their own fallibility. John XXII. 237 successors accepted, in that he spoke of the Scythian monks as "despisers of ancient authorities, eager after new questions." Apart from these cases, Bossuet alleges also others, in which Popes stated their own liability to error and subordination to the authority of the Universal Church. 1) "Well known also is that profession which John XXII. made, when at the point of death. Having said, as to the delay of the beatific vision until the Judgment, much whereby he felt that he had come to be suspected of heresy, he, when dying, thus explains his mind thereon, and subjoins: "Moreover, if in preaching, conferring, dogmatizing, teaching, or in any other way, we have said, preached, or written aught besides on the aforesaid or any other subjects, which concerns the Catholic Faith, Holy Scripture, or morals, we approve the same so far as they are consonant with the Catholic Faith, the determination of the Church, Holy Scripture, and morals; else we hold them and wish them to be held as not said, preached, or written, and we expressly revoke them; and what on the aforesaid vision, and all else which we have said, preached, or written on whatever matter, whensoever or wheresoever, or in whatever condition, whether our present or any former, we submit to the decision of the Church and of our successors.' "What," asks Bossuet, "did he believe that he had said, preached, taught, dogmatized infallibly, who, when dying and close upon the Judgment of God, made this profession? Does he not clearly submit the sayings and writings of his Pontificate also to the determination of the Church? But to 'the • Defens. &c. ix. 27. 1 Rainald. Ann. T. xv. A. 1334, n. 17, and Joann. xxii. Ep. 1. Conc. xi. 1629. 238 Bossuet: Popes admitted their own fallibility. Church' he adds his successors, to be for their dignity specially appealed to. To this power, then, he submits every thing of his, to be examined and judged. He might at least have said that he submitted to the determination of the Church what he had written as a private Doctor; at least he might have excepted those Decretals which he wrote as to the Faith. Did he mean to except these, who expressly says, 'whatsoever,' ‘in whatever way,' 'at whatever time,' 'in whatever place and position,' 'on whatever matter;' not only on the beatific vision, but (he explained as diligently as he could) on whatever other matter concerns the Catholic Faith, or Scripture, or morals? Are not then the things which he defined in Decretals among what he wrote, dogmatized, and declared,' since these were what he most chiefly declared? These things also, then, he submits to the determination of the Church. And this he professed, not being conscious of any error, yet wishing that, if he had erred in aught, the Church should correct it. "But this Pontiff did not only generally submit to the determination of the Church whatever he had done, whether publicly or privately, but also specially what he had expressly thought good to expound concerning the Faith. Certainly in that confession of faith concerning the condition of souls which we now mention, he specially put forth this: 2This our mind, which on this subject we with the holy Catholic Church have or have had, we declare by these presents as follows:—We confess and believe that cleansed souls separate from their bodies are in heaven, and see God and the Divine Essence face to face, as far as the state and condition of the separated soul admits.' Having most expressly declared this as the faith of himself and the Catholic Church, none the less he submits this declaration to the determination of the Church and of his successors. "Now, I would ask those who think that the faith published by the Roman Pontiff is no other than the very express faith of the Catholic Church, in what way they think that the faith of the Catholic Church, having been declared by John XXII. John XXII., Gregory XI., Pius IV. 239 in a Pontifical diploma, was again to be subjected, after examination, to the determination of the Church itself and of his successors ? "Will they answer that John XXII. declared his own individual faith, not as Pontiff? But he willed that that faith should be contained in a public diploma, his wonted title being prefixed. Or will they plead that these Pontifical letters were indeed engrossed, but were not 'bulled,' the death of John XXII. supervening, as Benedict XII., his successor, attests? Is such a question indeed to be reduced to such follies? But what John had not time to do, Benedict supplied, and sent to all Churches an Epistle bulled,' in the first year of his Pontificate, 1334. "Yet, none the less, he had the faith of his predecessor, which by the diploma which he published he had declared to be his own also, reconsidered, and treated anew the question of the clear vision for two years, and at last defined it in the third year of his Pontificate, A. 13361. So, then, he thought that the faith of Roman Pontiffs, declared by an authentic diploma, could be again brought into question. For, you will say, they had not yet pronounced it, using all solemnities, or that it was to be held by all under anathema, or that the contrary opinion was heretical; as though the Roman faith was only to be declared under anathema! For anathemas are wont to be pronounced only when heresy has arisen; but the true Faith, as it existed before all heresy and all anathemas, so also it may be declared without anathema. 