German writer[1] on the Council has had access to these, and has given extracts and accounts of them; but no complete account has ever yet appeared. Meanwhile great value must attach to the printed criticisms of the doctrine. These, as was natural, are chiefly the work of the opposition. Some one hundred and thirty-nine Bishops replied, of whom nearly one hundred were against the decree. Its advocates contented themselves with general expressions of approval. The opposition to the proposed definition was begun by the criticisms of Cardinal Rauscher.
Rauscher said that the question was not whether the instructions of the Pope should be obeyed, but whether they must be received with the faith due to God. The salvation of souls and the honour of the Council demand that the greatest caution should be exercised before imposing this upon the faith of Christian people. He confessed himself, although prepared to defend what the Council might decree, unable to solve the difficulties which would arise. To those already persuaded conviction would not be difficult. But Bishops in Austria and Germany would have a difficult time. "The subterfuges employed by not a few theologians in the case of Honorius would only expose the writers to derision." To propound such sophistries appears to him unworthy alike of the episcopal office and of the subject in question, which ought to be treated in the fear of God. Even prudence would prohibit the use of such artifices.[2]
Bishop Ketteler, Bishop of Maintz, urged that according to the principle observed by the Fathers and sanctioned by Councils, dogmatic decrees should only be resorted to under imperative necessity. In many districts the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was almost
