"And again his Infallibility is not called into exercise unless he speaks to the whole world; for if his precepts, in order to be dogmatic, must enjoin what is necessary to salvation, they must be necessary for all men. Accordingly … orders to particular countries or classes of men have no claim to be the utterances of his Infallibility."[1]
This treatment of the Vatican Decree is an exercise of what Newman calls "the principle of minimising," which he considers "so necessary for a wise and cautious theology."[2]
A still further condition is introduced by Newman to qualify the character of papal decisions. There is the doctrine of intention. The Pope, urges Newman,
"could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedra utterance if he did not actually mean to fulfil them. … What is the worth of a signature if a man does not consider what he is signing? The Pope cannot address his people East and West, North and South, without meaning it; … nor can he exert his apostolical authority without knowing that he is doing so; nor can he draw up a form of words and use care, and make an effort in doing so accurately, without intention to do so."
Newman himself applied this principle of intention to the case of Honorius.
"And therefore no words of Honorius proceeded from his prerogative of infallible teaching, which were not accompanied with the intention of exercising that prerogative."[3]
That, of course, must apply to every individual for whom the infallible prerogative is claimed. The
