TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION
|
This important work of the
lamented Dr. Fessler, Bishop of St. Polten, or more properly St. Hippolytus, in
Austria, who was Secretary-General to the Vatican Council in the year 1870, and
who, worn out with the fatigues of the Council, died two years afterwards, is
now for the first time brought before the notice of English Catholics.
Entitled by the good Bishop himself The
True and False Infallibility of the Pope, it presents to the reader a
perfect ‘repertorium’ of all the stock objections and erroneous
representations, both as regards the doctrine itself, and as regards the history
of previous Papal rescripts and acts, that the fertile mind and extensive
reading of Dr. Schulte, Professor of Canon and German Law in the University of
Prague, could ingeniously pile together and misconstrue, in order to bring odium
upon all Papal Bulls and Papal acts from, as he says, the time of Pope Gregory
VII.
These misstatements and misconstructions Bishop Fessler, with
extraordinary labour and patience, has met and refuted one by one.
The refutations remained unanswered during the Bishop’s lifetime, nor
have we heard of Dr. Schulte having attempted any answer since his death,
although he has gone on reiterating his former statements.
It is the old story of ‘mumpsimus.’
Nevertheless, as this particular mumpsimus is of German extraction, it
has been thought that it would not be amiss, while German meets German in this
strife of the True and of the False Infallibility, they should carry on the
battle in English, that we, who have an equal interest in the issue of the
contest, may hear both sides, and judge for ourselves which is the true
and which the false.
And it is this which constitutes the special merit of Bishop Fessler’s
work, that, in this properly German quarrel, it states fairly all that Dr.
Schulte has to say on his own side, so that although we have not actually his
book before us, we can hear him speak both in the titles of the chapters and in
the propositions brought forward, all of which are given in Dr. Schulte’s own
words; thus the reader, be he Catholic or be he Protestant, may see for himself
what has been said on the part of those who have tried to make Infallibility
impossible, by the process of reductio ad
absurdum, and what by those who calmly and dispassionately have endeavoured
to bring it back to its true significance.
It is strange that considering the general interest of the subject, the
comprehensive character of the work, its general acceptation in Germany, and,
lastly, the author’s thorough knowledge of his subject, which his peculiar
position during the Council, as its Secretary-General, enabled him to obtain,
that so valuable a work should have remained so long untranslated. And this becomes the more remarkable when we consider that
after the first edition had been sent to Rome, and there thoroughly examined and
approved, the second and third editions were published after the Pope himself
had written to Bishop Fessler commending him for having, by means of this work,
‘as a good pastor done good service to our holy religion,’ and exhorting him
to go on ‘bringing back Christian people from poisoned pastures;’ the
particular ‘poisoned pastures’ indicated by the Pope being evidently those
false and exaggerated notions of Infallibility which Dr. Schulte and others of
his tamps have been engaged in propagating.
|
|
 |
|
Father Ambrose Maria St John
(Translator of this Work) |
|
It will be a further good result of the present controversy if it brings
us to see the danger of all exaggerated statements, even when made with good
intentions, for it is precisely to these statements that the now open
adversaries of the Church appeal, in order to place the true doctrine before
their dupes in an odious form. And
this good result has already followed from the French translation, edited by M.
Emmanuel Cosquin, editor of the Français. It has ‘put the question before many, who has been made
anxious by exaggerated statements, in a way which rendered it quite easy of
acceptance.’ The existence of
this translation was, I regret to say, not known to me until my own translation
from the original was completed; in fact the editor kindly sent me a copy when
he say my advertisement of the pamphlet in the newspapers, accompanied with the
obliging permission to make use of his prefatory matter, his valuable notes from
the ‘Pastoral Instruction’ of the Swiss Bishops, and the useful and
comprehensive indices at the end of his edition. As a most valuable confirmation of the position assumed by
Bishop Fessler, I would prefer my readers to M. Cosquin’s two notes, which I
have translated from the French, and appended to the second chapter of this
work.
That Bishop Fessler was really the exponent of the mind of most of the
German Bishops, and in particular that his work exercised a special influence on
the learned historian of the Councils, Mgr. Hefele, Bishop of Rothenburg, will
be sufficiently shown by the following letter, translated from the Germania,
the organ of the Catholics of Berlin, whose editor, Herr Majunke, although a
deputy in the German Assembly, is now undergoing his sentence, as a confessor
for the Faith, in a common German
prison.
Extract from the Roman correspondent of the Germania
of Berlin, of Nov. 3, 1872:
‘Rome, Oct. 26
‘The letter of Bishop Hefele, which has lately been published, gave
rise to an explanation on the part of this prelate; as a result of which the
following information came to my knowledge, which, on account of its high
importance, I think I ought not to withhold from your readers, and so much the
more as it concerns our lately deceased and universally honoured Bishop of St.
