OPPOSITION IN GERMANY--DÖLLINGER
Ignatius von Döllinger became Professor at Munich in 1825. In a mixed
University, where Protestant and Roman teachers addressed their
students in close proximity, and Schelling taught Philosophy while
Möhler lectured on Symbolism, and Klee on the Fathers, a knowledge of
modern thought, an abandonment of obsolete methods, became natural
and necessary among Roman Catholic advocates. The stricter Italian
School looked with grave misgivings on these Liberal tendencies and
looser ways. But circumstances rendered this larger freedom more
or less inevitable. It is curious to reflect that Döllinger began
life as an Ultramontane, under the influence of the works of that
paradoxical extremist Joseph de Maistre; for whom Lord Acton professed
a distant regard, coupled with a devout determination to exclude the
contributions of the entire school from the pages of his journals.
Döllinger’s change from the Roman to the Catholic standpoint was
the outcome of independent critical and historical study. Cold and
critical by nature, essentially intellectual, he was endowed with
enormous vigour and insatiable desire for learning. His intention
was to write a history of the Papacy. He found the approaches choked
with legend. “Many of these were harmless, others were devised for
a purpose; and he fixed his attention more and more on those which
were the work of design.”[267] The question raised by the mediæval
fables of the Papacy became theologically of grave concern: “How far
the persistent production of spurious matter had permanently affected
the genuine constitution and theology of the Church?” From the fables,
Döllinger advanced to the forged decretals. He studied “the long train
of hierarchical fictions which had deceived men like Gregory VII.,
St Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Bellarmine.”[268] “And it was,” says
Acton, “the history of Church government which so profoundly altered
his position.” Existing ecclesiastical developments had to be tested
by the past; their value disentangled from the fictitious elements
which contributed to produce them. The famous Canon of St Vincent of
Lerins, the appeal to antiquity, universality, and consent, came to
have increasing worth in Döllinger’s mind. “He took the words of St
Vincent,” says Acton,[269] “not merely for a flash of illumination, but
for a scientific formula and guiding principle.” At first insensibly,
but more and more definitely, Döllinger diverged from the axioms of the
Ultramontanes. Catholic he continued to be throughout, and to the very
last; but historical knowledge seemed to him impossible to combine with
the popular Roman theories of the day. Under his intellectual rule the
Munich School acquired immense ascendancy. It became the recognised
centre of ecclesiastical learning, Catholic yet critical. And,
above his colleagues, Döllinger became the adviser of the Church in
Germany.[270] Montalembert attended lectures there, and Acton, rejected
at Cambridge, found a home in Döllinger’s house at Munich.
[267] Acton, _History of Freedom_, p. 418.
[268] _Ibid._ p. 420.
[269] _Ibid._ p. 388.
[270] Goyau, _L’Allemagne Religieuse_, ii. p. 89.
The theological principles of Ignatius von Döllinger could scarcely be
in the year 1868 unknown in Rome. For five-and-forty years he had been
a teacher in Ecclesiastical History, and his reputation was European.
But he was not invited to take any part in the theological preparations
for the Vatican Council. An Italian writer[271] indeed assures us that
[271] Cecconi, ii. p. 329.
“in the number of those whom the Pope intended to invite was,
contrary to the advice of some, the celebrated historian
Döllinger.... But the Sovereign Pontiff was informed, on the
authority of statements perhaps somewhat inexact, that Döllinger
would refuse the invitation; and accordingly Pius IX. did not give
effect to his intention.”
