theological advisers. Bishop Hefele, of Rottenburg, who has forgotten more about the history of Councils than the infallible Pope ever knew, after delaying till April 10, 1871, submitted, not because he had changed his conviction, but, as he says, because the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it;' i. e., truth must be sacrificed to peace. Bishop Maret, who wrote two learned volumes against Papal Infallibility and in defense of Gallicanism, declared in his retractation that he wholly rejects every thing in his work which is opposed to the dogma of the Council,' and 'withdraws it from sale.' Archbishop Kenrick yielded, but has not refuted his Concio habenda at non habita, which remains an irrefragable argument against the new dogma. Even Strossmayer, the boldest of the bold in the minority, lost his courage, and keeps his peace. Darboy died a martyr in the revolt of the communists of Paris, in April, 1871. In a conversation with Dr. Michaud, Vicar of St. Madeleine, who since seceded from Rome, he counseled external and official submission, with a mental reservation, and in the hope of better times. His successor, Msgr. Guibert, published the decrees a year later (April, 1872), without asking the permission of the head of the French Republic. Of those opponents who, though not members of the Council, carried as great weight as any Prelate, Montalembert died during the Council; Newman kept silence; Père Gratry, who had declared and proved that the question of Honorius is totally gangrened by fraud,' wrote from his death-bed at Montreux, in Switzerland (Feb. 1872), to the new Archbishop of Paris, that he submitted to the Vatican Council, and effaced 'every thing to the contrary he may have written."1

It is said that the adhesion of the minority Bishops was extorted by the threat of the Pope not to renew their 'quinquennial faculties' (facultates quinquennales), that is, the Papal licenses renewed every five

years, permitting them to exercise extraordinary episcopal functions which ordinarily belong to the Pope, as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, duties of fasting, the power of permitting the reading of prohibited.

'See details on the reception and publication of the Vatican decrees in Friedberg, pp. 53 sqq., 775 sqq.; Frommann, pp. 215-230; on Gratry, the Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, Sept. 1871, p. 236.

books (for the purpose of refutation), marrying within prohibited degrees, etc.1

But, aside from this pressure, the following considerations sufficiently explain the fact of submission.

1. Many of the dissenting Bishops were professedly anti-Infallibilists, not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of expediency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke the hostility of secular governments, and inflict great injury on Catholic interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved that their apprehension was well founded.

2. All Roman Bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope, which binds them to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his successors.'

3. The minority Bishops defended Episcopal infallibility against Papal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to the Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an oecumenical Council, and forfeiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision of the Council, or give up their theory, cease to be Roman Catholics, and run the risk of a new schism.

At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the fearful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which overrules the stubborn facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For the facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the Council by such men as Kenrick, Hefele, Rauscher, Maret, Schwarzenberg, and Dupanloup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On the one hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thorough study of the most learned divines of the Roman Church, on the other ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture and tradition; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on the other theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the just exercise of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys reason and conscience. But truth must and will prevail at last.

See the article Facultäten, in WETZER und WELTE's Kirchenlexikon oder Encyklop. der katholischen Theologie, Vol. III. pp. 879 sqq.

§ 34. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY EXPLAINED, AND TESTED BY TRADITION AND

SCRIPTURE.

Literature.

I. FOR INFALLIBILITY.

The older defenders of Infallibility are chiefly BELLARMIN, BALLERINI, LITTA, Alphons de Liguori (whom the Pope raised to the dignity of a doctor ecclesiæ, March 11, 1872), Card. ORSI, PERRONE, and JoSEPH COUNT DE MAISTRE (Sardinian statesman, d. at Turin Feb. 26, 1821, author of Du Pape, 1819; new edition, Paris, 1843, with the Homeric motto: els Koipavos eσTW).

During and after the Vatican Council: the works of Archbishops MANNING and DECHAMPS, already quoted, pp. 134, 135.

Jos. CARDONI (Archbishop of Edessa, in partibus): Elucubratio de dogmatica Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate ejusque Definibilitate, Romæ (typis Civilitatis Cattolica), 1870 (May, 174 pp.). The chief work on the Papal side, clothed with a semi-official character.

HERMANN RUMP: Die Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes und die Stellung der in Deutschland verbreiteten theologischen Lehrbücher zu dieser Lehre, Münster, 1870 (173 pp.).

FRANZ FRIEDHOFF (Prof. at Münster): Gegen-Erwägungen über die päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit, Münster, 1869 (21 pp.). Superficial.

FLOR RIESS and Karl von Weber (Jesuits): Das Oekum. Concil. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Neue Folge, No. X. Die päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit und der alte Glaube der Kirche, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870 (110 pp.). G. BIOKEL: Gründe für die Unfehlbarkeit des Kirchenoberhauptes nebst Widerlegung der Einwürfe, Münster, 1870.