Polten. Mgr. Fessler, who was on
very intimate terms with Dr. Hefele, the Bishop of Rothenburg, sent to him,
accompanied with a most affectionate letter, expressive of all those feelings
which he entertained towards him as a brother in the Episcopal office, a copy of
the work which he had composed On the True
and False Infallibility of the Popes, then just published by Sartori of
Vienna. At the same time he had
forwarded his pamphlet to all the other Bishops, no matter what opinion they
might have held before the 18th of July 1870.
From most of the Bishops Mgr. Fessler received the most sincere
congratulations in respect of the work which he had just composed. The Bishop of St. Polten had also previously forwarded it to
Pius IX. The Pope had thereupon
directed a translation of it to be made into Italian, and instructed a
commission of learned theologians of different nationalities to examine it, and
report upon it. Both of these
commands were put into execution without delay.
The Pope made himself thoroughly acquainted with the contents of Bishop
Fessler’s work, and as his own judgment of it fully corresponded with the
judgment of the commission, he wrote a letter with his own hand to the Bishop of
St. Polten, praising him for this highly valuable work, and begging him to
persevere in the laborious task he had undertaken of correcting the erroneous
opinions which had been spread abroad in various directions.
Upon the receipt of this Brief Bishop Fessler published a second and
third edition of his pamphlet. The
Bishop of Rothenburg, however, had declared that although after a thorough
examination he perfectly agreed in principle with Fessler’s defence of the
Vatican definition against Dr. Schulte’ pamphlet, still he doubted if the
views there maintained would be accepted as sound at Rome. Hereupon the Bishop of St. Polten told him what had happened
at Rome about his work, and mentioned that he had received from the Pope himself
a letter avowing his satisfaction with it; he also gave Mgr. Hefele this further
consoling assurance, that both he himself and many other bishops who gave their votum
in favour of Infallibility had held this view of the Infallibility of the Pope. The deceased prelate was, however, too simple and too modest
to allow this Brief of the Holy Father to be printed in the preface to the
second edition of hi work.’
The same journal, the Germania,
adds the following editorial comment on the above: ‘The Pastoral Letter of the
Bishop of Rothenburg of April 10, 1871, in which he published the Vatican
Decree, testifies to the correctness of our Roman correspondent, by the frequent
quotations it makes of Bishop Fessler’s work On the True and False Infallibility.’
It has been the apparently inevitable result of all Councils that
whilst they have settled and confirmed the faith of many, they have left some
still anxious as to the exact meaning of the definitions of the fathers there
assembled, viz. whether they were to be interpreted with this or that
limitation; the question with such persons being, not whether god had spoken by
the Council, but whether in what the Council had said, He had meant this or
that. The Vatican Council has been
no exception to this rule. But how
soon and how readily difficulties have been made up since the definition of the
Infallibility of the Pope in his teaching office! The chief country of these difficulties was Germany, and what
has been the spectacle presented to our view since the definition of
Infallibility, and the publication of Bishop Fessler’s pamphlet upon its true
meaning? Those Bishops who doubted
the opportuneness of the definition, or who in other ways hesitated to receive
it, and who, for conscience’ sake, absented themselves from the final and
decisive session,
have since become the chief confessors and witnesses of the doctrine, before a
cruel and persecuting government! Nor
has any word of reproach against the Council or the Holy See escaped them in
their many trials. Never has any
Episcopate been more unanimous, or more patiently endured persecution for the
faith. On the other side, viz. of
those who have denied the authority of the living Church, speaking in her last
and most numerous assembly, what is the spectacle which is presented to us by
Dr. Schulte and his friends at the present moment?
Not content with assailing the Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX, they
assail all Councils, all sayings and doings of Popes since the first eight
centuries, differing therein in nothing but name from other Protestant and
heretical sects, whose principle is really identical with their own.
Both the one and the other have their reward: the one, the Archbishop of
Cologne, is earning a martyr’s crown in the common goal, condemned like a
felon to forced labour;
the other, Dr. Schulte, has been rewarded with a professorship at the University
of Bonn!
Here I will conclude this Introduction with a short notice of this
gentleman, Bishop Fessler’s opponent, Dr. Schulte, whose name has so much
prominence in the following pages; it is taken from M. Cosquin’s introduction
to the French translation.
‘Dr. Schulte is a Westphalian by birth, up to the present time (1873)
Professor of Canon and German Law at the University of Prague, and a short time
since appointed by the Prussian Government to a chair at the University of Bonn.
For a long time he enjoyed a well-earned reputation as a canonist, not
only by reason of his erudition and the originality which distinguished his
works, but also by his strict orthodoxy. The
only reproach brought against his writings was their incompleteness, and the
obscure form into which they were thrown. About
the year 1862, tendencies to unsound doctrines manifested themselves in him, and
from the year 1868 these tendencies became more and more pronounced.