The explanation is unconvincing and superfluous. The presence of
Döllinger on a theological commission in Rome at the Pope’s request
is scarcely thinkable. There were few learned members of the Roman
Communion whom Pius IX. would welcome less in Rome. But the minority
earnestly desired his presence.[272] Cardinal Schwarzenberg wrote to
Antonelli that the consulting theologians selected for the preparatory
commissions were not, so far as Germany was concerned, up to the
necessary level. Doubtless their merits were considerable, but their
learning was small. They were not qualified to do justice to the
difficult problems which would have to be submitted to them. They were
chosen, so far as the dogmatic section was concerned, exclusively from
one School. The Universities of Munich, Bonn, Tübingen, Fribourg,
included many eminent men, who were, however, omitted, much to
Schwarzenberg’s astonishment. He noted in particular the absence of
Hefele and Döllinger. But while Schwarzenberg wrote in this honest,
impulsive way, Antonelli was in receipt of letters of another type from
the Bavarian Nuncio, Meglia. According to the Nuncio, among the more
hopeful and moderate German Professors was Dieringer of Bonn, who had
been proposed for three bishoprics, including the Archiepiscopal See
of Cologne. True, he had recently somewhat compromised his reputation
by an attack on the Jesuit Kleutgen; but the Nuncio regarded this as
a momentary aberration--the general opinion being that at fifty-six
Dieringer was not likely to belie his past. To mix him with theologians
in the Eternal City would place him more completely at the disposal of
the Roman cause. Another promising person was the historian Hefele.
True, that his History of the Councils contained some hazardous
remarks; but the Nuncio evidently felt secure of him. “Now,” adds
Meglia, “it is very noticeable that no member of the German party of
_savants_ has been invited to Rome, and the result is that they are in
a great state of irritation. It would be, therefore, prudent to meet
this by a careful selection from the more moderate among them.” As
a result of this communication, Pius invited Dieringer, Hefele, and
others: thus, the _Augsburg Gazette_ observed, correcting the Italian
monotony by an infusion of elements very necessary to give vitality.
So Döllinger was left out. But he was by no means unoccupied. He was
engaged in writing the five articles, criticising and condemning the
Infallibility doctrine from an historical point of view, which appeared
anonymously in March 1869 in the _Augsburg Gazette_. These articles
attracted a great attention, and were regarded with profound disgust
in Rome. In three months’ time appeared the volume entitled _The
Pope and the Council, by Janus_. _Janus_, as the preface assured the
reader, was the production of several writers; but, as Friedrich[273]
tells us, under Döllinger’s control. _Janus_ was an expansion of the
five articles in the _Augsburg Gazette_. The purpose of _Janus_ was to
demonstrate that, according to ancient Catholic principles, the chief
exponent of the faith in Christendom was the Collective Episcopate; and
therefore that the Council stood supreme above the Pope. Leo himself
acknowledged that his treatise could not become a rule of faith until
confirmed by the assent of the Episcopate. The process by which these
principles were reversed is ascribed partly to the ever-increasing
ascendancy of the papal power, to which in the long development of
centuries many things contributed. The historical evolution was not
without protests and reactions, but forged documents, accepted by
uncritical ages as correct, misled even such theologians as St Thomas.
[272] _Ibid._ ii. p. 331.
[273] Friedrich, _Döllinger_, iii. p. 485.
Various influences tended to advance the conception of the Pope’s
Infallibility. There was the influence of the theologians after St
Thomas, whose great authority seemed sufficient, but whose opinion
was founded on fictitious documents. There was the influence of the
Inquisition, which, wherever it was dominant, rendered instruction
in the ancient conception impossible. There was the influence of the
_Index_, which meant the suppression of criticism and the conversion of
historical literature into partisan productions for the maintenance of
Ultramontane opinions. The publication of certain books, such as the
_Liber Diurnus_, containing historic statements impossible to reconcile
with Papal Infallibility, was prevented, and impressions already
printed were destroyed, confessedly because they could not be utilised
in the controversial interests of the Italian theories. Alterations
were made in the Breviary in the direction of Papal Infallibility. The
fact that Pope Honorius had been condemned as a heretic by Councils was
now left out. But more than many influences, the powerful Order of the
Jesuits contributed to the advancement of the theory. It was congenial
to their whole spirit. Accustomed to the principle of blind obedience;
themselves exhorted and in turn exhorting others to the sacrifice
of the intellect; they identified themselves with this doctrine,
protected it, and promoted it with tremendous effect. Since the days of
Bellarmine, their theologian, they gave it the benefit of their entire
concurrence.
So then, according to _Janus_, through the co-operation of many foreign
elements, the ancient principle is found completely reversed; and
whereas in primitive centuries the Council, the Collective Episcopate,
was the supreme exponent, in the later it was the Pope. This, says
_Janus_, is no true development. It is rather a transformation. The
verdict of History is against this doctrine entirely.
