WHERE ARE THE INFALLIBLE DECISIONS?
Nearly forty years have elapsed since the recognition of the
Infallibility of the head of that vast Communion. The dogma was
pushed through admittedly to enable authority to meet by the rapidity
of its decisions the speed of modern life. Authority, however, with
admirable discretion, has not once availed itself of its newly
decreed prerogative within the last fifty years. Since Pius IX.
expired, authority has spoken many times; but never once on the
levels of unalterable decree. Certainly this development of history
is very different from the future, as the advocates of 1870 pictured
it. The practical utility of the new Decree has been, if any,
purely retrospective, historic. It applies, according to the Roman
theologians, to utterances prior to that decision, not since. What the
future may produce it is impossible to say. Whether a long series of
supreme irreversible pronouncements are yet to issue, or whether the
supreme prerogative will be kept in abeyance is a speculative enquiry
of the greatest interest.
It has been the function of Roman writers, since the passing of
the Vatican Decree, to apply the definition as a test to the papal
utterances of nineteen hundred years, in order to ascertain which of
those utterances comply with its requirements, which of those are
infallible, and which are not. The prerogative must, of course, if
true to-day be true of all the Christian centuries. Infallibility
must be co-extensive with the existence of the Papacy. Consequently
the papal utterances of all history must be sifted and classified in
accordance with the Vatican Definition. It remains therefore for us
to ascertain from Roman writers the outcome of their research, and to
learn from them upon what precise occasions they consider that a Pope
has complied with the conditions necessary to give his pronouncement
this supreme unalterable authority.
I
The conditions required to make a papal utterance infallible are
variously described. Bishop Fessler, who as Secretary of the Vatican
Council, may be presumed, as being the Pope’s selection, to have
understood the papal mind, and whose position indisputably afforded
him peculiar, if not unique, advantages, has laid it down that the
tests of an infallible papal utterance are two. The first is that the
subject-matter must be a doctrine of faith or morals; the second, that
the Pope must express his intention, by virtue of his supreme teaching
power, of declaring this particular doctrine a component part of the
truth necessary to salvation revealed by God, and as such to be held by
the whole Church. This was Secretary Fessler’s declaration[455] almost
immediately after the Decision, and published expressly to reassure and
conciliate the alarmed and offended.
[455] Fessler, _True and False Infallibility_, p. 51.
More usually in recent Roman theological works the conditions are
somewhat more elaborately analysed as being four in number.
1. First, as concerns the utterer. He must speak as Pope, and not as
a theologian. That is he must exercise his supreme authority over
Christians.
2. Secondly, as to the substance of the utterance. It must be a
doctrine of faith or morals.
3. Thirdly, concerning the form of the utterance. It must not be merely
advice or warning, but dogmatic definition. It must definitely intend
to terminate a controversy, and to pronounce a final sentence upon it.
4. Finally, as to the recipients. While it need not necessarily be
addressed to all believers, and may indeed be directed to a single
individual, yet it must be virtually intended for every member of the
Universal Church; because it is defining something essential to be
believed.
These four restrictions which appear to be generally acknowledged more
or less by Roman writers, are obviously very powerful sifters of papal
decrees. They exclude wholesale entire classes of papal utterances from
possessing any sort of claim to the supreme authority.
Thus, for example, one theologian says:--
“Neither in conversation, nor in discussion, nor in interpreting
Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his
reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in answering letters,
nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own
opinion, is the Pope infallible.”[456]
[456] Billuart, ii. p. 110.
Fessler himself excludes from the range of Infallibility: papal actions
in general, for actions are not utterances; all that the Popes have
said in daily life; books of which they may be the authors; ordinary
letters; utterances of Popes either to individuals or to the whole
Church, even in their solemn rescripts, made by virtue of their
supreme power of jurisdiction in issuing disciplinary laws or judicial
decrees. None of these, according to Bishop Fessler, are dogmatic papal
definitions or utterances of infallible authority.[457]
[457] Fessler, p. 65.
Newman appears to have thought that Fessler’s tendency was to underrate
the Vatican Decree.
