PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND HISTORY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:]
SIR,-I trust you will allow me to offer a few remarks on a review which appeared in the Spectator of the 3rd inst., entitled "Papal Infallibility and History." The writer opens the question by stating the " liltramontane view" as to the rela- tion between theology and history. "According to that view," he tells us, "none but a theologian is capable of understanding ecclesiastical history; and a theologian is a man who uses his scholastic training as an instrument to shape his own natural talents,'—in other words, to bias his mind to such a degree that he becomes incapable of weighing evidence fairly." I ask, in the name of all that is called evidence, by what right the reviewer puts this monstrous construction on the words he quotes. To shape natural talent is to bias and incapacitate the judgment, and this is the Illtramontane view of scholastic training !
We are next informed that "Cardinal Manning has given emphatic expression to this view in his terse assertion that in matters of doctrine the appeal to history is a treason and a heresy." The teaching of his Eminence was that an appeal away from the supreme judgment of the Church to an impersonal, inarticulate, and non-existent tribunal is an evasion and a heresy. And rightly; for such an appeal is an impeach- ment of the highest spiritual tribunal, and is an attempt to overrule it by mere temporal and human judgment. But I have never learned that the Cardinal or any other theologian hesitated for a moment to test Catholic teaching by the severest historical criticism, or entertained the slightest mis- giving as to the result. It would be blasphemy to appeal from the command of God to human reason; yet every theolo- gian teaches that no divine commandment binds us until it has been tested by the light of reason, not judging of its righteousness, but witnessing to its authenticity. In the same way we go to history, not as to a judge of appeal, but as to a witness who sooner or later must divulge the truth. The reviewer gives other instances of the " Ultramontane (view," such as the evasion of evidence, distrust of history, explaining away awkward facts, and avowedly rejecting the verdict of history when it is opposed to the doctrine of infallibility. The most conspicuous example given is taken from the argument showing that the ancient canons of the
hurch bear witness to Papal infallibility. The reviewer finds a "diametrically opposite view advocated" by Professor Vincensi. He gives two quotations from the author, but does not tell us from which of his several works they are taken, and still less does he favour us with any reference. The quotations, however, are taken from the "Sacra Monarchia," and may be found in pp. 297-98. Vincensi is represented as admitting "that the Papacy and the records of the ancient Councils cannot stand together," but this, notwithstanding the Papacy, mast "be upheld -at all costs." Vinrensi's work is mainly a critical and "historical examination of the ancient canons which had been alleged en bloc as adverse to the Papal claims. These he divides into spurious or adulterated canons, heretical canons, -unapproved canons, and, finally, canons recognised as Catholic. Putting aside the three former sets, he proves that the genuine Catholic canons constantly and unmistakably bear witness to those claims. Then, returning to consider four hundred canons alleged as opposed to the Holy See, he offers this alternative : either those denying the claims of the Holy See are genuine, and the Church of Christ falls to the ground ;
'else the Popes and Fathers rejecting those canons are right, and then " necessario reprobandi aunt pmfati canones adversas sacrum Petri et successorum principatum erecti." The reviewer makes out that Vincensi here rejects the genuine canons from which he had just proved the infallibility of the Pope, while that author rejects only certain canons shown on critical and historical grounds to be inadmissible. The reviewer might have noticed what Vincensi immediately adds : " Lector interim =beat judex, collatis qua3 in has paste, sicuti in prima, a nobis quam ac,curatissime expedite. aunt." He will not find Vincensi "diametrically opposed" to the historic evidence of the Papal claims, or shirking the fullest historical inquiry.
It is easy for controversialists, when they fail in the pursuit of a phantom, to accuse their opponents of evasion, like the child who turned on its nurse when it failed to catch the moon reflected in a tub of water. Papal utterances, like other human acts carrying with them a conventional effect, require in order to be valid certain conditions and solemnities. Among the conditions for the validity of such acts, one enforced by all law, natural and positive, is freedom of the agent from unjust compulsion, and from being driven to the act by fear unjustly induced. No law will admit the validity of a marriage, will, or any contract, or the enactment of a Sovereign extorted under such compulsion. If the Roman Pontiff is in durance, neither theology nor canon law will admit the validity of any of his acts supposed to have been extorted from him by fear. Whatever may have been the act of which Pope Liberius is accused, it certainly was attributed to grave fear unjustly induced, and therefore has always been held to be invalid. The reviewer remarks on this,—" If the Pope can betray the faith through cowardice, there is no reason why he should not betray it through ambition, or covetousness, or any other personal reason." But this is not the question. The question is, whether these several motives equally affect the validity of a Papal act, and so determine its infallibility. A person married in consequence of unjust menaces does not validly marry ; but if led by "ambition, covetousness, or any other personal reason," the marriage is quite valid. Theology and canon law are at one with the jus gent jam, in this respect, and the downfall of infallibility in the case of Liberius is a phantom that ha3 been again and again dispelled by the application of this universal rule.
I cannot follow the reviewer into the other instances he gives showing the collapse of infallibility. They are on a par with those I have mentioned, and are disposed of in much the same way. I will only remind him that the agnostics are bringing to the front the necessity of applying a searching rule of evidence to ecclesiastical history, and have declared a traceless war against evasion. It is to be hoped they will be thorough- going, and that they will succeed in concentrating public attention on their work. If they act according to their pro- fessions, they will teach Englishmen some unexpected lessons, and then it will be seen which side has had reason to fear historical criticism.—I am, Sir, &c., S. T P.
