AUTHOR’S PREFACE
TO
THE THIRD EDITION
|
When the publisher, a few weeks
after the appearance of the first edition of my answer to Dr. Schulte, brought
to me the information that a second edition was required, and at the same time
inquired of me whether I wished to alter anything, I told him I knew of
nothing I wished to alter except a few misprints and particular words.
Since then, however, there has appeared a
second enlarged edition of the work of Dr. Schulte, but as no notice was taken
in it of my reply, this must be, I suppose, because both works were passing
through the press at the same time.
Dr. Schulte has made several additions to his second edition, which for
the most part are only directed to confirm or enlarge the ground of the
assertions he has made in his first.
There are, however, some new doctrinal
statements of Popes, discovered by him and added in this second edition,
which for the careful reader of my answer to his first work require no
further refutation, since, at least according to the principles laid down
b me in my answer, and which are not disputed by either side, they cannot
be regarded as ex
cathedrâ utterances, and accordingly do not belong to the subject in hand. I mention, by way of example of such new Papal doctrinal
statements, ‘The Pope has the right to determine for persons how they
ought to dress’ (p. 64 of Dr. S.’s work); and more strange still, ‘That
in religious questions according to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great,
the Emperor is infallible’ (p. 111 of his work). The latter assertion appeared to me certainly a trifle
somewhat too scandalous, and to the honour of this great Pope I thought
that I ought to go into the proofs of this wonderful assertion. But in a lucky moment I perceived that Dr. Schulte did not
mean his words to be taken in earnest, and that he only wished to show
what strange things on the subject of Infallibility might be deduced from
the misunderstood or misinterpreted words of ancient writers, when people
choose to interpret them in a passionate and irrational way.
This, I say, broke upon me, and so I renounced my intention, and I am
satisfied now to regard the statement that in religious questions,
according to the doctrine of Pope Leo the Great, the Emperor is
infallible, as an historical curiosity, which it would be as superfluous
for me to refute, as it would be wearisome to the reader for me to
attempt.
One utterance of this holy Pope I will not, however, omit, and it struck
me, on a fresh perusal of his letters, as very appropriate here.
He says, ‘Veræ fidei sufficit scire, quis doceat,’—‘For the true
faith it is enough to know who is the teacher.’ But
then he is not here speaking of the Emperor, but of the Pope and the
Bishops.
But if the second edition of the pamphlet of Dr. Schulte
has given occasion to no alterations in this third edition of my own work,
the remarks of some others have reached me which will afford me the
opportunity I desire, both of illustrating and of defending the position I
have taken in my pamphlet.
A Vienna reviewer, amidst some cavils which have no great point in them,
thus expresses himself: ‘The sum and substance of the matter on which,
according to Schulte all depends, is the question “Whether the dogma of
Papal Infallibility really reaches to that extent which he assigns to it?”
The principle here involved Fessler does not contest with his
opponent; he admit that not only all future but all earlier utterances of
Popes, if they have been made ex cathedrâ in
the sense already explained, have a claim to the privilege of
Infallibility.’ |
|
|
|
Josef Fessler -
Secretary to the Vatican
Council,
Author of this Work |
|
This is true, of course; but then what this
reviewer designates as the bone of contention between myself and Dr. Schulte,
and wherein he says I admit Dr. Schulte’s ‘principle,’ is really no
question or bone of contention at all between us. On
this point the supporters as well as the adversaries of Papal Infallibility are
agreed, viz. that the definition upon the Infallible teaching office of the
Roman Pontiff comprehends all former as well as all future Popes.
No one whatever in the Vatican Council has
been guilty of the theological absurdity of wishing to define that only Pius IX,
and his successors were infallible, to the exclusion of all former Popes.
The question at issue is quite of a different kind.
It is whether the definition de
fide of the Vatican Council upon the Infallible teaching office of the
Roman Pontiff extends to all the different expressions which a Pope may ever
casually have uttered, either as Briefs or otherwise, and even to acts of the
Popes; or whether this de fide
definition extends solely to those utterances of Popes in past as well as future
times, wherein all the notes, prescribed as belonging to definition on matters
of faith, combine, so as to create an infallible Papal de
fide definition.
This is the question, and in the solution of this I cannot concede an
iota to Dr. Schulte, because I have learnt in the Catholic Church not to explain
away (deuteln) a definition of a General Council (as an Augsburg reviewer
unjustly says to do), but to hold to it exactly and with all my strength, TO ADD
NOTHING TO IT, but at the same time to DETRACT NOTHING FROM IT.
