be found in the age, for instance, of the Fathers—an age which Newman knew profoundly. It has slowly dawned upon the self-consciousness of the Church, and come to be realised that it possessed this organ of infallible utterance. Thus the necessity for squaring the Vatican Decree with History was entirely dispensed with. The principle of development was utilised to facilitate its acceptance and explain the apparent anomalies.
The Pope said Newman is "heir by default" to the ecumenical hierarchy of the fourth century. What was then ascribed to all the Bishops is now ascribed exclusively to him. Precisely so. But by what right? Newman does not say. The possibility of development in excess, a perverse development, is not discussed.
Thus the new Decree was, according to Newman, if De Lisle rightly interprets him, a deduction from three texts, of which the chief undoubtedly was, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." No perpetual unvarying tradition could be claimed for it. But the Church makes inferences from Scripture, and comes to realise, what once it did not realise, that the Roman Pontiff is infallible.
Newman's theory of the relation of Papal Infallibility to History greatly perplexed some whom it was designed to help.
"I confess that would not satisfy me," wrote De Lisle. …[1] I am far from going to all lengths with the Archbishop (Manning) yet … I hold … that Papal Infallibility restricted as it is by the Vatican Definition, was always a part of Divine Revelation. … I maintain that it was always believed by the orthodox. …"
Newman once wrote: "Whether the minute facts of history will bear me out in this view I leave to others
- ↑ Life of De Lisle, ii. p. 48.