“Theological language,” wrote Newman, “like legal, is scientific,
and cannot be understood without the knowledge of long precedent and
tradition, nor without the comments of theologians. Such comments
time alone can give us. Even now Bishop Fessler has toned down the
newspaper interpretations (Catholic and Protestant) of the words of
the Council, without any hint from the Council itself to sanction him
in doing so.”[458]
[458] Letter in 1874. _Life of De Lisle_, ii. p. 42.
Newman, however, did not apparently consider Fessler’s statements just
quoted as a case of underestimation, for in the following year he
himself gave a similar restriction of the range of Infallibility.
“Even when the Pope is _in_ the Cathedra Petri, his words do
not necessarily proceed from his Infallibility. He has no wider
prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says: ‘Councils
are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which
they rely in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to
persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connection
with dogma.’
“Supposing a Pope has quoted the so-called works of the Areopagite
as if really genuine, there is no call on us to believe him; nor,
again, when he condemned Galileo’s Copernicanism, unless the earth’s
immobility has a ‘necessary connection with some dogmatic truth,’
which the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philosophy
virtually denies.”[459]
[459] Letter to Duke of Norfolk, pp. 115, 116.
“And again his Infallibility is not called into exercise unless
he speaks to the whole world; for if his precepts, in order to be
dogmatic, must enjoin what is necessary to salvation, they must
be necessary for all men. Accordingly ... orders to particular
countries or classes of men have no claim to be the utterances of his
Infallibility.”[460]
[460] Newman, Letter to Duke of Norfolk, p. 120.
This treatment of the Vatican Decree is an exercise of what Newman
calls “the principle of minimising,” which he considers “so necessary
for a wise and cautious theology.”[461]
[461] _Ibid._ p. 120.
A still further condition is introduced by Newman to qualify the
character of papal decisions. There is the doctrine of intention. The
Pope, urges Newman,
“could not fulfil the above conditions of an _ex cathedra_ utterance
if he did not actually _mean_ to fulfil them.... What is the worth of
a signature if a man does not consider what he is signing? The Pope
cannot address his people East and West, North and South, without
meaning it; ... nor can he exert his apostolical authority without
knowing that he is doing so; nor can he draw up a form of words
and use care, and make an effort in doing so accurately, without
intention to do so.”
Newman himself applied this principle of intention to the case of
Honorius.
“And therefore no words of Honorius proceeded from his prerogative of
infallible teaching, which were not accompanied with the intention of
exercising that prerogative.”[462]
[462] _Ibid._ p. 108.
That, of course, must apply to every individual for whom the infallible
prerogative is claimed. The classification of papal utterances is
accordingly involved in the doctrine of intention. It will be necessary
in every case to ascertain what the Pope’s intentions were. Now of all
intricate and desperately difficult problems none surpass the doctrine
of intention. No wonder then if there will be discordant verdicts among
the theologians, and a large element of insecurity.
II
Following upon this analysis of the theoretical conditions requisite
for infallible utterances comes the practical enquiry, to what
particular papal decrees do these conditions really apply? Upon what
precise occasions did the Pope bestow upon the Church the advantages
of his Infallibility? This is a question upon which theologians are
much more reticent. They deal at considerable length with the necessary
conditions which such an utterance would require, but many among them
refrain from all practical application. They do not indicate which
among the immense collections of papal documents really possesses
this supreme distinction. Newman, indeed, says that the Pope “has
for centuries upon centuries had and used that authority which the
Definition now declares ever to have belonged to him.”[463] According
to this assertion the Pope has not only possessed this power, but “used
it.” The implication appears to be that since he has possessed it for
centuries upon centuries he has used it frequently. Newman, however,
quotes with approval the statement that “the Papal Infallibility is
comparatively seldom brought into action.”[464] Indeed, he himself
observes:--
[463] Letter to Duke of Norfolk, p. 128.
[464] _Ibid._ p. 125.
“Utterances which must be received as coming from an Infallible Voice
are not made every day, indeed they are very rare; and those which
are by some persons affirmed or assumed to be such, do not always
turn out what they are said to be.”[465]
[465] Letter to Duke of Norfolk, p. 81.
Fessler again speaks of “the form ... which the Pope usually adopts
when he delivers a solemn definition _de fide_.”[466] And yet the
result of his application of the tests of an infallible utterance is
that he “finds only a few.”[467]
[466] Fessler, p. 92.
[467] _Ibid._ p. 53.