This is the position I assume in this work of mine, this is the gist of
the question between me and my opponents.
The same reviewer as he proceeds in his remarks is guilty of making a
certain mischievous confusion and perversion of theological ideas, which he
hides behind expressions quite foreign to the subject. He says: ‘The one, Fessler, draws his proofs according to
mere theory; the other, Schulte, deals simply and solely with the practical
historical point of view;’ and he adds, ‘the only real contest between the
two lies in the purely theoretical treatment of Infallibility, and in its
practical application.’ To treat
the matter in this way is simply to misunderstand the real point at issue, for
what the reviewer calls ‘practical application’ really means that
straightforward obedience and true submission which a Catholic ought to pay to
the directions and definitions of the Pope.
But it was not the Vatican Council that first introduced this idea of
obedience and submission. This
obligation has existed time out of mind in the Catholic Church, and follows from
the very nature of the Primacy. That,
however, which was defined in the
Vatican Council is another matter altogether, and it is this: that the doctrinal
decisions of the Pope upon faith and morals, provided with all those notes which
were prescribed in the well-weighed definition of the Council, are free from
error. This definition of the
Council has indeed its theoretical, as well as its practical side: the
theoretical asserts that such doctrinal decisions of the Pope, made through
God’s assistance, are free from error; the practical side requires that every
Catholic should, with a full conviction of their perfect and certain truth,
devoutly accept them with that faith which belongs to truth revealed by God, and
deposited in His Holy Church. I may
spare myself the trouble of a longer exposition of this distinction which as its
basis in theology, since the learned Bishop of Paderborn, Conrad Martin, has
explained it so clearly and systematically in his work, The
true Meaning of the Vatican Definition on the Infallible Teaching Office of the
Pope (Paderborn, 1871).
An Augsburg reviewer takes objection to my expression: ‘It is by no
means an established fact amongst Catholic theologians, that the Syllabus with
its eighty propositions belongs to those definitions of doctrine which are to be
characterized as infallible;’ and is of opinion that in saying this I show
that the notes cannot be relied on, which I have given to make it plain how an
utterance of the Pope may be recognized as ex
cathedrâ. I, on the contrary,
find that in this case, as in a hundred others, we can fully rely on the notes
which have been given, for they are really good and sound notes, but yet,
notwithstanding this, the application of these notes to particular cases may
have its difficulties. It is the
business of the science of theology to support the different views of which may
be taken of this question by such arguments as it has at its command, and
probably in this way to bring it to pass that the right view should become the
generally received view.
Should this not take place, then the authoritative decision on the matter
may at any time follow. Before the
Vatican Council was summoned, a Catholic was bound to pay obedience and
submission to the Syllabus; nor has the Vatican Council in any respects altered
this conscientious obligation. The
only question which could arise was, whether the Syllabus possesses those notes
on the face of it, which, according to the doctrinal definition of the fourth
session of the said Council, belong to an utterance of the Pope ex
cathedra.
The ‘Syllabus,’ as its title shows, is nothing but a collection of
those errors of the age that we live in, which Pope Pius in earlier Rescripts of
different dates has declared to be errors, and which accordingly he has
condemned. The condemnation of
errors, according to the traditional practice of the Church, is made in various
forms: sometimes they are condemned as heretical; sometimes as savouring of
heresy; sometimes as schismatic; sometimes simply as erroneous, or false;
sometimes as dangerous, or scandalous, or perverse; sometimes as leading to
heresy, or to schism, or to disobedience to ecclesiastical superiors.
When a particular doctrine has been condemned by the Pope as heretical in
the way designated by the doctrinal definition of the Vatican Council, speaking
of the Infallible teaching office of the Pope;--then, indeed, there can be no
doubt that we have under these circumstances an utterance of the Pope ex
cathedra. But as in the
Syllabus, through the whole catalogue of eighty propositions, designated
generally in the title as ‘Errors’ (Syllabus
errorum), there is nothing to show, as was pointed out above, under what
category of condemned propositions, according to old ecclesiastical usage, a
particular error falls, we are compelled to have recourse to the records or
sources, in which the particular propositions of the Syllabus have been on
previous occasions condemned by Popes, in order to learn whether it is condemned
simply as erroneous, or whether it has some other designation, and notably
whether it has been condemned as heretical.
