167 DR. DÖLLINGER AND THE DOGMA OF BY DR. HERGENRÖTHER, PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CANON (Translated from the German.)3 V. DR. DOLLINGER'S FIVE THESES-(continued). "THIRDLY:—I HIRDLY:-I am prepared," he says, "to prove, that on the question of the authority of the Pope, the Bishops of the Latin countries, that is to say, of Spain, Italy, South America, and France, who formed the immense majority of the Council, were, as well as their clergy, misled by the class-books from which their first impressions regarding this question were derived during their education in the seminaries; the quotations on which the proofs given in those books depend, being, for the most part, distorted, falsified, or fabricated. "I shall prove this, first, in reference to the two works which are in most general use in theological schools and seminaries, the Moral Theology of Saint Alphonsus Liguori (especially the treatise which it contains concerning the Pope), and the Dogmatic Theology of the Jesuit Perrone; also in reference to the writings of Archbishop Cardoni and of Bishop Ghilardi, which were distributed in Rome during the Council; and finally in reference to the Theology of the Viennese Theologian, Schwetz." Now, even if Dr. Döllinger were able to establish the want of genuineness not merely of the greater part, but even of all the quotations relied upon in the works to which he refers-the Moral Theology of Saint Alphonsus, which, however, is by no means so generally used in ecclesiastical seminaries as the Compendiums of Voit and Gury-the Dogmatic Theology of Father Perrone, whose candour he had impugned on a former occasion, in reference to some quotations from the Alexandrine writers Origen and Saint Cyril-the works of Archbishop Cardoni, whom he has already charged with quoting a text that is not genuine—and, finally, the writings of Bishop Ghilardi and of Dr. Schwetz-he would still be far from having established his general proposition: and it would still be necessary for him to prove its truth in reference to several other books which are not less generally used, and which furnish additional, and 1 Continued from our December number. * The notes which are enclosed in brackets [thus], have been added by the translator. perhaps more satisfactory evidence in support of the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Nay more, even if he were able to prove that not a single one of the passages quoted in any compendium of Theology is genuine, his argument would not be complete: for the Catholic doctrine must not be confounded with the proofs by which theologians undertake to establish its truth, especially with such proofs as are to be found in mere manuals of Theology. Every one familiar with works on jurisprudence knows how frequently it happens that arguments which will not stand the test of a strict logical, or critical examination, are put forward in support of the most salutary laws. Again, it must be remembered that quotations, the reasoning of which, if they are viewed merely as theological arguments, must be regarded as inconclusive, may be cited as conclusive evidence, that at a certain period a particular doctrine was believed throughout the Church; such, for instance, are several of the arguments used by the Fathers of the Eighth and of some other Ecumenical Councils. The fact that a doctrine has been commonly taught by theologians for several centuries, is, in itself, and independently of the reasoning on which they may have relied, an argument which cannot be ignored for if a false doctrine were received thus commonly throughout the Church, the faith of the Church herself would be compromised. The passages, then, from the Second Council of Lyons, from the Council of Florence, and from the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which are quoted in the Vatican Definitions, have not been deprived of their force by anything which has been urged by Dr. Döllinger and his adherents. Besides, does it not seem too violent an assumption to suppose that the Bishops had not become aware, before their adoption of the Definition, that the passages to which Dr. Döllinger refers, were inaccurately quoted in the books which they had used during their theological course? Surely it is incredible that they should not have come to a knowledge of the fact, at least during their stay in Rome, when their attention was directed to it almost every day, not only by the pamphlets which were so officiously served upon them at their lodgings, but also by the speeches of the "Opposition," and when the liberal press, so suddenly filled with solicitude for their good repute, never ceased to admonish them that an indelible brand of ignorance or of cowardice would be stamped upon them if they 1" Concordem omnium Theologorum Scholasticorum de fide aut moribus sententiam contra dicere si haeresis non est, at haeresi proximum est."-MELCH. CANUS. De Locis Theol. Lib. 8. cap. iv., concl. 3. failed to profit by the warnings which they were receiving through this latest development of the functions of the journalist. But the Bishops knew too well what their duty and their dignity demanded: with both sides of the question before them, prudently and deliberately they made their choice. For we are not prepared to admit that the presumption is in favour of a few scientific historians and theologians, and against the united decision of the Fathers of the Council. "Fourthly," continues Dr. Döllinger, in the words of his next Thesis, "I appeal to the fact, which I undertake to prove in public, that two General Councils and several Popes have already decided, in the fifteenth century, by solemn Decrees, issued by the Councils and repeatedly confirmed by the Popes, the question as to the extent of the Papal power, and especially as to Papal Infallibility, and that the Decrees of the 18th of July, 1870, are in the most glaring contradiction to these decisions, and, therefore, cannot possibly be regarded as binding." Dr. Döllinger refers, of course, to the Councils of Constance and Basle, of which he has treated also in his "Notes," (nn. 15, 17, pp. 10, 11). But he seems to have forgotten on both occasions that if his Thesis were true, if "two General Councils" and several Popes had really decided this question, it would follow that we should regard as heretics, in the strict sense of the word, everyone who has adopted the opposite view, from the fifteenth century down to the present day, that is to say, the great majority of theologians, the Popes, at least since Leo X., and even Dr. Döllinger himself, for in 1843, in his examination of the Decrees of Constance, he fully accepted the "Ultramontane" view.1 How singular that he should have emancipated himself from this heresy, just when the whole Church by