But this is not all. For the revised edition goes on to enquire, "Were there any other dogmas defined by the Church which had been controverted before decision?" This is answered in the affirmative. "Nearly every definition of dogma by the Church had been preceded by a period of controversy, in which theologians ranked themselves on different sides." Then the question is asked:—
"(Q.) Can you name any Controversies on fundamental dogma on which the Church pronounced in the same way as she did on Papal Infallibility at the Vatican Council?
(A.) Yes. The Divinity of Christ was not formally defined till the first Council of Nicæa (325)."
Some other instances having been given, we then reach the Question—
"(Q.) What do you conclude from these observations?
(A.) That the definition of the Infallibility of the Pope as a dogma of primitive Christian Revelation has historically run a course similar to the definition of many other fundamental articles of the Catholic Faith."
The implications of this assertion are worth considering. A parallel is drawn between the attitude of Catholics towards the two doctrines of Papal Infallibility and of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. They have historically, it is said, run a similar course. Now we ask just this: Were those Bishops who endorsed Keenan's Catechism Catholics or not? There is only one possible reply: Yes, they were. They lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church. It was then possible to be a Catholic before 1870 and yet deny this doctrine of Papal Infallibility. But was it ever possible to be a Catholic while denying the other doctrine, the Divinity of Jesus Christ? There is only one answer that can be given. Assuredly it