The Augsburg reviewer further remarks, that whilst I blame Dr. Schulte
for picking out the mere words of the definition, when the quotes the doctrinal
definition of the Vatican Council on the subject of the Infallible teaching
office of the Pope, and excluding the introduction and the reason for the
definition, I complaint of him further on, for printing the whole of the Bull Unam Sanctam.
As it is here laid to me that I am acting inconsistently, I must defend
myself from this charge. What is
seemed to me I had a right to require of Dr. Schulte as an author was, that he
should treat alike the dogmatic definition of the Vatican Council, and the Papal
Constitution Unam Sanctam, by doing as
I had done myself, viz. by pointing out that in both cases the definition de
fide really commences after the solemn formula definimus;
that in both the introduction was very important, not however that it was to be
looked upon as the definition itself. Nor
can I ever think it right that Dr. Schulte should leave out and pass sub
silentio the introduction to the decree of the Vatican Council, calculated
as it is to quiet people’s minds, and, on the other hand, give entire the
introduction of the Bull Unam Sanctam,
this introduction being of a character to disquiet people; and what is still
more unjustifiable, that he should treat this introduction as a doctrinal
definition. And I think I have good
reason to express my dissatisfaction at a proceeding, the sole object of which
was to increase prejudices which were already at work, and to create a sensation
in people’s minds; surely a very unjustifiable proceeding, when the position a
man assumes is that of one who is engaged in an impartial scientific
investigation.
Another reviewer objects to my statement,
that the Bull of Paul IV., Cum
ex Apostolatus officio, of Feb. 15, 1559, is not a doctrinal definition, not
an utterance of the Pope ex cathedrâ, but
merely a disciplinary statute, and he adds that my proof of this is nothing but
the title of the Bull; so he concludes: ‘According to this theory it is not
the contents of a Rescript, but the whim of the rubrical commentator upon it,
that has to decide upon the right of a Papal Bull to be considered as an ex cathedrâ utterance, and thus to determine the gravest questions
of conscience! Miserable
subterfuge!’
Here I must be allowed, in a few words, to throw some light upon this
passage of my critic, in order to show up his dishonest way of conducting a
controversy. He says that I bring
forward nothing but the title of the Bull in the Bullarium,
‘so that it is not the contents of the Bull but the whim of the rubrical
commentator which has to decide upon the properties of a Papal Bull;’ and he
permits himself to bewail my ‘miserable subterfuge.’
What I really said was, p. 73, ‘This title which gives a true account
of its contents, is of itself enough,’ &c.
No one surely could direct attention to the contents of the Bull in
question more plainly and definitely that I did in these words; but at the same
time, to make it quite clear to my readers that the Bull really is a papal
enactment, the following words out of the contents of the Bull itself will not
be out of place here. Sec.
2 of the Bull says: ‘Habita cum S.R.E. Cardinalibus deliberatione matura, de
eorum consilio et unanimi assensu omnes et singulas escommunicationis,
suspensionis, et interdicti, ac privationis, et quasvis alias sententias,
censuras et pœnas a quibusvis Romanis Pontificibus prædecessoribus nostris,
aut pro talibus habitis, etiam per eorum literas extravagantes, seu sacris
Conciliis ab Ecclesia Dei receptis, vel Sanctorum Patrum decretis et statutis,
aut sacris Canonibus ac Constitutionibus et Ordinationibus Apostolicis contra hæreticos
aut schismaticos quomodolibet latas, et promulgatas Apostolicâ auctoritate
approbamus et innovamus,’ &c.
The words of the contents of the Bull in question which I have here
printed from also the title of this
Bull, as I quoted in p. 73 of my pamphlet; this any one may easily convince
himself of by comparing the words in both places.
And yet it is in this very case that my opponent ventures openly to
assert that I have made use of a ‘miserable subterfuge’ in drawing my proofs
not from the contents of the Bull, but from the title alone; the fact being that
I did expressly refer to the contents, and only for the sake of brevity quoted
the words of the title, which were identical with the contents, instead of the
contents of the Bull, which I have just given to my readers.
These are the sort of opponents with whom one has to deal.
When this same opponent of the Vatican definition further says, ‘Bishop
Fessler himself does not venture to deny that the Bull concerns doctrine de moribus,’ I answer, ‘The contents of this Bull concern morals
certainly, if you reckon all penal enactments as doctrine de moribus.’ Whether
my opponent does so or not, I do not know.
But this I do know, that mere penal enactments do not belong to the
infallible doctrinal definitions de fide
et moribus, of which the definition of the Vatican Council on the Infallible
office of the Pope treats, and that this Bull of Paul IV. is
a penal enactment and not a doctrinal
definition. If he will take the
trouble to read through the old Roman and later imperial penal enactments
against heretics, he will find whence the specially designated penalties are
derived to which he takes objection in this Bull of Paul IV.
