Churches to attend a Council, while preparing to erect a higher barrier than ever against their reception. Could anything, he asks, be less persuasive than this? "There is already a division between us: we will make it an abyss. You already deny the Supremacy; we require you to accept the personal Infallibility!" Dupanloup is aware that certain recent converts ardently desire this doctrine. But he knows also Protestants desiring to become converts whom the doctrine will effectively repel.
But it is in reference to the difficulties which the dogma must create within the Communion accepting it that Dupanloup is, perhaps, most impressive.
1. He sees that grave difficulties must attend the attempt to distinguish papal utterances which are infallible from those which are not. What are the precise conditions of an utterance ex cathedra? It is generally assumed that all pontifical utterances have not this character. Does it depend upon external conditions, such as the person or body to whom it is directed, whether an individual, a local Communion, or the Universal Church? Is it subjected to internal conditions; and if so, what? Must the Pope reflect, study, pray, take counsel; if so, with whom? Or need he merely speak? Must his utterance assume a written form, or will verbal message be enough? Is the Pope infallible if he addresses the whole Church but acts under intimidation? And if fear disqualifies infallible deliverance, does not also perverseness, imprudence, passion? Or will the partisans of Infallibility say that the Almighty allows the former, but miraculously prevents the latter? And will it be easy to determine what constitutes constraint?
2. Then again he sees historical difficulties in the way. The definition of Infallibility must be retrospective. If
