would be passive obedience and blind submission. This is not the attitude of true judges, such as the Bishops have been traditionally regarded.
Maret complains that the doctrine that Infallibility resides in the Collective Episcopate is sometimes disparaged as Gallican; whereas it is by no means restricted to the Church of France, although it possesses there its principal exponents. Modern Ultramontanism is to Maret a lamentable phenomenon, greatly promoted by the ill-regulated influence of such extremists as Lamennais and Joseph de Maistre. It involves a treatment of history which but for à priori theories would be inconceivable.
In the midst of this increasing storm Dupanloup wrote, in reference to his former vision: "Ah! I had drawn an ideal of a Council full of charity, zeal, and love: and behold, all of a sudden appears a scene of lamentable disputes." But still he published nothing until Manning's Pastoral appeared, and that provoked him to public protest. It was November 1869 when Dupanloup circulated his Observations, and into its pages he put his whole mind and heart.
It was natural, said the Bishop to his clergy, that filial piety should desire to adorn a father with all gifts and all prerogatives; but, congenial as these instincts were to filial piety, the definition of a dogma demanded other considerations than sentiment. Journalism, in the pages of the Civilta Cattolica, had assumed the right to anticipate theological decisions; and declarations of faith in the personal and separate Infallibility of the Pope were being elicited from the most simple-minded and unqualified. It was actually being taught—the reference is to Manning—that the Pope was infallible "apart from the episcopal body whether united or dispersed." In reply to these extremists, Dupanloup