When the Augsburg reviewer says in conclusion: ‘It is impossible to
discover from what, according to Dr. Fessler, a person is to draw the perfect
removal of his apprehensions; no proof, no logical reason is presented to us
that anything which a Pope solemnly enunciates, which he has had signed by the
Cardinals and sent to all Bishops, may not have the weight of a definition in
the sense of the Vatican Council,’—I thereupon point to the simple, literal,
dogmatic, and logical explanation of the meaning of the definition of the
Council in pages 41 to 47 of my pamphlet as the ‘proof and logical reason’
for my statement. Indeed, I know no
proof which could be more complete, and no reason which could better meet all
the requirements of sound logic. And
up to this time this exposition of the subject has been contested by neither
side.
Another reviewer thinks he has discovered the following contradictions,
as he calls it, in my pamphlet, because in p. 58 I assert that the well-known
Brief Multiplices inter of Pius IX.,
one of the most important sources of the Syllabus, in which certain doctrines
amongst others are condemned as heretical,
is not a dogmatic definition; and yet on p. 70 I admit that it is a sure sign in
theology of a dogmatic definition, if a doctrine is condemned by the Pope as heretical. Here I do
not know that I can do better than publicly request the learned discoverer of
this contradiction to be so good as to name to me one single doctrine which is
declared expressly by the Pope in the Brief Multiplices
inter to be heretical.
If he does this, I will readily admit him to be right, but not
otherwise.
Finally, to those of my readers who are anxious about the fidelity of
quotations from the Holy Scriptures, I must acknowledge my obligation to give
them a trifling explanation. The
question concerns the words of Christ to St. Peter: ‘I have prayed for thee
that thy faith fail not; and do thou in turn one day strengthen thy brethren’
(p. 36); upon which translation the Augsburg reviewer remarks: ‘The author
quotes, we know not why, the passage incorrectly, for it runs, “Do thou, when
thou has converted thyself, strengthen,” &c.’
I will tell him why I quoted this passage as I did.
I did so because, following Dr. Schulte, I made use of Dr. Molitor’s
translation of the ‘Dogmatic Constitution upon the Church of Christ’ without
alteration, as the attentive reader will have already observed from my pamphlet
itself, where I expressly said so, and because this translation of Dr. Molitor
gives this passage as it appears in my work, p. 36.
The reviewer may see the reasons why this passage is so translated by
consulting those commentators on Scripture who have paid particular attention to
the Hebrew modes of speech.
THE
TRUE
AND THE FALSE INFALLIBILITY
OF
THE POPES
_____________________
When a man, who for a course of years has passed for a true son of
the Catholic Church and a zealous defender of her rights, suddenly turns against
the Pope and Bishops with the sharpest weapons he can command, no one can deny
that this is a painful sight for every one who loves his Church.
Enemies of the Church will, indeed, rejoice, and eagerly greet his
accession to their own ranks. Such a man is Dr. Schulte, Professor of Canon and German Law
at the University of Prague, who has just published a pamphlet with this
high-sounding title, ‘The Power of the Roman Pontiffs over Sovereigns,
Countries, Peoples, Individuals, according to their Doctrines and Acts, held up
to the Light, in order to afford persons the means of making a true estimate of
their claim to Infallibility.’ Misleading
indeed is the light this pamphlet holds up for our guidance, the subject being
really presented to our view in a light wholly false and extremely repulsive.
Surely love of true imperatively requires that so grave a subject should
at any rate be represented in its just and fair light; and this is the object
the author of the following pages has set before himself, viz. to present the
subject to his readers, without passion and without partiality, with that
knowledge which many years’ study, and an exact acquaintance with facts and
circumstances, enable him to do.
The subject, as treated by Dr. Schulte, is divided into the following
heads:
I. Exposition of the subject as introduction.’
II. ‘The contents of the definition of the Vatican Council, “On the
Infallible teaching Office of the Roman Pontiff.
III. Part 1.—‘Doctrinal
propositions of Popes simply ex cathedrâ,
and their acts in relation to states, countries, peoples, and individuals.’
IV. Part 2.—Relations of Popes to
the state-law. Treatment of
heretics.
V. ‘Pleas devised to quiet the conscience, and their confutation.’
VI. ‘Considerations on the law of the state.’
FOOTNOTES