“For thirteen centuries an incomprehensible silence on this
fundamental article reigned throughout the whole Church and her
literature.”
“To prove the dogma of Papal Infallibility from Church History
nothing less is required than a complete falsification of it.”
The advocates of Papal Infallibility could not avoid the discussion of
the serious problem which their theory entailed, namely, _under what
conditions_ is the Pope infallible? They found, says _Janus_, on closer
inspection, papal decisions which contradicted the doctrines either of
their predecessors or of the Church. _Janus_ gives numerous instances.
It became necessary, therefore, to specify some distinctive marks by
which the product of Infallibility might be recognised. Accordingly,
since the sixteenth century there grew up the famous view that papal
judgments, when pronounced _ex cathedra_, were infallible. The remarks
of _Janus_ on this point ought to be given as far as may be in the
writers’ words.
The writers acknowledge that “the distinction between a judgment
pronounced _ex cathedra_ and a merely occasional or casual utterance
is a perfectly reasonable one,” not only in the case of a Pope, but in
the case of any teacher. Every teacher will at times speak offhand,
and at times speak officially and deliberately. “No reasonable man
will pretend that the remarks made by a Pope in conversation are
definitions of faith.” But beyond this the distinction has no meaning.
Every official utterance of a Pope must be an _ex cathedra_ utterance.
When a Pope speaks publicly on a point of doctrine, he has spoken
_ex cathedra_; for he was questioned as Pope, and has answered as
Pope. To introduce other conditions, such as whether he is addressing
an individual, or a local Communion, or the entire Church, is to
make purely arbitrary distinctions which are really prompted by the
existence of certain inconvenient papal decisions inconsistent with the
theory of his Infallibility.
This question, “Which of the papal decisions are infallible?” is
indeed momentous to the Roman churchman. The authors of _Janus_ are
profoundly disturbed, for instance, to know whether the doctrines of
the Syllabus produced under Pius IX. in 1864 are or are not included
among infallible utterances.
No one will now deny that it was an act of discretion on the part of
the authors of this book to produce it under the veil of anonymity.
They would allow no opportunity, so the readers were informed, of
transferring the discussion from the sphere of objective and scientific
investigation into the alien region of personal invective.
The sensation created by its appearance was very great. The _Dublin
Review_,[274] among other expressions, declared that the writers of
_Janus_ had excluded all possibility of mistake as to whether they
were Catholics. They had “shown that they are just as much and just
as little Catholics as are Dean Stanley and Professor Jowett.” “Janus
is an openly anti-Catholic writer.” The _Dublin Review_ laid it down
that “the Ultramontane doctrine exhibits certainly most singular
harmony with the whole past course of ecclesiastical history”; but
it manifested considerable embarrassment in determining what papal
utterances there were which were really issued _ex cathedra_. “There
have undoubtedly been very many _ex cathedra_ acts not formally
addressed to the whole Church,” said the _Dublin Review_, but omitted
to add by what characteristics infallible utterances might be known.
Meanwhile _Janus_ was called an almost incredible instance of
controversial effrontery.
[274] Vol. xiv. N.S. (1870), p. 194.
Döllinger’s Dublin critic affirmed that--
“in real truth, through the whole post-Nicene period, Pontifical
dogmatic letters issued _ex cathedra_ are no less undeniable and
no less obtrusive matters of historical fact than are Ecumenical
Councils themselves; they meet the student at every page.”
The _Dublin Review_ forms a very low estimate of the intellectual
power exhibited in _Janus_. According to that authority, it was “very
difficult to suppose that so indubitably and extensively learned a man
as Dr Döllinger can be mixed up with so poor and feeble a production.”
These criticisms were followed by another article, entitled _Janus and
False Brethren_. Here the reviewer fulminates against the writers of
_Janus_.
“There are enemies and traitors in the camp. It is not from
Protestants only, but from men kneeling at the same altars as himself
that the Catholic has to dread the poisoning of his faith.”
