CHAPTER XX
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”