To be still more precise. There is no unanimity as to occasions when an
infallible decree was given. Many writers on Infallibility give no list
at all. Those who attempt it differ widely, but agree in regarding them
as excessively few. The Secretary of the Vatican Council tells us that
he found only a few, but he did not tell us which they are. This is
perfectly intelligible. He wrote in the same year in which the Decree
was made, and certainly there had been no time to investigate or apply
the tests with any assurance of accuracy; and it was most prudent and
commendable not to attempt the dangerous task of committing himself to
a definite list which might sooner or later have been overthrown. As
Newman said: “Those which are by some persons affirmed or assumed to
be such, do not always turn out what they are said to be.” More recent
writers have felt themselves justified by lapse of time in indicating
which the infallible utterances are. Whether on Roman principles the
time has really come for indicating them with any confidence may be
open to question. The varieties in the lists would seem to suggest a
negative. They appear to vary from eight instances down to one. Of
course the compilers of the lists may contend that their researches
are not yet completed. The investigation of utterances extending over
well-nigh two thousand years may well require considerable time. The
judgment may be regarded as still in suspense. But so far as lists are
given us they vary within the limits already stated.
Cardinal Franzelin, writing in 1875, gives some examples of utterances
whose Infallibility he regards as certain. They are four in number.
1. The Dogmatic Constitutions of the Council of Constance against
Wiclif and Hus, confirmed by Martin V.
2. The Constitution _exsurge_ of Leo X. against Luther.
3. The Constitution of Clement XI. against the Jansenists--the Bull
_Unigenitus_.
4. The Constitution _Auctorem Fidei_ of Pius VI. against the Synod of
Pistoia; wherein many pre-positions are condemned with various degrees
of censure.
Franzelin by no means limits Infallibility to these four utterances.
But these are all that he gives as illustrations of its exercise. And
of these he says with perfect confidence: “It is not lawful for any
Catholic to deny that these are infallible definitions.”[468]
[468] Franzelin, _De Traditione_, p. 123.
A more recent writer, Lucien Choupin,[469] repeats Franzelin’s list,
and gives four other utterances in addition:--
[469] _Valeur des Decisions Doctrinales et Disciplinaires du
Saint-Siège_ (1908).
1. The Decree of the Immaculate Conception.
2. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility.
Pius IX. is affirmed to have infallibly decreed his own Infallibility.
It is noteworthy that Choupin’s two chief instances belong to the
pontificate of Pius IX. Historical research enables the same writer to
add two more.
3. The condemnation of the five propositions of Jansen by Innocent X.
in 1653.
4. The Constitution of Benedict XII. in 1336.
This last affirms that departed saints who need no further cleansing
possess an immediate intuitive vision of the divine nature.[470]
[470] Denzinger, _Enchiridion_, § 456.
To these many theologians, says Choupin, add the _Encyclical Quanta
Cura_ of Pius IX. in 1864.
On the other hand, Carson in his _Reunion Essays_ says:--
“These four conditions so narrow the extent of the Petrine
prerogative that it is difficult to point with certainty to more than
one, or at most two, papal pronouncements, and declare them, with the
consent of all, to be infallible.
“The Bull _Ineffabilis Deus_, defining the Immaculate Conception,
may be considered, as we have seen, to be a definition of doctrine
about whose Infallibility there cannot well be any question. The
tome of Pope Leo the Great on the Incarnation, sent by him to the
Council of Chalcedon, and accepted by the assembled fathers as the
echo of Peter’s voice, may perhaps be placed on the same footing.
Beyond these two ecumenical utterances on points of doctrine, we
cannot assert with any assurance that the prerogative of Papal
Infallibility has been exercised from the day of Pentecost to the
present time.”[471]
[471] Carson’s _Reunion Essays_, p. 91.
Certainly if the intrinsic value of a document be any witness to its
Infallibility no papal utterance has better claim to be an instance
of that stupendous prerogative than the famous letter of Leo the
Great to Flavian. But yet some theologians omit it from their list
of Infallibility, and here a writer who inserts it as one of two can
only do so with a hesitating “perhaps.” Remembering the theological
defences of Leo’s letter we can see the reason for this uncertainty.
Theologians have felt themselves constrained by the historic facts to
admit that the Council of Chalcedon examined the contents of Leo’s
letter, and, that having satisfied themselves of its character, they
then proceeded to endorse it, and to declare that Peter spoke by Leo.