“In number indubitably these false brethren constitute no more than a
small and insignificant clique. But they are energetic, zealous, and
restless; and though their intellectual power is sometimes absurdly
overrated, they comprise one or two really able and learned men in
their number.”
The general opinion at Rome was that the book was certainly composed
by the Munich School, and the immense historical teaching pointed
to one individual, known for his life-long familiarity with Papal
history.[275] Renewed efforts were made by opponents of Infallibility
to induce Döllinger to reside during the Council in Rome. Cardinal
Schwarzenberg did all that lay within his power. Strossmayer, one of
the most eloquent members of the Council, declared that Döllinger’s
presence was urgently necessary. Maret, the learned author of the
volumes defending a modified Gallican view, entreated Döllinger
to overcome his reluctance and render this service to the Church.
“Although without official place,” wrote Maret, “your knowledge and
advice would greatly influence a multitude of unenlightened and
undecided minds.” Bishop Dupanloup thought much the same.
[275] Friedrich, iii. p. 489.
Döllinger, however, thought otherwise. He came to the conclusion that
he could be of more real service to the cause through the Press.[276]
[276] Friedrich, iii. p. 518.
Döllinger’s massive learning and extraordinary abilities constituted
him naturally the leader in Germany against the Ultramontane proposals;
but it must never be forgotten that he was only the leader. Behind
him was a vast body of Bavarian and German approval. Meetings and
protests and petitions against an Infallibility decree sprang up all
over Germany.[277] Munich, Coblentz, Berlin, and many other cities
pleaded vigorously for the older convictions. A very serious anonymous
protest[278] circulated through the Bavarian Kingdom in May 1869.
It solemnly emphasised the momentous character of the impending
conflict. Two antagonistic principles were engaged in final strife for
supremacy: on the one hand, Papal absolutism; on the other, the genuine
Catholicism. The principles of the Syllabus declared that the Church
had the right to resort to coercion, and possessed direct power even in
temporal affairs. Liberty of conscience and liberty of the Press were
denied to be human rights. Were these principles to be erected by Papal
Infallibility into dogmas of faith? Was Christendom to witness the
triumph of absolutism and a new Ultramontane confession?
[277] Documents in Cecconi, iii. p. 312 ff.
[278] _Ibid._ p. 315.
* * * * *
An address[279] was sent by the Catholics of Coblentz to the Bishop of
Treves, dissociating themselves altogether from the doctrine of Papal
Infallibility.
[279] _Ibid._ p. 326.
“A distinguished religious Order is concentrating all its forces
upon this project. To be silent would imply approval. As Catholics,
they feel constrained to protest to their Bishop that the ideas and
hopes of this party, who call themselves the only true Catholics, are
not and never can be theirs. The coming Council would do the Church
great service if it would suppress the _Index_ of prohibited books.
To punish the errors of Catholic writers by placing their names on
the _Index_ is neither worthy of the spirit nor the dignity of the
Church, and is hurtful to the real interests of the advancement of
truth.”
This address from the Catholics of Coblentz drew from the dying
Montalembert[280] words of impassioned admiration. All his old
eloquence and fire for a moment re-appeared. His end, he said, was
near. He believed himself possessed of the impartiality which is the
privilege of death. His body is already a ruin, but his spirit lives;
and he turns with a thrill of joy to the Catholics of Coblentz. Their
protest is sound from beginning to end. He could willingly endorse
every line of it. His only sorrow is that a similar spirit does not
animate the French; akin to that which filled them in the first half of
the nineteenth century.
[280] Documents in Cecconi, iii. p. 339.
The Bavarian Foreign Minister, Prince Hohenlohe[281] issued enquiries
to the Faculties of Theology in the Bavarian Universities. The
Professors were requested in particular to explain what criteria
existed for the discernment of an infallible decree.
[281] _Memoirs_, i. p. 328.
