ex cathedra, we will not now occupy ourselves. But the opinion of those who believe the doctrine to be true, but its definition to be inopportune deserves full and considerate examination."
That the doctrine is opportune, said Manning, followed at once from the fact that it was true. God has revealed it. "Can it be permitted to us to think that what He has thought it opportune to reveal, it is not opportune for us to declare?" If it be said that many revealed truths are not defined, Manning answers, Yes, but "this revealed truth has been denied." "If the Infallibility of the visible Head of the Church had never been denied, it might not have been necessary to define it now." Thus the prospect of a coming definition is held in terrorem over the heads of any who do not silently acquiesce in the doctrine being taught. Manning could scarcely ignore the fact that this denial of Infallibility was no new thing in the Roman Church. His answer to this is equally significant.
"We are told by objectors that the denial is far more ancient and widespread: that only makes the definition all the more necessary."[1] "In England, some Catholics are stunned and frightened by the pretentious assumption of patristic learning and historical criticism of anonymous writers, until they doubt, or shrink in false shame from believing a truth for which their fathers died."[2]
One would like to know how this sounded to the old Catholic families of England, to Bishops such as Errington or Clifford, to those whose fathers had assured the English Government on oath that Papal Infallibility formed no part of the faith of Catholics.
Manning indeed saw a host of practical reasons why