Rev. P. WENINGER (Jesuit): L'infaillibilité du Pape devant la raison et l'écriture, les papes et les conciles, les pères et les théologiens, les rois et les empereurs. Translated from the German into French by P. BELET. (Highly spoken of by Pius IX. in a brief to Abbé Bélét, Nov. 17, 1869; see Friedberg, l. c. p. 487. Weninger wrote besides several pamphlets on Infallibility in German, Innsbruck, 1841; Graz, 1853; in English, New York and Cincinnati, 1868. Archbishop Kenrick, in his Concio, speaks of him as 'a plous and extremely zealous but ignorant man,' whom he honored with the charity of silence' when requested to recommend one of his books.)

Widerlegung der vier unter die Väter des Concils vertheilten Brochüren gegen die Unfehlbarkeit (transl. of Animadversiones in quatuor contra Romani Pontificis infallibilitatem editos libellos), Münster, 1870. Bishop Jos. FESSLER: Die wahre und die falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Päpste (against Prof. von Schulte), Wien, 1871.

Bishop KETTELER: Das unfehlbare Lehramt des Papstes, nach der Entscheidung des Vaticanischen Concila, Mainz, 1871, 3te Aufl.

M. J. SCHEEBEN: Schulte und Dillinger, gegen das Concil. Kritische Beleuchtung, etc., Regensburg, 1871. AMEDÉE DE MARGERIE: Lettre au R. P. Gratry sur le Pape Honorius et le Bréviaire Romain, Nancy, 1870. PAUL BOTTALA (S. J.): Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History, London, 1868.

II. AGAINST INFALLIBILITY.

(a) By Members of the Council.

Mgr. H. L. C. MARET (Bishop of Sura, in part., Canon of St. Denis and Dean of the Theological Faculty in Paris): Du Concile général et de la paix religieuse, Paris, 1869, 2 Tom. (pp. 554 and 555). An elaborate defense of Gallicanism; since revoked by the author, and withdrawn from sale.

PETER RICHARD KENRICK (Archbishop of St. Louis): Concio in Concilio Vaticano habenda at non habita, Neapoli (typis fratrum de Angelis in via Pellegrini 4), 1870. Reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp. 187– 226. An English translation in L. W. Bacon's An Inside View of the Vatican Council, New York, pp. 90–166. QUESTIO (no place or date of publication). A very able Latin dissertation occasioned and distributed (perhaps partly prepared) by Bishop KETTELER, of Mayence, during the Council. It was printed but not published in Switzerland, in 1870, and reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp. 1-128.

La liberté du Concile et l'infaillibilité. Written or inspired by DARBOY, Archbishop of Paris. Only fifty copies were printed, for distribution among the Cardinals. Reprinted in Friedrich, Documenta, I. pp. 129-186.

Card. RAUSCHER: Observationes quædam de infallibilitatis ecclesiæ subjecto, Neapoli and Vindobonæ, 1870 (83 pp.).

De Summi Pontificis infallibilitate personali, Neapoli, 1870 (32 pp.). Written by Prof. SALESIUS MAYER, and distributed in the Council by Cardinal Schwarzenberg.

JOS. DE HEFELE (Bishop of Rottenburg, formerly Prof. at Tübingen): Causa Honorii Papæ, Neap. 1870 (pp. 28). The same: Honorius und das sechste allgemeine Concil (with an appendix against Pennachi, 43 pp.), Tübingen, 1870. English translation, with introduction, by Dr. HENRY B. SMITH, in the Presby terian Quarterly and Princeton Review, New York, for April, 1872, pp. 273 sqq. Against Hefele comp. Jos. PENNACHI (Prof. of Church History in Rome): De Honorii I. Pontificis Romani causa in Concilio VI.

(b) By Catholics, not Members of the Council.

JANUS: The Pope and the Council, 1869. See above, p. 134.

Erwägungen für die Bischöfe des Conciliums über die Frage der päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeit, Oct. 1869. Dritte Aufl. München. [By J. VON DÖLLINGER.]

J. VON DÖLLINGER: Einige Worte über die Unfehlbarkeitsadresse, etc., München, 1870.

Jos. H. REINKENS (Prof. of Church History in Breslau): Ueber päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit, München, 1870. CLEMENS SCHMITZ (Cath. Priest): Ist der Papst unfehlbar? Aus Deutschlands und des P. Deharbe Catechismen beantwortet, München, 1870.

J. FR. RITTER VON SCHULTE (Prof. in Prague, now in Bonn): Das Unfehlbarkeits-Decret vom 18 Juli 1870 auf seine Verbindlichkeit geprüft, Prague, 1870. Die Macht der rom, Päpste über Fürsten, Länder, Völker, etc. seit Gregor VII. zur Würdigung ihrer Unfehlbarkeit beleuchtet, etc., 2d edition, Prague. The same, translated into English (The Power of the Roman Popes over Princes, etc.), by Alfred Somers [a brother of Schulte], Adelaide, 1871.