The Faculty of Wurtzburg replied[282] that, so far as the faithful
were concerned, it did not much matter whether a definition of faith
were formulated by the Pope after consultation with the Bishops
(as in 1854) or by an Assembly of Bishops directed by him. It is
all the same to the individual believer. If one has to recognise a
human authority in matters of faith, it is as easy to yield to the
decision of one as to that of a thousand. Which of these two Christ
had ordained, this Faculty did not discuss. They thought, however,
that a kind of Infallibility existed in any court of final appeal, and
must in a manner be possessed by the Pope. As to the signs whereby an
infallible decree might be distinguished from fallible utterances,
various opinions of theologians were given. Some maintained that deep
and exhaustive study of Scripture and Tradition was an essential
preliminary. No decree could possess Infallibility unless addressed
to the entire Church. They recognised that if the coming Council were
to define Papal Infallibility, it would be necessary to make certain
modifications in the Catechisms of the Church; but they did not
consider that the necessary alterations would be very profound.
[282] Cecconi, iii. p. 479.
The Munich theologians[283] replied in a very different strain. They
said that no certain criticism was universally acknowledged whereby a
decree which was infallible could be distinguished from those which
were not. Twenty different opinions were held and disputed about it. If
the Council at Rome undertakes a definition of Papal Infallibility, it
had better determine also the nature and conditions of its exercise.
Otherwise endless disputes and similar insecurity will remain. The
Bavarian Catechisms spoke only of the Infallible Authority of the
Church--that is, of the Pope, together with the entire Episcopate.
There existed indeed a Jesuit Catechism, recently introduced into a
number of dioceses, which affirmed that the authority of the Church
is expressed either by the Pope or by a Council approved by him. But
this modification was obviously designed to transfer the privilege
of Infallibility entirely and exclusively to the Pope. Manifestly
therefore a revolutionary alteration would have to be made in the
diocesan Catechisms if Papal Infallibility were decreed.
[283] Cecconi, iii. p. 524.
That a doctrine contrary to Papal Infallibility was being taught as
Catholic, under sanction of Episcopal Authority, in Germany in the
first half of the nineteenth century is indisputable. Liebermann’s
theological writings were published in five volumes at Mainz. The third
edition was in 1831. It was first published with the _imprimatur_ of
the Vicar-General of Mainz in 1819.
Liebermann was a distinguished personage in his day. He became Superior
of the Seminary at Mainz and Canon of the Cathedral, afterwards
Vicar-General of Strasburg. His _Institutiones Theologicæ_,[284] became
the standard work in many seminaries in France, Belgium, Germany and
America.
[284] Lichtenberger, _Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses_.
Liebermann’s doctrine is:--
“It is certain from the principles of the Catholic Faith that the
supreme Pontiff has the chief place in determining controversies of
Faith; and that his judgment, if the consent of the Church be added,
is irreformable. But whether his judgment is infallible before the
Church’s consent is a matter open to dispute among Catholics without
detriment to their Catholicity.”[285]
[285] Liebermann, _Institutiones Theologicæ_, ii. p. 540.
To this proposition Liebermann adds:--
“Although there are many saintly and learned men among Catholics,
who in their regard for the See of Peter have taught or still are
teaching that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks _ex cathedra_ cannot
err; yet there have always existed very many other theologians
who have taught the opposite, and these the Church none the less
considers to be pious and earnest defenders of the Faith. Therefore,
this question is of the number of those which may be disputed without
detriment to Catholicity.”
His conclusion is that:--
“accordingly the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff cannot be
urged against heretics, nor utilised to establish the Catholic
Faith....[286] Nor can it be adduced, even by those who are fully
convinced of its truth, as a test principle. For nothing can
be employed as a basis of divine Faith which is not in itself
indisputable. Neither can that be made the rule of faith which itself
forms no portion of the faith.”[287]
[286] Page 542.
[287] Page 543.
The _Catechism of the Catholic Religion_ by Krautheimer,[288] approved
by the Bishop of Mainz in 1845, contains the following question and
answer:--
[288] Page 87.
“Do we believe that, as a consequence of this primacy, the Pope is
infallible and may decide as Christ Himself; as the non-Catholics
allege?
“No. The Pope possesses in controversies of faith only a judicial
decision which can only become an article of faith when the Church
gives its concurrence.”
This and similarly worded books of instruction had been recently
withdrawn in parts of Germany through Ultramontane influence, and
replaced by a Jesuit Catechism.
