Papal
Infallibility Becomes Dogma
by Michael
Whelton
( Excerpt
taken from the book Two Paths )
On September 8th, 1713, Pope
Clement XI issued a Bull, Unigenitus, which among other things
condemned the proposition that reading of the bible is for everyone, 1 and seemed to exalt the efficacy
of grace to the point of destroying liberty. It also appeared
to limit the Church to the predestined only. 2 The storm of protest that arose
against it proves conclusively that 18th century Catholic Europe
had little notion of Papal Infallibility. This Papal Bull almost
brought France to the brink of schism 3 and the Austrian Emperor forbade
the Bull Unigenitus in his territories.4
This Bull sparked a debate as to the limits of papal authority. Sicilian
seminaries were teaching their students that General Councils were supreme
over the Pope and were using Unigenitus to show how Popes could
err.5 Everywhere, the battle over Unigenitus
caused a decline in the reputation of the See of Rome as a teacher of
doctrinal truth. 6
In 1789 the
Protestation of the English Catholics was signed by all the vicars-general
and all the Catholic clergy and laity in England of any note, and solemnly
declared before Parliament that we acknowledge no infallibility in the
pope.7 Even in 19th century England and
Ireland, Papal Infallibility was still denied as an article of Catholic
belief. In 1822, Bishop Baines, Vicar Apostolic in England, wrote that
Bellarmine and some other divines, chiefly Italians, have believed the
Pope infallible, when proposing ex cathedra
an article of faith. But in England or Ireland I do not believe that
any Catholic maintains the infallibility of the Pope.8 In 1825, a British Parliamentary
Royal Commission was established in view of the forthcoming Catholic
Emancipation Act of 1829. Some of the questions put to Roman Catholic
Bishops are as follows:
Question
to Bishop Doyle
Q: Is
the authority of the Pope in spiritual matters absolute or limited?
A: It is
limited.
Questions
to Bishop Murray
Q: Is
that (Papal) authority under the control of General Councils?
A: That authority
is limited by the councils and canons of the Church; he is the executive
power of the Church, appointed to preside over it and enforce its canons
or laws. Those canons vest in individuals, for instance in Bishops,
certain rights, which of course is the duty of the Pope to protect and
not violate; his authority is thus limited by those canons.
Q: Does
it justify an objection that is made to Catholics that their allegiance
is divided?
A: Their
allegiance in civil matters is completely undivided.
Question
to Dr. Oliver Kelley
Q: Do
the R.C. clergy insist that all the Bulls of the Pope are entitled to
obedience?
A: The Roman
Catholic doctrine in respect to Bulls from the Pope is that they are
always to be treated with respect; but if those Bulls or Rescripts proceeding
from the Pope do contain doctrines or matters which are not compatible
with the discipline of the particular Church to which they may be directed,
they feel it their duty then to remonstrate respectfully, and not to
receive the regulations that may emanate from the Pope.
Question
to Bishop Doyle
Q: Can
you state in what respect the national canons received in Ireland, or
any particular construction put upon the general canons, differ from
those which are received in other countries?
A: For instance,
a particular church, or the canons of a particular church, might define
that the authority of a general council was superior to that of the
Pope: Such canon may be received, for instance in Ireland or France,
and might not be received in Italy or Spain.
Question
to Bishop Murray
Q: Is
the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?
A: A decree
of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics,
if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or
assembled by its Bishops in Council. 9
In 1826,
the declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland, was endorsed by the signatures of 30 bishops, declaring
that The Catholics of Ireland declare on oath their belief that it is
not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe
that the pope is infallible.10 Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis
pointed out in his undelivered speech, which he had published in Naples,
that for two hundred years a book had been in circulation entitled
Roman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King. It enjoyed
such a wide circulation that from 1748 to 1813 it underwent 35 editions
and the Very Reverend Vicar Apostolic Coppinger in England had 12 printings
of it. On the question of Papal Infallibility it states:
It is no
matter of faith to believe that the Pope is in himself infallible, separated
from the Church, even in expounding the faith: by consequence of Papal
definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively
from a General Council, or universal acceptance of the Church, oblige
none, under pain of heresy, to an interior assent.11
Papal Infallibility -
A Protestant Hoax?
One of the
most popular catechisms circulating in 19th century England was the
Controversial Catechism by the Reverend Stephen Keenan. The
one I have is the third edition of 1854, published by Marsh and Beattie
of Edinburgh and Charles Dolman of London and Manchester. On page 112
we find the following question and answer:
Q: Must
not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A: This is
a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision
of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced
by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.