A. GRATRY (Priest of the Oratoire and Member of the French Academy): Four Letters to the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup) and the Archbishop of Malines (Dechamps), in French, Paris, 1870; several editions, also translated into German, English, etc. These learned and eloquent letters gave rise to violent controversies. They were denounced by several Bishops, and prohibited in their dioceses; approved by others, and by Montalembert. The Pope praised the opponents. Against him wrote Dechamps (Three Letters to Gratry, in French; German translation, Mayence, 1870) and A. de Margerie. Gratry recanted on his death-bed.

P. LE PAGE RENOUF: The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, London, 1868.

ANTONIO MAGRASSI: Lo Schema sull' infallibilità personale del Romano Pontefice, Alessandria, 1870. Della pretesa infallibilità personale del Romano Pontefice, 2d ed. Firenze, 1870 (anonymous, 80 pp.). J. A. B. LUTTERBECK: Die Clementinen und ihr Verhältniss zum Unfehlbarkeitsdogma, Giessen, 1872 (pp. 85). JOSEPH LANGEN (Old Catholic Prof. in Bonn): Das Vaticanische Dogma von dem Universal-Episcopat und der Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes in 8. Verh. zur exeg. Ueberlieferung vom 7 bis zum 13ten Jahrh. 3 Parts. Bonn, 1871-73.

The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary and the personal infallibility of the Pope are the characteristic dogmas of modern Romanism, the two test dogmas which must decide the ultimate fate of this system. Both were enacted under the same Fope, and both faithfully reflect his character. Both have the advantage of logical consistency from certain premises, and seem to be the very perfection of the Romish form of piety and the Romish principle of authority. Both rest on pious fiction and fraud; both present a refined idolatry by clothing a pure humble woman and a mortal sinful man with divine attributes. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which exempts the Virgin Mary from sin and guilt, perverts Christianism into Marianism; the dogma of Infallibility, which exempts the Bishop of Rome from error, resolves Catholicism into Papalism, or the Church into the Pope. The worship of a woman is virtually substituted for the worship of Christ, and a man god in Rome for the God-Man in heaven. This is a severe judgment, but a closer examination will sustain it.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, being confined to the sphere of devotion, passed into the modern Roman creed without serious difficulty; but the dogma of Papal Infallibility, which involves a question of absolute power, forms an epoch in the history of Romanism, and created the greatest commotion and a new secession. It is in its very nature the most fundamental and most comprehensive of

of all dogmas. It contains the whole system in a nutshell. It constitutes a new rule of faith. It is the article of the standing or falling Church. It is the direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. It establishes a perpetual divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may hereafter say, I believe-not because Christ, or the Bible, or the Church,. but-because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded. Admitting this dogma, we admit not only the whole body of doctrines contained in the Tridentine standards, but all the official Papal bulls, including the mediæval monstrosities of the Syllabus (1864), the condemnation of Jansenism, the bull Unam Sanctam' of Boniface VIII. (1302), which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope the double sword, the secular as well as the spiritual, over the whole Christian world, and the power to depose princes and to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance.' The past is irreversibly settled, and in all future controversies on faith and morals we must look to the same unerring tribunal in the Vatican. Even oecumenical Councils are superseded hereafter, and would be a mere waste of time and strength.

On the other hand, if the dogma is false, it involves a blasphemous assumption, and makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of St. Paul's prophecy of the man of sin, who as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself off that he is God' (2 Thess. ii. 4). Let us first see what the dogma does not mean, and what it does

mean.

It does not mean that the Pope is infallible in his private opinions. on theology and religion. As a man, he may be a heretic (as Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII.), or even an unbeliever (as John XXIII.,

'This bull has been often disowned by Catholics (e. g., by the Universities of Sorbonne, Louvain, Alcala, Salamanca, when officially asked by Mr. Pitt, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1788, also by Martin John Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore, in his Lectures on Evidences, 1866), and, to some extent, even by Pius IX. (see Friedberg, p. 718), but it is unquestionably official, and was renewed and approved by the fifth Lateran Council, Dec. 19, 1516. Paul III. and Pius V. acted upon it, the former in excommunicating and deposing Henry VIII. of England, the latter in deposing Queen Elizabeth, exciting her subjects to rebellion, and urging Philip of Spain to declare war against her (see the Bullarium Rom., Camden, Burnet, Froude, etc.). The Papal Syllabus sanctions it by implication, in No. 23, which condemns as an error the opinion that Roman Pontiffs have exceeded the limits of their power.