its solemn and authoritative Definition, was becoming hopelessly entangled in its snares! Are we really asked to believe that Dr. Döllinger and his adherents alone retain the true Catholic faith, whilst all the millions of Catholics, who remain in allegiance to the Pope, have become heretics? Let us, at least, see upon what foundation this strange theory rests. What arguments do Scripture and Tradition afford in support of the doctrine contained in the Decrees of Constance? How will those Decrees stand the tests which Dr. Döllinger wishes us to apply to the Definitions of the Vatican Council? A careful, searching investigation of the question to be defined, and perfect freedom in the deliberations of the Council, 1 See note 3, pp. 171-2. are regarded by the learned Provost as essential to the binding force of a Definition. Is he satisfied that the Decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance were adopted by the Council, acting in perfect freedom, after such an investigation, and not precipitately or without mature deliberation such as the importance of the question demanded? Or does he apply a different standard according as the Decrees of a Council happen to favour his own views, or to be at variance with them? It was on the 23rd of March, 1414, in the midst of the perplexity caused by the flight of John XXIII., whose claim to the Papacy was the only one recognised at Constance, that the French theologians, single-handed, developed their theory as to the limits of the Papal power and the relations between the Pope and the General Council; but the proceedings of the general congregation held on that day were almost exclusively confined to the case of John, so that neither then, nor at the third session, on the 26th of March, did the theory receive any sanction from the Council. On the 29th of March, the theologians of three nations drew up four articles, the two first of which embodied the Gallican system.1 On the next day, the fourth session was held, in which, after a protest from the Cardinals, five articles were promulgated, the first of which, with the exception of one clause, was in substantial accordance with the first of the articles framed by the general Congregation on the preceding day. Afterwards, when John XXIII. had retired to Lauffenberg, at a still greater distance from Constance, and when several Cardinals had left the Council, the fifth session was held on the 6th of April, at which the two first articles of the Congregation of the 29th of March were adopted. The necessity of devoting even the interval of nine days, to a thorough examination of the question to be defined was not suggested. And yet the Decree adopted by the Council was directly at variance with 1 [The first and second articles drawn up in the Congregation of the 29th of March, were as follows! 1. The Council derives its authority immediately from God: and everyone, even of Papal dignity, is bound to obey it in all things regarding faith, the destruction of the schism, and the reformation of the Church in its head and members. "2. Whoever shall obstinately oppose the decrees of this, or of any other Ecumenical Council, is to be punished according to the canons." 66 The clause regarding the reformation of the Church, was omitted from the article as approved in the fourth session of the Council. It was, however, afterwards inserted, and the article in its original form was approved, in the fifth session, on the 6th of April. The second article, which was a plain assertion of the authority claimed by the Council over the Pope, was not brought forward at all in the fourth session. But in the fifth session, like the suppressed clause of the first article, it was brought forward and adopted by the Council]. the doctrine which had been commonly received, and taught throughout the Church for centuries before! And, moreover, a formal demand for such an examination had previously been presented by the Cardinals. It has been established over and over again by ecclesiastical writers that these Decrees of the Council of Constance are invalid for many and most weighty reasons. In the first place, the Council was convened by Alexander V., who had been appointed by the Council of Pisa, and whose claim to the Papacy was, to say the least, doubtful; indeed the authority and investigations of the most trustworthy writers leave little room for doubt that the real Pope was Gregory XII.,1 who afterwards resigned voluntarily on the 4th of July, 1415. Again, the Council was composed of the Obedience, that is the adherents, of John XXIII. alone, the other two Obediences, the adherents of Gregory XII., and of Benedict XIII., were not represented; and it cannot be contended that both of these were certainly schismatical, or that they were plainly outside the unity of the Catholic Church. Nor was the Roman Church represented, for there was no representation of the College of Cardinals as such, and not one of the three claimants to the Papacy was either present in person or represented by his legates; nor did any Pope subsequently ratify these proceedings. Moreover, the rights of the Bishops were totally diregarded in the voting, which was conducted in a manner directly at variance with the old canonical rules-laymen as well as ecclesiastics being allowed to vote, and the votes being counted according to nations, although the numbers representing the various nations were in a marked degree unequal. It is plain that Decrees thus enacted, cannot be regarded as having the authority of Ecumenical Definitions. And thus Hefele writes:-" When the assembly at Constance adopted 1 S. ANTONIN. Summa Histor. p. iii., tit. 22; RAYNALD, an. 1409, n. 79, Cf ann. 1378, 1397: PETRUS BALLERINI, De Potest. Eccles, cap. ix., sec. 4: PHILLIPS, K. R., vol. i, sect. 31, p. 253. 2 The proposition of Melchior Cano (De Locis. Lib. v., cap. 6), used to be regarded as all but unquestionable :-"Quando Concilium sine capite est, non habet dogmatum certitudinem." 3 [Dr. Döllinger, in his Ecclesiastical History, writes of the Decree of Constance as follows: "Thus, in consequence of the new regulation by which the voices of the consulting theologians and canonists were made all-powerful, and by which the twenty voices of the English nation counterbalanced the two hundred of the French or Italian, . . the doctrine that the Pope was subject to the Council was solemnly declared. "But much was wanting that was necessary firmly to establish this principle. The assembly itself assumed indeed the authority of an (Ecumenical Council representing the universal Church: but it, in truth, consisted of only those who were in obedience to the Pisan Pope, whilst those who were in obedience to the others had neither been formally called, nor were they represented. Even the Roman |