This
catechism carries the enthusiastic approbation of four bishops:
By The
Right Rev. Bishop Carruthers:
A concise
summary of arguments, authorities, and proofs, in support of the doctrines,
institutions and practices of the Catholic Church, is here presented
in a very convenient form, as an additional antidote against the unceasing
effusions of antagonistic Ignorance and MisrepresentationThe work I
trust will meet with the notice it deserves, and the good be thus effected
which the zealous and talented author has had in view of its publication.
ANDREW, BISHOP OF CERAMIS,
Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Scotland.
Edinburgh, 10th April, 1846.
By The
Right Rev. Bishop Gillis:
I have much
pleasure in adding my name to the above Approbation by my Venerable
Predecessor, and in earnestly recommending the study of the CONTROVERSIAL
CATECHISM to the Faithful of the Eastern District of ScotlandBut there
are many, it is to be hoped, sincere in their pursuit of Truth; and
to all such, the CONTROVERSIAL CATECHISM must ever prove a welcome and
highly useful guide.
The fact
that nine thousand copies having already been exhausted in two editions
in this country, besides a third edition printed in America, is evidence
sufficient of the favour with which the Catechism has been received
by the Catholic Public
JAMES, BISHOP OF LIMYRA,
Vicar Apostolic of the Eastern District in Scotland.
Edinburgh, 14th November, 1853.
By the
Right Rev. Bishop Kyle:
I have read,
with much pleasure, a work entitled Controversial Catechism,
by the Rev. Stephen Keenan. As it contains a well-reasoned defense of
the Catholic faith, and clear and satisfactory solutions of the usual
objections adduced by separatists, I deem that the study of it will
be most useful to all Catholics; and, therefore, I earnestly recommend
it to the Faithful in the Northern District of Scotland.
JAS. KYLE, V.A. N.D.S.
Preshome, 15th April, l846.
By the
Right Rev. Bishop Murdoch:
Glasgow,
19th November, 1853
My Dear Mr.
Keenan,
I am exceedingly
delighted to learn that a third edition of your excellent Controversial
Catechism is about to be printed. You request my approbation of
this New Edition. Most willingly and most heartily do I give it. But
it is really altogether unnecessary, for the work has amply approved
itself. The rapid exhaustion of the last two editions is more than sufficient
proof of the value and worth of the Catechism. I know not, indeed, if
we possess a better volume adapted to the wants of the time;As long
as the Controversial Catechism is to be had, it is entirely the
fault of all Catholics - be their rank however humble - if they be not
ready on all occasions to give a reason of the faith and hope that are
in them. I am, Rev. Dear Sir, yours sincerely in Christ,
JOHN MURDOCH,
V.A. W.D.
The Rev.
Stephen Keenan, Dundee.
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The rapid
sale of the former edition - its approbation by many Clergyman in Scotland
and by several in Ireland and England - the fact of its appearing in
a very elegant American edition, approved by the Right Rev. Dr. Hughes
of New York, and by the American Catholic Clergy and Catholic press
- combined with the antipathy of modern religionists to its publication
or circulation, and the unwilling testimony wrung from them as to its
efficacy in supporting truth, - all these motives, strengthened by a
desire to put down error and establish truth, have induced the Author
to give the public a second edition
Thus here
in mid-nineteenth century Britain and America we have a very
popular Catholic Catechism claiming the notion of Papal Infallibility
as evidence of Protestant deceit or ignorance. As we have seen,
this was not an article of faith that the universal church has always
confessed. Pius had already tested infallibility when, in 1854, he declared
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of, which some of them (bishops)
dreaded and some opposed, but which all submitted when he had decreed
without the intervention of a Council. 12
Pope Pius IX—The Infallible
Instrument of God
Count Giovanni
Maria Mastai-Ferretti, the future Pius IX was born in 1792, being the
last of nine children, to a family of the lesser nobility. In his youth
and well into his thirties he suffered epileptic seizures. For a while
he was allowed to celebrate mass only on the condition that another
priest or deacon was present. Nothing more is heard of this condition
in his later life, however, according to his contemporaries the traces
of the Popes epilepsy were visible, in that the right side of his body
was slightly less developed than the left. This could be seen even in
his face which was asymmetric, with lips awry and a head that inclined
to the right.
Pius IX was
the longest reigning pope, possessing personal charm and enjoying great
popularity. He was also considered highly impressionable, capricious,
impulsive and unpredictable. These characteristics were attributed to
his epilepsy. 13 It is this Pope Pius IX who was
absolutely determined to have his office dogmatically defined as the
infallible instrument of God by a council of the Church.