In 1869 his hand was thought to be seen in the odious compilation, the Pope
and the Council, published under the assumed name of “Janus.”
Finally, at the commencement of 1871 he published under his own name the
first of a number of pamphlets, by which he has gained for himself a sad renown
amongst the enemies of the Church. This
pamphlet, published at Prague, has the interminable title: “The Power of the
roman Popes over Princes, Countries, Peoples, and Individuals examined by the
Light of their Doctrines and their Acts since the Reign of Gregory VII., to
serve for the appreciation of their Infallibility, and set face to face with
contradictory doctrines of the Popes and the Councils of the first Eight
Centuries.”
‘On the appearance of this pamphlet there was a burst of admiration
from all the “free-thinking” journals of Austria and imperial Germany.
One Vienna newspaper, the Press,
declared that all the attacks which had been hitherto directed against the
doctrine of Infallibility were but as the prickings of a pin in comparison with
the terrible blows dealt by the mace of Dr. Schulte.
‘This pamphlet Mgr. Fessler though it his duty not to leave unanswered,
which gave rise to the composition of the work which is now presented to our
readers.
‘In this refutation the able prelate follows step by step, chapter by
chapter, the reasoning of his opponent, pointing out the unfair treatment which
the instruction given by the Council meets with at his hands; explaining at the
same time the true doctrine, re-establishing the true import of the facts
adduced, and cautioning his readers against false interpretations of them.
When, with a somewhat slow, perhaps, but sure, progress he has arrived at
the end of his elucidations, he draws his inevitable conclusions, and of this
whole work of Dr. Schulte there remains – NOTHING.
‘Dr. Schulte had asserted that the definition of the Infallibility of
the Pope has completely altered the relations between the spiritual and the
temporal power. The object of his
work was, as he says, “to show governors and governed what a Catholic is in
conscience obliged to believe if he admits the Infallibility of the Pope.”
So he drew up from the declarations and acts of the Popes of the Middle
Ages a catalogue of what he called doctrinal propositions, which he presented to
his horror-stricken readers as the decision of the Infallible teaching office of
the Sovereign Pontiffs, and so, of course, since the Council of the Vatican, as
Catholic dogmas. If it can be shown that all that Dr. Schulte so laboriously
quotes has nothing whatever to do with Infallibility, his book is answered, and
falls as a dead letter. This feat
it is that Mgr. Fessler has so victoriously performed. The result of an investigation of passage after passage,
quoted by Dr. Schulte, shows that they none of them can be regarded as
infallible definitions on faith and morals.
Accordingly, Catholics when they accept, as is their duty, the
constitution of the Council no the Infallible teaching office of the Roman
Pontiff, are in no wise bound to believe what Dr. Schulte asserts they are, in
regard to these assumed doctrinal propositions of Popes.
‘Mgr. Fessler might have confined himself to this reply. But in behalf of those of his readers who might possibly have
been perplexed regarding certain acts and declarations of Popes quoted by Dr.
Schulte, although those acts and declarations do not constitute an object of the
Catholic faith, the prudent Bishop has not neglected to indicate in a few short
remarks at the end of his work the principal points of view, from which a right
appreciation of these acts, &c., may best be obtained.
Such in the abstract is the work of Mgr. Fessler, in which he has refuted
by anticipation the theories which, with so much assurance, M. de Bismarck
brought before his audience in the discourse which he pronounced in the Prussian
Upper House on the 10th of March last, 1873.
Important documents well known in France, the collective declaration of
the German Bishops of May 1871, the “Pastoral Instruction” of the Swiss
Bishops, have already set the principles drawn out in form by Mgr. Fessler
before the eyes of such of my readers who are not theologians.
People have seen in a general way how these principles have to be applied
to Bulls and other Papal documents, of which the adversaries of Infallibility
endeavour to avail themselves. But
the great advantage of this work of Mgr. Fessler, and that which gives it a
particular interest, is the application this author makes of these principles to
such numerous examples. All that
the adversaries of the doctrine have drawn from history in order to assail it
has furnished the illustrious prelate with the opportunity of placing these very
facts in their true light. Thus has
he been able to show to men of good-will, but hitherto imperfectly instructed in
the matter, that the doctrine against which their understanding rebelled is not
the true Infallibility defined by the Council of the Vatican, but the creation
of ignorance and of passion—in fact, “a false Infallibility.”’
With these concluding words of the distinguished editor of the Francais the work of Bishop Fessler is presented to the reader, in
the hope that he will derive the same comfort and edification which it has
afforded to many others.
AMBROSE ST. JOHN, OF THE ORATORY
Edgbaston,
Jan. 10, 1875
FOOTNOTES