[Our reviewer makes the following reply to this letter :- 'Father Father Richardson (p. 118) asserts that no one can master any plain historical question (e.g., whether "St. Meletius was in full and immediate communion with Rome ") unless he has "been himself a pupil under masters," and "uses that scholastic training as an instrument to shape his own natural talents." We maintain, and shall presently give some evidence to show, that our interpretation of these words is not a "monstrous," but, on the contrary, a legitimate "construc- tion." We have quoted Cardinal Manning's dictum accurately, and the context shows that it is intended to bar any attempt to test by historical evidence any claim that the Church of Rome has made or may make. It would have effectually protected the Forged Decretale. As to Vincenzi, we will test his critical method by a few crucial examples. Towards the close of the great St Auguatine's life, the question of appeals to the See of Rome from the decisions of provincial Churches came up for adjudication in the African Church. Apiarius, a priest of Sieca, in the Proconsular Province of Numidia, was for grave crimes deposed and excommunicated by the Bishop of Sicca, a pupil of St. Augustine. Apiarius appealed to the Pope, who not only received his appeal, but actually restored him to com- munion and the priesthood, and sent three legates to justify his conduct to the African Bishops. A Council was convened at conduct, to discuss the question thus forced upon them by the Pope, who grounded his action on the third canon of the Council of Sardica, which he quoted as a canon of the Council of Nieces,. De Mama, who is quoted as a great authority by Father Richardson and Mr. Rivington, makes excuses for the Pope (Zosimus) for this bold attempt to impose on the African Bishops. But let that pass. The African Bishops were staggered, for the canon on which the Pope based his right to hear appeals from the decisions of foreign Churches did not exist, of course, in any known Greek or Latin copy of the Nicene canons. After discussion, the Council notified to the Pope by letter that if the canon on which he baled his claim was really a Nicene canon, they would observe it and allow the right of appeal to him ; but that no such canon could be dis- covered, and the matter must remain in abeyance until that preliminary point was settled. Meanwhile Pope Zosimus died, and was succeeded by Boniface. The canon on which Zosimus had relied was, of course, proved to be not Nicene at all, and a Great Council, consisting of 217 Bishops, including St. Augustine, met in Carthage to try the Papal claims, which they disallowed. Apiaries, however, on account of some in- formality in his deposition, was restored, but was removed to another place. Here he committed fresh crimes, for which he was again excommunicated. Again he appealed to the Pope (Celestine), who acquitted him, and sent a Papal legate to restore him to communion. Thereupon a Great Council of 460 Bishops assembled in Carthage, tried Apiaries after his acquittal by the Pope, condemned him., afresh, and wrote a stern synodical letter to the Pope, rebuking him and repudi- ating his claims. Four points stand out clearly from this historical incident :—(1.) The Popes grounded their claims, not on divine right, but on a falsely alleged Nicene canon,—in other words, they thus admitted the Pope's subjection to an (Ecumen- ical Council. *(2.) The African Church, while.willing to yield obedience to a Nicene canon, peremptorily rejected the Pope's claims when they were found unsupported by cecumenical authority. (3.) The African Bishops positively asserted that the Nicene canons, which Pope Leo said must last to the end of the world, subject Bishops to their respective Metropolitans, thus excluding all extraneous appeals other than to a General Council. (4.) The African Bishops condemned as an innovation the claim of the Pope to send legates to Councils beyond his own provincial jurisdiction, and declared that they would not permit it. Vincenzi finds this quarrel between the African Church and the See of Rome a hard nut to crack, and he solves the difficulty by declaring that the Acts and Canons of the African Church in this matter were forged by "some Donatist enemy of the Roman Church" (p. 265). He main- tains, moreover (pp. 160-170), that the third Sardican canon is really Nicene, and was abstracted "by Arian perfidy "from the genuine collection ! He has even the hardihood to defend the gross Roman forgery inserted into the sixth Nicene canon, which said that "the Roman Church always had the primacy" (pp. 180-181). Does "S. T. P." stand by Vincenzi in these extraordinary liberties with history ? If he does, we invite him to produce his authorities. Vincenzi declares (p. 298) frankly that "no one will ever persuade him" to accept as genuine any canons which ignore er repudiate the Papal claims. A more admirable illustration there could not be of Father Richard- son's test of a theologian as a man who "uses his scholastic training as an instrument to shape his own natural talents." We will not linger over the case of Liberius. What our correspondent calls "in durance" simply means the Pope's banishment from his diocese. He joined himself to the Arian 'condemnation of Athanasius in order to get restored to his See. "S. T. P.'s" apology for him is a serious matter, for it casts doubt on the presumed infallible utterances of Pio Nono and Leo XIII. They, too, declare themselves "in durance," "prisoners of the Vatican," unable to exercise their prerogative freely. But why does "S. T. P." shirk the crucial case of Honorius P Ultramontanes now declare that Honorius was not a heretic at all, thus saving his infallibility. But what then becomes of the infallibility of the Sixth General Council (acknowledged by Rome), which burnt the letters of Honorius as heretical ? And what becomes of the infallibility of the Popes who for centuries denounced Honorius as a heretic on their installation, to say nothing of the Pope-sanctioned Roman Breviaries where Honorius was placed in the category of heretics ? To save the infallibility of Honorius at the cost of that of a whole series of Popes is, in reality, to jump from the frying-pan into the fire—ED. Spectatcr.]
Previous page