But this procedure is not thinkable in the case of an infallible
document. Accordingly it was supposed that Leo never meant to speak
infallibly, but only to suggest the lines upon which the Council
should proceed. But this defence removed the letter from the region of
inerrable authority. Hence the most that could be said about it was a
mere perhaps.
The question has to be faced, What authority do these lists of
infallible utterances possess? They possess the authority of the
various theologians who have compiled them. But they possess no more
than that authority. No infallible list of infallible utterances has
yet appeared. And surely whatever theories men may invent, it must
still be true that the only final way to determine whether a papal
utterance be infallible is whether it has secured the consent of the
Church.
It is, of course, acknowledged by Roman writers, that after a careful
application of the four tests it may still be disputed, and still
remain uncertain whether the particular utterance is or is not a case
of Infallibility. In this event the rule must be that, so long as any
uncertainty exists, after serious enquiry, there is no infallible
decision.[472] Fessler, however, adds that where uncertainty remains,
the subordinate authorities will ask the highest authority what his
intention was in such an utterance. If the utterer expires before
answering, Fessler does not inform us what the enquirer is to do. Is a
subsequent Pope an infallible judge of his predecessor’s intentions?
This we are not told. Fessler’s translator, however, adds a remark of
considerable importance.
[472] Hurter, i. p. 407.
“Of course Bishop Fessler is here understood as meaning that this
fresh explanation of the definition must be provided with all the
marks which are necessary to prove the presence of a real definition.”
III
Our study of the subject may be closed with a few reflections.
What impresses us perhaps chiefly is the meagreness of the result. Upon
this point Newman observed:--
“It has been objected to the explanation I have given ... of the
nature and range of the Pope’s Infallibility as now a dogma of the
Church, that it was a lame and impotent conclusion of the Council,
if so much effort was employed as is involved in the convocation
and sitting of an Ecumenical Council in order to do so little. True
if it were called to do what it did and no more; but that such was
its aim is a mere assumption. In the first place it can hardly be
doubted that there were those in the Council who were desirous of
a stronger definition; and the definition actually made, as being
moderate, is so far the victory of those many bishops who considered
any definition on the subject inopportune. And it was no slight
point of the proceedings in the Council, if a definition was to be,
to have effected a moderate definition. But the true answer to the
objection is that which is given by Bishop Ullathorne. The question
of the Pope’s Infallibility was not one of the objects professed in
condemning the Council; and the Council is not yet ended.”[473]
[473] Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, p. 154.
The moderate character of the Definition which Newman notes is indeed
conspicuous, when compared with the extravagant statements of Manning
and Ward, of Veuillot and the _Univers_.
An Infallibility, whose range is possibly limited to one solitary
utterance in nineteen hundred years, is very different from the ideal
of perpetual irreversible decisions of almost daily occurrence as
described by Ward. Very different also from rapid termination of
controversies which Manning considered so necessary to our progressive
age. And there is reason to believe that the decision, although at
first accepted by the Extremists with the wildest joy, was on maturer
reflection viewed with considerable disappointment.
But this moderation has recently been viewed as a sign of truth.
Certainly Manning would never have argued that it was. A _via media_
between two extremes, upheld as ideal, would have been, indeed it was,
Manning’s detestation.
And if the Vatican Decree is moderate relatively to a school of
extravagance, it is no less stupendous relatively to a school of
antiquity. Judged by the conceptions of St Vincent of Lerins the dogma
is not moderate, it is most extreme. If some who anticipated and feared
something much more pronounced acquiesced in the actual dogma with
comparative relief, a very different estimate will be formed by those
whose standard of moderation is the doctrine of antiquity.