At the First
Vatican Council the approval of the passing of Papal Infallibility was
almost guaranteed from the beginning. First, by the incredibly unequal
representation which was highlighted during the Council by a pamphlet,
whose author was believed to be Georges Darboy, Archbishop of Paris
entitled, The Liberty of the Council and the Infallibility. This
pamphlet claimed that while Italy had two hundred and seventy bishops,
the rest of Europe had only two hundred and sixty-five. Closer scrutiny
reveals that twelve million German Roman Catholics were represented
by nineteen bishops while seven hundred thousand inhabitants of the
Papal States were represented by sixty-two. Three anti-Infallibilist
Bishops of Cologne, Paris and Cambrai represented five million souls.
It is little wonder that the German bishops who formed the backbone
of the anti-Infallibilist complained of being overwhelmed by Italian
and Sicilian bishops. 14
The second
reason why the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was guaranteed to pass
was the deep personal involvement of Pius IX himself and the intimidating
coercive tactics he used. A measure of his resolve is the statement
he made to the chief editor of La Civilta Cattolica, My mind is so made
up that if need be I shall take the definition upon myself and dismiss
the Council if it wishes to keep silence. 15 In a brief to Dom Gueranger, Abbot
of Solesmes, a leading French Ultramontane (on the other side of the
Alps; one who advocates supreme papal authority), Pius IX, while demonstrating
no lack of confidence in his own infallibility, attacks and brands the
bishops who oppose the definition as men, who show themselves completely
imbued with corrupt principals and who no longer know how to submit
their intelligence to the judgment of the Holy See. Their folly mounts
to this excess that they attempt to remake the divine constitution of
the Church in order to bring down more easily the authority of the supreme
Head whom Christ has set over it and whose prerogatives they dread.16 Pope Pius IX was so bent on having
the office of the Papacy declared infallible he used the power and prestige
of his office to intimidate and upbraid even bishops who adopted a neutral
or moderate line. The Reverend T. Mozley, special correspondent to
The Times of London writes that bishops who adopted a neutral or
moderate line: find themselves sorely tried in a personal interview.
They find it vain to declare their devotion or their sincerity. His
Holiness tells them plainly they are not on his side; they are among
his enemies; they are damaging the good cause; their loyalty is not
sound. It is enough that they have signed what they should not, or not
signed what they ought.17
Ullathorne,
Bishop of Birmingham wrote, The Pope, takes every opportunity of expressing
his views on the infallibility both in audiences and letters that at
once get into the papers.18 Again Ullathorne writes, The Pope,
I believe, is bent on the definition, if he can, as the crowning of
his reign, and I think it will in some shape probably pass.19 To a group of vicars apostolic and
Oriental bishops, Pius IX reminded them, It is necessary for you to
defend the truth with the Vicar of Jesus Christ. My children do not
abandon me. 20
A stark example
of how far removed the bishops, the successors of the apostles, were
from the dignity and freedom they exercised at the Seven Ecumenical
Councils and their subservience to the Pope can be judged by the behaviour
of Wilhelm von Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz. Just before the final vote
on Papal Infallibility, a deputation of minority bishops implored Pius
IX to accept certain concessions in the wording of the declaration:
Ketteler threw himself on his knees and with tears in his eyes said:
Good Father, save us and save the Church of God!21 One cannot help recalling St. Pauls
reproof to St. Peter when he, withstood him to his face, Gal. 11:11,
and St. Irenaeus stern rebuke to Pope St. Victor over the Easter controversy
(see Chapter II ). Pius was unmoved.