Philip Neri Chrismann was a Franciscan monk, and reader in Theology and
Ecclesiastical History. His _Rule of Catholic Faith_ was republished
at Wurzburg in Bavaria, with the permission and approval of his
ecclesiastical superiors in 1854. In this work on Dogmatic Theology he
gives an exposition of the Infallibility of the Church, its nature and
restrictions, without any reference to the Pope. At the close of the
volume he gives a list of Adiaphora, or things indifferent, in which he
observes that
“although the greatest reverence, obedience and submission be due
to the Supreme Pontiff yet he is not favoured with the special
privilege of inerrancy which was given by Christ our Lord only to the
Church.”[289]
[289] Chrismann, _Regula Fidei_, p. 319.
Indeed, the majority of the faithful, and above all the Bishops and
clergy, did not share in Germany the Ultramontane views.[290] The
theological faculties of Tübingen and Munich were firmly attached to
the Episcopal conception, and thereby equally opposed to the autocratic
Roman idea. Hefele at Tübingen had pronounced, as a historian, hardly
less distinctly than Döllinger at Munich.
[290] Ollivier, i. p. 424.
Before obeying the summons to attend the Vatican Council, an _Assembly
of German Bishops_ was held at _Fulda_ (September 1869).[291] Some
twenty Bishops were present. There was Melchers, Archbishop of Cologne,
who presided; there was Döllinger’s Diocesan, Scherr, Archbishop of
Munich, well acquainted with the historian’s principles, and no more
an Ultramontane than Döllinger himself; there was Ketteler, Bishop
of Maintz, in whose diocese the recognised Catechism had for years
instructed the faithful to reject Papal Infallibility, and who became
one of the most persistent opponents of the doctrine to the very last
in Rome, and in the Pope’s own presence; there was Conrad Martin,
afterwards an Infallibilist, but at present known as author of a widely
disseminated handbook in which the doctrine was denied; and there was
Hefele, Bishop elect of Rottenburg, whose _History of the Councils_
told heavily against the Ultramontanes.
[291] Cecconi, iv. p. 155.
The German Episcopate was under no illusions as to the introduction
of this doctrine into the coming deliberations in Rome. Accordingly
they set other subjects aside[292] to discuss the question. It was
declared that a question so momentous required the production of proofs
from Tradition; proofs of such a kind as to satisfy fully the demands
of criticism, while leaving opponents full liberty of speech. They
proceeded to examine the opportuneness of any definition. On the one
side it was declared that Councils hitherto had only passed decisions
on questions of urgent necessity. Now the present subject presented
no such necessity. There existed no danger, either to the purity of
the Faith, or to the peace of the Church. Viewed relatively to the
Oriental Churches, a definition would be altogether inopportune.
Eastern Christians admit a primacy of honour, and might be induced
to admit a primacy of jurisdiction. But they hold with such tenacity
to the ancient traditions that it was hopeless to imagine they would
ever assent to Papal Infallibility. The same consideration holds with
reference to Protestants. And also for the Catholics of Germany the
dogma would be dangerous.
[292] Cecconi, ii. p. 459.
On the other hand, a member of the Assembly urged that by many people
the dogma was desired; that the opposition must not be exaggerated;
that the number of German Catholics was relatively few; that the
promulgation of the Immaculate Conception dogma already involved
implicitly that of Papal Infallibility.[293]
[293] _Ibid._ iv. p. 160.
In the following discussion Bishop Hefele spoke with strongest
emphasis.[294] He had never believed in Papal Infallibility. He had
studied the history of the Church for thirty years; but nothing could
be found for Papal Infallibility in the ancient Church. It could not be
rightly discussed as merely inopportune, for it simply was not true.
These assertions were opposed. Eventually a petition was sent to the
Pope, declaring the doctrine inopportune by a majority of fourteen
Bishops out of nineteen.[295] Then, as a curiously incongruous sequel
to their own grave anxieties, the Bishops set themselves to the work
of re-assuring the German Catholics in a Pastoral[296] which declared
that an Ecumenical Council would not impose a new dogma, a dogma
not contained in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition; that they were
confident that no obstacle would be placed either to the liberty or
duration of discussion in the Council’s deliberations. The Pastoral,
said a contemporary writer[297]--
[294] Friedrich, ii. p. 190.