If the total advantage hitherto reaped from Papal Infallibility be
compared with that which the Church has gained from its Ecumenical
Councils, the balance is heavily on the side of the more ancient
method of ascertaining and formulating Christian tradition. Whatever
the solitary Infallible Voice may pronounce in the future, it has done
exceedingly little in the past, even on Roman estimates. Those who
consider the Immaculate Conception the only instance of an irreversible
papal decision can scarcely deny that no comparison exists between
this and the work of the Council of Nicæa. This is, of course, no
argument against its truth. It is not for a moment produced with that
design. But it is an argument against the value of numerous pretexts
which instigated many of the most influential personages who helped
to push this doctrine through. It shows that they were controlled
by totally erroneous conceptions. It shows much more than this. The
familiar controversial statements that the early Popes could not have
spoken as they did, had they not been conscious that they possessed
Infallibility, and a right accordingly to demand unconditional interior
submission, and intellectual assent, are shown by Roman interpretation
of the Vatican Dogma to be absolutely valueless. And all this shows
that a profound confusion has existed in Roman minds between Authority
and Infallibility. If this distinction had been sharply realised, many
of the arguments by which the doctrine was unsupported could never have
been employed.
The meagreness of the issue is in curious contrast with the magnitude
of the battle, and the tremendous character of the affirmation. The
question can hardly be evaded, Was it really in the Church’s interest
to impose belief in a prerogative whose exercise is admittedly so
uncertain? Is it permissible to be a Roman Catholic while affirming
that Papal Infallibility has never yet been exercised? If it is,
Where is the dogmatic gain? If it is not, Where are the indisputable
decisions? And what is its practical utility? Its strongest advocates,
as Manning, so Roman writers themselves affirm, viewed the subject
rather as statesmen than as theologians. They upheld it, not so much
for theoretic completeness, as because it would strengthen the Church’s
resources, and enable it the better to meet the age. And yet the
prerogative has never since been utilised.
The practical effect so far has been to alienate more grievously than
ever the separated Churches of the East. Was this in the real interests
of Christendom? It may be that, somewhat exhausted by this terrific
strife, authority is recruiting itself, and will some day utilise
its new prerogative with tremendous results; that it is meanwhile
treasuring up its new resources against a day of need. But so far as
the historic development has hitherto advanced, it is a theoretic
rather than a practical victory. It possesses all the intellectual
problems of a new, precarious, and bewildering dogma, without the
practical gains of a prerogative manifestly and constantly utilised in
the service of mankind.
INDEX
Acton, Lord, 70, 117 and _sqq._, 326 and _sqq._
Agatho, 34, 38, 40, 42
Alexander V., 59, 60
Alzog, 315
American Presbyterians, attitude of, 222
Anglican Church, attitude of, 223
Antonelli, Cardinal, 159, 163 and _sqq._, 190, 249, 254, 259,
292, 320
_À priori_ and _à posteriori_ methods, 343
---- basis of Papal Infallibility, 351 and _sqq._
Aquinas, St Thomas, 30, 51 and _sqq._
