Page:True and False Infallibility of Popes.pdf/78

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Infallibility of the Popes.

69

morals, or if from the records of real dogmatic definitions of Popes he extracts mere incidental remarks, obiter dicta, and alleges these to be ex cathedrâ—then assuredly he is leading his readers into error; he is disturbing their consciences without reason; he is arousing the suspicions of governments unnecessarily, and setting them against that Catholic doctrine which has been declared by the Vatican Council; and he is consciously or unconsciously (God only knows which) creating great prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Dr. Schulte is unfortunate with his proofs from the very commencement. For instance, in order to prove that 'what the Popes have declared to be a doctrine of the Church is true, and to be believed by all Catholics, and followed by them in practice,'^[1] he, without

↑ I said designedly above, p. 57, 'only a real and true definition of the Pope on faith and morals' can be under consideration, because the expression made use of by Dr. Schulte, p. 27 of his Pamphlet, is ambiguous. He says: 'What the Popes have declared to be such' (viz. a dogma of the Church), 'that is true, and must be believed by Catholics, and accordingly followed by them in practice.' This may be true and may be false. For not all that the Popes have declared to be a doctrine of the Church is for that reason alone (because the Popes have said so) true, and to be believed by Catholics, and so followed by them in practice; but only that which Popes have declared in an ex cathedrâ utterance to be a dogma of faith or morals to be believed by the whole Church. See Ballerini, l. c. p. 36, who speaks very expressly on this point: "Multæ sententiæ, quæ in Pontificum sive epistolis, sive concionibus, sive aliis quibuslibet eorum operibus inspersæ, etiam si veritatem aut aliquod dogma contineant, et verissimæ sint, non tamen fidei definitiones dici queunt, sicuti similes sententise in aliis Patribus inventæ, opinionis vel dogmatis, uti materies fert, testimonia sunt, definitiones autem fidei non item.' So also says Cardinal Bellarmine: 'Multa esse in epistolis decretalibus, quæ non faciunt, rem aliquam esse de fide, sed solum opiniones Pontificum ea in re nobis declarant.' De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. c. xiv.

[1] I said designedly above, p. 57, 'only a real and true definition of the Pope on faith and morals' can be under consideration, because the expression made use of by Dr. Schulte, p. 27 of his Pamphlet, is ambiguous. He says: 'What the Popes have declared to be such' (viz. a dogma of the Church), 'that is true, and must be believed by Catholics, and accordingly followed by them in practice.' This may be true and may be false. For not all that the Popes have declared to be a doctrine of the Church is for that reason alone (because the Popes have said so) true, and to be believed by Catholics, and so followed by them in practice; but only that which Popes have declared in an ex cathedrâ utterance to be a dogma of faith or morals to be believed by the whole Church. See Ballerini, l. c. p. 36, who speaks very expressly on this point: "Multæ sententiæ, quæ in Pontificum sive epistolis, sive concionibus, sive aliis quibuslibet eorum operibus inspersæ, etiam si veritatem aut aliquod dogma contineant, et verissimæ sint, non tamen fidei definitiones dici queunt, sicuti similes sententise in aliis Patribus inventæ, opinionis vel dogmatis, uti materies fert, testimonia sunt, definitiones autem fidei non item.' So also says Cardinal Bellarmine: 'Multa esse in epistolis decretalibus, quæ non faciunt, rem aliquam esse de fide, sed solum opiniones Pontificum ea in re nobis declarant.' De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. c. xiv.

[1]