Cardinal
Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, in a speech before the Council said that,
while accepting infallibility, he urged the Pope to take the counsel
of his bishops before issuing decisions as this is the tradition of
the Church. Guidis speech was reported to the Pope and he was sent for
and scolded. The surprised Cardinal responded that he was only maintaining
that bishops are witnesses of tradition. Witnesses of tradition? said
the Pope, There is only one; thats me.22 Even Roman Catholic author Dom Cuthbert
Butler in his popular work, The Vatican Council, admits to the
personal influence of Pius IX, did it amount to undue influence? That
at the final stages he exerted his personal influence to the utmost
cannot be questioned, for it was quite open. 23
A Council Lacking in
Freedom
Strenuous
objections were voiced at the Council regarding the lack of freedom
due to the manner of the agenda. Dom Butler admits to the Popes control
over the Council when he writes, In all things the Pope kept to himself
the complete mastery. Things which at Trent had been left in the hands
of the Fathers - settlement of claims to take part in the Council, appointment
of officials, regulation of procedure, etc. - were all now fixed by
the personal act of the Pope. The bishops were invited and exhorted
to suggest freely anything for deliberation that they thought would
be for the general good of the Church. But such proposals or postulations
must be submitted to a special Congregation, nominated by the Pope,
for dealing with such postulates, to consider them and report its advice
to the Pope, with whom the decision would lie as to whether the thing
be brought forward at the Council or not. 24
Denying the
validity of the Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick refused to
speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870. Bishop Joseph
Strossmeyer of Diakovar told Lord Acton, There is no denying that the
Council lacked freedom from beginning to end. To Professor Joseph Hubert
Reinkens, Strossmeyer said, that the Vatican Council had not had the
freedom necessary to make it a true Council and to justify its passing
resolutions binding the conscience of the entire Catholic world. The
proof of this was perfectly self-evident. 25
Bishop Francois
Le Courtier spoke for many when he wrote, Our weakness at this moment
comes neither from scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers nor the
witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes
from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing
the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost
half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive
agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions
which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert undebated
paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the
commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is
crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections,
and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed,
above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses
it 26 Furthermore, the opposing minority
of about two hundred bishops objected to the short time allowed for
studying the text on primacy and infallibility as well as to the practice
adopted by the deputations of inserting new clauses at the last moment.
The minority
bishops were not allowed to discuss the historical objections against
Papal Infallibility with the deputation on the faith.27 In a letter Bishop Le Courtier complains,
See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under
the respect we have for our Head.28 Later in frustrated anger, Bishop
Francois Le Courtier tossed his council documents into the river Tiber
and left Rome. The papers were retrieved and brought to the attention
of Vatican officials. The price for this gesture was extracted three
years later, when he was dismissed as Bishop of Montpellier. 29
In spite
of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige
of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops
- who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the
constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom
were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four
hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of
the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and
less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the
commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained
from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining
their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence,
which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your
Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness
to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of
the Father.30 This statement alone speaks volumes
for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority
figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early
Church.
Thus lacking
a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility
was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and
the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian
canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief
not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the
Council that solemnly defined it. Years later, Orthodox theologian
Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, The Vatican Council has
as much right to call itself a Council as today’s meetings of delegates
from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will
of the people. 31
*******************************************************************
Endnotes
1. The
Popes and European Revolution, page 75, Owen Chadwick, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1981.
2. New
Catholic Encyclopedia, page 397, Vol. XIV.
3. Ibid.,
page 398, Vol. VII.
4. Chadwick,
page 238.
5. Chadwick,
page 284.
6. Chadwick,
page 285.
7. Historical
Memoirs Respecting the English Catholics, ii, pages 113 - 118, Charles
Butler, 1819.
8. A Defence
of the Christian Religion, page 230, Bath, 1822. See W.E. Gladstone,
Vaticanism page 48, 1875.
9. Friedrichs
Documenta, Vol. I, pages 234, 236, 237, 240.
10. Essay
on the Catholic Claims, page 300, Bishop J.W. Doyle, 1826.
11. Kenrick
(Naples edition). Page 46.
12. Essays
on Freedom and Power, page 305, Lord Acton, Meridian Book, Cleveland,
Ohio. 1972.
13. How
the Pope Became Infallible, Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion,
page 107, August Bernhard Hasler, Translated by Peter Heinegg, Doubleday
and Co. Inc., Garden City, New York, 1981.
14. Butler,
The Vatican Council, page 230.
15. Hasler,
page 81.
16. Friedrich,
Documenta, Vol. I, page 184.
17. Letters
from Rome, II, 282.
18. Butler,
The Vatican Council, Vol. II, page 199.
19. Ibid.,
page 119.
20. Friedrich,
Documenta, Vol. I, page 185.
21. Butler,
page 407.
22. Ibid.,
page 355.
23. Ibid.,
page 446.
24. Ibid.,
page 213, 214.
25. Hasler,
page 133.
26. Hasler,
pages 131, 132.
27. The
Triumph of the Holy See, page 156, Derek Holmes Burns & Oates,
London. 1978
28. Bulter,
First Vatican Council, page 477.
29. Hasle,
page 139.
30. Bultler,
The Vatican Council, page 408, 409.
31. Hasler,
page 143.