Articles (Four) of 1682, 89 and _sqq._, 93
Augustine, St, 17, 18, 19, 20, 173, 247
Authority in the Church, monarchical theory of, 72, 350 and
_sqq._;
two theories of, 64, 66, 269, 288;
seat of Authority, the Church, 81, 83, 94, 95, 108, 109, 156,
173, 192 and _sqq._, 206, 269, 288, 315, 346.
See also Infallibility of Church, Episcopate, Vincent of
Lerins.
Baine’s Defence, 101
Baronius, 28, 37, 60
Barral, 8
Basle, Council of, alluded to by Bossuet, 95
Bellarmine, 7, 9, 12, 18, 28, 29, 38 and _sqq._, 60 and _sqq._,
72 and _sqq._, 168, 263
Benedict XIII., claims to be above appeal, 57
Bergier’s _Theological Dictionary_, 147
Bertin, 81
Bona, Cardinal, 36
Bossuet, 8, 20 and _sqq._, 26, 28, 29, 38 and _sqq._, 53, 57, 62
and _sqq._, 70, 73, 85 and _sqq._;
His sermon on Unity, 86 and _sqq._;
_Defence of the Declaration_, 93 and _sqq._;
_Exposition_, 96, 107
Botalla, 12, 19
Butler, Charles, 100, 101
Catherine of Sienna, 56
Cecconi, 185, 186, 190, 197, 277
Chrismann, 201
Church. See Authority, Infallibility of the Church, Episcopate,
Tradition
_Civilta Cattolica_, the, 164, 165, 169, 184
Clement VII., 56 and _sqq._
---- XI., 92, 93
Clifford, Bishop, 227, 245, 271
---- Lord, 102
Commission of Suggestions, 251 and _sqq._
Constance, Council of, 60, 61;
alluded to by Bertin, 81;
by Richer, 83;
by Bossuet, 91, 95;
by Darboy, 265
Constitution on Procedure, 230
Council, 28–31, 33–40, 42, 45, 59–66, 74, 77, 83, 95, 348 and
_sqq._;
authority of, 58, 74
Cyprian, St, 14 and _sqq._
Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, 32–34, 43
Darboy, Archbishop, 157 and _sqq._, 187, 265 and _sqq._, 271,
292 and _sqq._
Daru, Count, 249, 250
Dechamps, Archbishop, 165
_Defence of the Declaration_, 93, 94
Delahogue, 107
Development, theory of, 287;
development and immutability of the Faith, 24 and _sqq._, 205
Dieringer, 191
Döllinger, 8, 188 and _sqq._, 209, 210, 232 and _sqq._, 316 and
_sqq._
Dupanloup, Bishop, 154 and _sqq._, 162 and _sqq._, 169 and
_sqq._, 271, 272, 295
Ecumenical Councils, De Maistre’s depreciation of, 148 and
_sqq._
Ecumenicity, test of, 348 and _sqq._
Episcopate, 15, 28, 29, 31, 50, 64, 66, 173, 244, 346 and
_sqq._;
Bossuet on, 87, 95
Errington, Bishop, 104, 105
Eugenius IV., alluded to by Bossuet, 91
Faith, nature of, 4
_Faith of Catholics_, the, 106
Fénelon, theory on temporal and spiritual power, 49
Fessler, 277 and _sqq._, 289, 357 and _sqq._, 362, 365
Flavian, Leo’s letter to, 28, 29
Florence, Council of, 83
_Franzelin_, 25
Friedrich, 210 and _sqq._, 318, 321
Galileo, 180, 359
Gallicanism, 134, 146, 157
Gallitzin, 110
Gasquet, Abbot, 117
Gelasius, 21, 22
German Protestants, attitude of, 221
Gerson, Chancellor, 58, 73
Gosselin, 49, 50
Gratry, 8, 13, 19, 20, 54, 177, 179, 296 and _sqq._
Gregory VII., 49
---- XII., 57 and _sqq._
Gregory the Great _v._ Papal Infallibility, 353
Guibert, Archbishop, 251 and _sqq._, 295
Gladstone, 101
Hadrian VI., 65, 73
Hasenclever, 314 and _sqq._
Haynald, Archbishop, 273
Hefele, Bishop, 26, 37, 43 and _sqq._, 191, 202, 241, 271, 277,
307 and _sqq._
Hohenlohe, Cardinal, 208 and _sqq._, 303
----, Prince, 207 and _sqq._, 305 and _sqq._
Honorius, 22, 32, 33, 35 and _sqq._, 39 and _sqq._, 46, 134,
168, 360;
De Maistre on, 150;
Gratry on, 179
Hurter, 346 and _sqq._
Husenbeth, 101
Immaculate Conception, 229, 248, 255
Implicit and explicit truth, 25
Infallibility, not conferred on St Peter, 7, 8;
Infallibility and authority, 9, 15, 17;
Infallibility of the Church, 77, 94, 110, 111, 115, 168 and
_sqq._, 343.