2) "Gregory XI., ennobled by the restoration of the Apostolic See to Rome, being, when near death, minded like John XXII., published this: "We will, say, and protest, of our certain knowledge, that, if in the Consistory, or in Council, or in discourse, or in conferences, public or private, by slip of speech, or otherwise from any disturbance of mind or inordinate joy, or 240 Bossuet: Councils, not Popes, final authority. through presence of the great, out of complaisance to them, or through any distempered or inordinate state, or by overflow of words, we have said any thing erroneous against the Catholic faith (which, before God and man, we, as we are bound above others, profess, cherish, and desire to cherish); or, perchance, by adhering to opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith, knowingly (which we do not believe), or ignorantly or by favour to any who spake against the Catholic religion, we expressly and specially recall the same, detest them, and wish them to be accounted as unsaid.' "In which words he comprises equally what he had said in Consistory and in Council as in conversation; and he recognizes in himself every thing, whereby any mortal man could err, knowingly or ignorantly, in private or public. "To the same effect is a proceeding of Pius IV. in Consistory, related by D. de la Haye, a Doctor in Theology, who, being sent to Rome about the marriage of Francis, son of Anne of Montmorency, relates what was done. He records that the Pontiff, in an assembly of the Cardinals, closed his discourse in nearly these words: "I have assembled you that I might hear from you a matter of no slight moment, whether a marriage contracted by words in the present can be dissolved by our power. Mark carefully what I say, not words in the future or a simple promise: we ask whether marriage, through words in the present, which is a true marriage and a true sacrament according to the sounder mind of Theologians, can be dissolved by us. Do not, we beseech you, waste time in collecting the precedents and facts of our predecessors, which we profess that we will follow if they agree with the authority of Scripture and grounds of Theology. For I doubt not that I and my predecessors may have been mistaken, not in this fact only, but in others also.' See what Pontiffs, duly interrogated, that, in their Pontifical office, they would answer, decree, dispense, think of themselves. It is reported by those who thought nothing of Theological questions. Nor did Pius IV. say any • Le Laboureur, Addit. aux Mém. de Casteln. T. ii. pp. 427, 428. Re-consecrations by Stephen IV. 241 thing new; we have heard the like from his predecessors, who felt that they could, in the execution of the Apostolic office, have erred against the true faith, delivered by Scripture. This feeling, then, was believed to have been implanted in them by the very truth of faith, by which truth it is implanted in all Christians, that they feel that they daily sin in many things; and we believe that both confess, not in humility only, but in truth also; and that that humility rests not on words, nor on false sentiment, but on truth, as Augustine and the fathers of Carthage confessed"." A recent learned works adds to the cases of reordination of those validly, though sinfully, ordained, those who had been ordained by Constantine II., who had himself been obtruded by force into the Roman See. These, according to Anastasius", were consecrated anew by Pope Stephen IV. 1. I suppose that none among you would now defend the particular word, whereby Berengar was re 9 S. Aug. De Nat. et Grat. c. 24, n. 42. Opp. x. 144, &c. Quoted by Baronius, A.D. 769, n. 5. In the margin, in four places, consecraret, consecrandi, consecrati are corrected into conciliaret, &c.; but the text in Muratori (Rerr. Ital. Scriptt. T. iii. P. 1. p. 177) has consecraret, &c., and the edition with various readings, Mog. 1602, has such various reading in one place only. 1 Leo IX. annulled [cassasset] by synodical authority the ordination of simoniacal Bishops (P. Damian. Opusc. vi. 35), but I do not find any authority for his having reordained. The Vth Roman Synod, A. 1078, under Gregory VII., pronounced "infirm and void" (infirmas et irritas) not simoniacal ordinations only, but such as took place without the common consent of the clergy and people, according to canonical sanction, or not approved by those to whom consecration appertaineth." can. iv. (Conc. xii. 620, 621. Col.). Q |