would be doubtless morally valuable but of no
dogmatic use.
2. Moreover, if the words, “strengthen thy brethren,” apply to Peter’s
successors, so do the words “when thou art converted.” Bellarmine
himself saw this, and was disturbed by it. He suggested that
“converted” must not be understood as moral renovation and repentance,
but as an adverb equivalent to, “in turn,” as if the passage ran--I
have strengthened thee, do thou in thy turn strengthen thy brethren. Or
else it might mean--so it was suggested--Having turned your attention
to them, exercise your Infallibility. But even if the sentence, “when
thou art converted,” bore no allusion to Peter’s denial, still no
possible exegesis can justly elicit the Infallibility of his successors
out of the injunction “strengthen thy brethren.” Peter’s successors
would be thereby ordered to bestow moral support upon their weaker
brethren. But whether they would obey this command and fulfil it with
more invariable exactitude than he to whom it was spoken, is a question
of historical investigation and not of _à priori_ theory.
* * * * *
The preceding exposition has been very largely derived from Roman
Catholic sources; from the writings of Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux,
opposing, in behalf of the Church of France, the Ultramontanism of
the seventeenth century; of Barral, Archbishop of Tours, in the early
nineteenth century; of Bishop Maret, and of Gratry, just before the
Vatican Council of 1870; of Döllinger, prior to the rupture with Rome;
of Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis, in the speech which he intended
to deliver in the Vatican Council, in exercise of his divine right
as a Bishop, but whose delivery was prevented by the closure of the
discussion.