See Authority
----, Papal, 21, 42;
works out as Infallibility of the Church, 77, 94;
officially denied in Lyons and Rouen, 97;
by English Roman Catholics of eighteenth century, 100;
by _Faith of Catholics_, 106;
nature of Infallibility, 340 and _sqq._;
conditions of its exercise, 357 and _sqq._, cf. 11;
parallel drawn between dogma of Christ’s Divinity and that of
Infallibility, 113 and _sqq._;
doctrine of intention, 360, 361
----, Carson’s list of Infallible utterances, 364
----, Choupin’s list, 363
----, Franzelin’s list, 363
---- and the Council of Trent, 70;
the question not mentioned at beginning of the Vatican
Council, 232, 238
Infallibility, Romanist utterances on:--
Acton, 327 and _sqq._, 333
Aquinas, 30, 51 and _sqq._
Baine, 101
Bellarmine, 73
Bossuet, 89 and _sqq._
Butler, 101
Clifford, 102, 245
Council of Constance, 60, 61
Darboy, 161, 265, 266, 292
Dechamps, 165
Delahogue, 107
Döllinger, 320 and _sqq._
Dupanloup, 162, 170 and _sqq._
Gallitzin, 110
Gratry, 179 and _sqq._
Gregory the Great, 353
Guibert, 251 and _sqq._
Hadrian VI., 65, 84
Hefele, 204, 212, 241, 307
_Janus_, 193
_Keenan’s Catechism_, 111 and _sqq._
Kenrick, 247, 302
Khayath, 213, 215
Krautheimer, 201
Liebermann, 200
De Lisle, 108
Luzerne, 146
Maret, 167 and _sqq._
Melchers, 241, 311
Milner, 110
Munich, Theological Faculty of, 199
Murray, 115, 116
Newman, 282 and _sqq._, 359 and _sqq._
Pie, 255
Purcell, 246
Ryder, 354 and _sqq._
Schulte, 289
Sorbonne, 58
Torquemada, 77; cf. 94, 108
Veron, 84
Wurtzburg, Theological Faculty of, 198, 199
Innocent I., 19
Intention, doctrine of, 360, 361
Irenæus, St, 11 and _sqq._
_Janus_, 27, 54, 182, 192, 193;
_Dublin Review_ on, 195
Jerome, St, 20, 21
John IV., 33
---- XXIII., 60
_Keenan’s Catechism_, 111 and _sqq._
Kenrick, Archbishop, 8, 18, 27, 247, 271, 300 and _sqq._
Ketteler, Bishop, 240, 269
Khayath, Bishop, 213 and _sqq._
Krautheimer, 201
Lacordaire, 154
Lamennais, 153, 169
Langen, 313
Legouvé, 299, 300
Leo II., 35, 38, 40
---- XIII., 15
---- the Great, 364, 365
Letters, three, issued by Pius IX. before the Council, 220 and
_sqq._
_Liber Diurnus_, 35, 36
Liberius, 20, 21, 22
Liebermann, 200 and _sqq._
Liguori, 323
Lisle, A. P. de, 108, 109, 286, 287
Lorraine, Cardinal de, 69
Luzerne, Cardinal, 145 and _sqq._
Maistre, Joseph de, 147 and _sqq._;
Lenormant on, 153
Manning, 104 and _sqq._, 133 and _sqq._, 232
Maret, Bishop, 8, 12, 13, 19, 26, 152, 167, 256, 271, 293
Martin I., 34, 38
---- V., 60 and _sqq._
Melchers, 241, 311
Melchior, Cano, 30, 53
Milner’s _End of Religious Controversy_, 109
Monothelite heresy, 32, 33 and _sqq._
Montalembert, 154, 178, 183 and _sqq._, 198
Murray’s _Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi_, 115, 116
Napoleon and reconstruction of French Episcopate, 143 and _sqq._
---- III., 250
Newman, 130 and _sqq._, 177, 226, 280 and _sqq._, 348, 359 and
_sqq._, 366
_New Regulations_, the, 253 and _sqq._
Nicea, Canon of, on Episcopal consecration, 69
Oriental Churches, attitude of, 221
Orsi, Cardinal, 94
Pastor, 56, 57
Patrizzi, Cardinal, 252 and _sqq._
Paul, St, 5, 12, 16, 20
Perron, Cardinal du, 80 and _sqq._, 107
Perrone, 12, 19, 20
Peter, St, 2 and _sqq._, 12, 14, 16, 17, 67, 68, 72, 75, 86, 87,
167, 168, 244
Pie, Bishop, 255 and _sqq._
Pighius, 73
Pisa, Council of, 59
Pitra, Cardinal, 276
Pius IX., his three letters before the Council, 220 and _sqq._;
his character, 269
Purcell, Bishop, 246
Pusey, 225 and _sqq._
Quirinus, 174 and _sqq._
Quotations from Holy Scripture:--
St Luke xxii. 32, p. 2
Rom. i. 11, p. 5
1 Thess. iii. 2; iii. 13, p. 5
2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 3, p. 6
Heb. i. 12, p. 4
1 Pet. v. 10, p. 6
2 Pet. i. 12, p. 6
