Are we bound to look upon the particular parts of this passage as Papal utterances ex cathedrâ, even when the Pope says himself 'as we think' (ut arbitramur)? Or how can Dr. Schulte possibly claim for himself the right out of three principal propositions, apart from dependent propositions, to dock off the first and second propositions as not dogmatic,[1] and to bring forward the third clause, and that not entire, and allege this to be an infallible utterance? If Dr. Schulte assigns as his reason for taking out of the context this third proposition, and bringing it forward as an infallible utterance, because the Pope here says that if Luther had come to Rome, he, the Pope, would have taught him that the Popes have never erred in their canons or constitutions, and that he selects this pass age as an instance of his infallible teaching, because the Pope speaks expressly of teaching Luther, then I answer, not everything which the Popes might have taught, but what they actually have taught as doctrine on faith and morals, and defined.[2] by virtue of their highest apostolical power, as true, and to be held as such by the universal Church, that alone is an infallible
- ↑ For Dr. Schulte has omitted after the word 'constitutions' the words which in the Papal bull immediately follow, viz. 'which he studiously assails;' words which contain a limitation of the foregoing general expression, 'constitutiones.'
- ↑ 'Definit' is the well-considered word of the Vatican Council.
lorum rumoribus plus quam oportuit tribuendo, vituperat, tot reperiisset errata; docuissemusque cum clarius luce sanctos Romanos Pontifices predecessores nostros, quos præter omnem modestiam injuriose lacerat, in suis canonibus seu constitutionibus, quas mordere nititur, nunquam errasse.' Bullarium Romanum, ed, Cocquelines, tom. iii. p. iii. Romæ, 1743, p. 491.