[295] Cecconi, ii. p. 462.
[296] _Ibid._ iii. p. 372.
[297] Quirinus, _Letters from Rome_, p. 36.
“contains a promise, worded with all the distinctness that could
be desired, that, so far as it depends on the votes of the German
Bishops, the yoke of the new articles of faith shall not be laid on
the German nation.”
When the King of Bavaria read the Pastoral, he congratulated the
Bishops on the line adopted, and expressed a hope that a similar spirit
would prevail in the approaching deliberations in Rome.[298]
[298] _Acta_, p. 1201.
On the other hand, a distinguished Prelate[299] compared the opponents
of Infallibility to the possessed at Gadara; and described them as
crying piteously, “What have we to do with thee, Vicar of Christ?” No
one, he said, would be deprived of freedom of thought or expression in
the coming Council. No conflict of opinions would be there; nor any
parties, as in a political assembly.
[299] _Acta_, p. 1296 (November 1869).
Döllinger, as _Janus_ shows, was the victim of no illusions as to the
main purpose to which the Vatican Council would be directed. Whatever
impressions might exist in France or elsewhere, the student of History
did not misinterpret the steady direction of events, the persistent
intention of the dominant influences in the Church. And, although
permitted no official work among the theologian consultors of the
Council, he placed at the disposal of the Bishops the conclusions of
his historical learning, in his Considerations respecting the question
of Papal Infallibility.[300]
[300] See _Declarations and Letters_ (October 1869).
Döllinger insisted that the principle by which the Church had
been hitherto controlled in matters of faith was the principle of
immutability. To demonstrate that a doctrine was not the conviction of
the entire Church, that it was not logically included as an undeniable
sequence in the original Deposit of Revealed Truth, was hitherto
regarded as a conclusive demonstration that such doctrine could never
be raised to the dignity of a dogma of the Church. Döllinger contended
that on this principle the case for Papal Infallibility was already
adversely determined. In the Eastern Church no voice had ever been
heard to ascribe dogmatic Infallibility to the Pope. The doctrine did
not arise within the West until the thirteenth century. It renders the
history of Christendom for the first thousand years an incomprehensible
enigma: for history exhibits Christendom toiling by painful, circuitous
methods to secure what, if the Popes were infallible, might have been
gained in the simplest way, from the utterances of a solitary voice
in Rome. Nor is it possible, argued Döllinger, to account for the
transference of infallible authority from the Church to the Pope, as a
process of legitimate development. The new theory is the negation of
the old. The ancient doctrine was that the Divine guidance is given to
the Church collectively. It is the Church, as a whole, which cannot
fall away. But the Ultramontane theory reverses this. It asserts that
Divine guidance is given not to the Church collectively, but to one
individual person; that Infallibility is his alone--a prerogative in
which the Collective Episcopate has no share; that from him alone
the Church receives light and truth. This is not development. It is
negation. Among the Scripture passages to which Infallibilists chiefly
appealed was the exhortation to strengthen his brethren. But this is
an exhortation, not a promise. “It is a violent perversion to turn an
admonition to duty into a promise of the invariable fulfilment of that
duty.” Still less can this exhortation be transferred as a promise
to his successors, when it was only a personal admonition. It was,
moreover, an exhortation which Peter himself did not invariably fulfil.
Far from strengthening the Church at Antioch in the faith, he rather
perplexed it by his dissimulation.
Döllinger contended that the historical growth of belief in the theory
of Papal Infallibility was sufficiently instructive. When proposed to
the Council of Trent, it was withdrawn by the legates who proposed it;
because they recognised that a number of the Bishops disapproved it.
Since that time the influence of the Jesuits and the Inquisition had
steadily extended the theory, for they made the presentation of any
other doctrine in books or teaching impossible in Italy, Spain, and
Portugal. Every attempt to test the theory by historical criticism had
been put upon the _Index_ and suppressed, with the solitary exception
of Bossuet and Cardinal de la Luzerne.