Rev. iii. 2, p. 6
Rauscher, Cardinal, 240
Reusch, 311 and _sqq._
Richelieu, Cardinal, 79
Richer, 69, 80, 81
Ryder, 344, 354
Schism, Great, 55, and _sqq._
Schwane, 12, 51, 52, 53, 76, 77, 346
Schwarzenberg, 190 and _sqq._, 271
Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 32 and _sqq._
Sibour, 184
Sirmond, 36
Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 32, 33, 43
Sorbonne, 58, 79 and _sqq._
Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 16, 18
Strossmayer, Bishop, 183, 237, 271
Temporal and spiritual power, 49, 50, 207 and _sqq._;
Bossuet on, 88, 89;
Sibour on, 184;
Fénelon on, 49
Tertullian, 13
Throgmorton, Sir John, 98 and _sqq._, 102
Torquemada, 76, 77 and _sqq._
Tradition, Christian, 13, 22, 24, 50
Trent, Council of, 66, and _sqq._, 70;
appealed to by Veron, 83
Truth, test of. See Vincent of Lerins
Turmel, 30, 38–41, 46, 53
Ullathorne, Bishop, 103, 121, 128, 132, 284, 290
Ultramontane methods of controversy, 262, 325
Ultramontanism, Acton on, 336
Universities, position of in the Church, 85
Urban VI., 56 and _sqq._
Validity of Decrees not imparted by Papal confirmation, 63
Vatican Council, Infallibility not mentioned at the beginning of
it, 232, 238
Veron’s _Rule of Faith_, 83, 84
Veuillot, 177, 181
Vincent of Lerins, St, 22 and _sqq._, 50, 189, 367
Ward, 116, 117, 129
----, Bernard, 100
----, W., 98
Will, relation of human and divine, 341 and _sqq._
Wiseman, Cardinal, 102–104, 119
PRINTED AT THE EDINBURGH PRESS
9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET
Transcriber’s Note
Some inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have
been retained.
This file uses _underscores_ to indicate italic text.
Small capitals changed to all capitals.
“Papautè” changed to “Papauté” in multiple places (Histoire de la
Papauté)
p. ix: changed “einem” to “einen” (Sendschreiben an einen Deutschen
Bischof)
p. ix: changed “de” to “du” (Hist. du Card. Pie.)
p. x: changed “Memoires” to “Mémoires” (Consalvi, Card. Mémoires.)
p. x: changed “addressée” to “adressée” (Lettre sur le futur Concile
Œcuménique adressée)
p. xi: changed “Allemayne” to “Allemagne” (L’Allemagne religieuse)
p. xi: changed “Tridentince” to “Tridentinae” (Disputationes
Tridentinae)
p. xi: changed “Rufinium” to “Rufinum” (Ad Rufinum. De Script Eccles.)
p. xiii: changed “Bischop” to “Bischof” (Kniefall und Fall des Bischof
Ketteler)
p. xiii: changed “Doctrines” to “Doctrinæ” (Vindiciæ Doctrinæ Majorum)
p. 9: changed “Theol” to “Théol” (Hist. Théol. Positive)
p. 121: changed “ilustrates” to “illustrates” (Foreign Review
illustrates the restraints)
p. 127: changed “trangressed” to “transgressed” (which has transgressed
its limits)
p. 144: changed “Memoires” to “Mémoires” (Consalvi, Mémoires.)
p. 190: changed “li.” to “ii.” in footnote (Ibid. ii. p. 331.)
p. 200: changed “Religreuses” to “Religieuses” (Encyclopédie des
Sciences Religieuses)
p. 215: changed “inbibed” to “imbibed” (I imbibed in my youth)
p. 277 (footnote 384): changed “de” to “du” (Histoire du Cardinal Pie)
p. 279: inserted closing single-quote (God has confided to my care.’”)
p. 279: changed “advisible” to “advisable” (if they think it advisable)
p. 301: changed “Altkathliusmus” to “Altkatholicismus” (Schulte, Der
Altkatholicismus)
p. 315: changed “reponse” to “response” (direct response to the
question)
p. 316: changed “apearance” to “appearance” (a very different
appearance)
p. 317: changed “precedure” to “procedure” (of the Roman procedure)
p. 326: added section V name “LORD ACTON’S SUBMISSION”, from printed
page header
p. 332: changed “Bishof” to “Bischof” (an einen Deutschen Bischof)
p. 364 (footnote 470): changed “Encheiridior” to “Enchiridion”