292

Ultramontanism alleged

bulls of Sixtus IV., Alexander VIII., Clement XI.', and Pius VI.', we adhere to the doctrines which appear to us true, and which never have been nor could be censured, the doctrines which affirm the character of Pontifical monarchy effectually tempered by Episcopal aristocracy; the complexity of the elements which compose the spiritual sovereignty and doctrinal infallibility, the necessity of the concurrence of these two elements to establish the absolute rule of faith."

To us the title "monarch" is itself startling: to the Ultramontanes it seems inadequate without the addition "absolute," "irresponsible," "sole," "infallible." It is melancholy that the assailants of Gallicanism should think it necessary to asperse the memory of the great man to whom, both in his own day and till now, the Church has been so much indebted ". The maxim that "Ultramontanism is precisely Catholic Christianity” is, it seems, to be taken in its most rigid exactness; and

2 Condemnation of Peter d'Osme. 3 Bull Inter multiplices.

5 Bull Auctorem fidei.

4 Bull Vineam Domini.

• "M. l'Abbé Réaume, who professes to be a disciple of M. l'Abbé Bouix, has recently published a life of Bossuet. It is to be regretted, not for Bossuet, but for his historian, that the Canon of Meaux was unable better to understand or to interpret the genius of that great man" (Mgr. Maret, ii. 344). "Our great Bossuet, the most devoted defender, the most determined champion of the certain rights and legitimate privileges of the Holy See-Bossuet himself is not spared! Neither his immortal genius nor his immense love for the Church have enabled him to find grace before the cruel severities of Mgr. Manning" ("L'ultra-Catholicisme en Angleterre," par M. l'Abbé A. de Saint Pol, p. 4).

* Quoted by the Abbé de S. Pol, p. 15, from Archbishop Manning's Pastoral on the Centenary, p. 55.

to be true Christianity.

293

we are told that "the right to absolve those who maintain the Gallican doctrine has been gravely questioned." It is consistent.

"If," says M. l'Abbé de S. Pol', or whoever (if it be so) shields himself under that name from personal controversy"If Ultramontanism and Catholicism are one and the same doctrine, one and the same institution, it follows, whoever is not Ultramontane is not Catholic. But, then, what place is to be assigned to all those theologians, all those doctors and fathers of the Church, all those Bishops, all those Cardinals, nay, even all those Popes, who, very far from being Ultramontanes, were altogether and precisely the contrary? Would men venture to make them to have been schismatics and heretics? Assuredly they will not go to this extremity. And yet, in this system, there is no mean; ULTRAMONTANE OR OUT OF THE CHURCH. If this axiom is true, the monstrous consequence must be accepted: all these great men and all these saints must be regarded as the enemies of God, of Jesus Christ and His Church, and anathematized. Men will not dare."

I have, in this long discussion, used, as far as I could, the words of Bossuet, in memory of his long and persevering labours to restore union to Western Christendom, and because it seems to be certain that he had the highest authority to bear out the terms which he suggested. Had I, when I began it, foreseen or known the prevailing attitude of

8

Ib. p. 20. Archbishop Manning's words are:-"It has been a question, whether they who defend the four Articles, after the repeated Pontificals and condemnations, are capable of Sacramental Absolution."

294

Mgr. Maret: Effects of defining

minds towards us, I should perhaps not have had the heart to do it. And yet, come of it what may, it is something to have removed some stumblingblocks in the way of a healthful reunion hereafter. I think that the acceptance of propositions founded on Bossuet's statements, accompanied with the declaration of what we pass over as not being "de fide," and also of what we actually reject as erroneous (if your theologians also should think it to be so), would be an immense advance towards such reunion, and would dispose minds far and wide towards it.

On the other hand, I can hardly imagine any thing more fatal to it, than the declaration of Papal Infallibility. Even writers of yours speak of it as "changing the constitution of the Church. But in changing the constitution, you are obliged to change also the doctrine; and it will be necessary hereafter to chant in the holy sacrifice, Credo Papam, instead of Credo Ecclesiam1."

"If the new definition which a school more ardent than wise calls for, were possible; if it were carried, it would necessarily result that the Church would become, de jure as well as de facto, a monarchy, pure, indivisible, absolute.

"This transformation would be an essential revolution in the constitution of the Church. For an aristocratic monarchy, a monarchy essentially tempered with aristocracy, a monarchy essentially deliberative, is an institution entirely different from a monarchy pure, indivisible, absolute, consultative. They could not be identified or confounded without wounding reason or wronging common sense.

1

Mgr. Maret, ii. 375.

2 Ib. 371.

Papal Infallibility.

295

"Were this revolution effected, then the constitution of the Church would cease to be what it has been de jure during nearly nineteen centuries; it would change its nature radically, essentially.

"But what is truly divine is immovable. If the constitution of the Church be divine, it cannot change. If it changes, it ceases to be divine. Doubtless, the constitution of the Church, as well as dogmas, may develope. But, like dogma, it cannot change. In the words of his Holiness Pius IX. on an ever-memorable occasion, development of doctrine must ever be made from the same to the same, crescat in eodem sensu, in eadem sententia 3.

"These words apply to Divine institutions as well as to doctrine. But in this case the development would be in alio sensu, in alia sententia. This development is then impossible'; it is contrary to the inmost constitution of Christianity. It would be the denial of its divinity.

"Were it possible, were it effected, what a triumph for all the enemies of Christianity and of the Church! Those enemies would raise against Catholicism the protestation of ages and of history, they would overwhelm it under a mass of accusing testimonies; they would bring Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils, to appear as witnesses against it. God will certainly spare the world and the faith of the faithful this extreme trial.

“It is a matter of principle that a new dogmatic definition ought to be necessary and brought about by imperative grounds, the defence of the faith, the good of souls.

"In these days, it is not only the authority of the Church and its head which are disputed, denied. The negations are radical, but in another way. They bear on the first and most necessary truths, which a false science audaciously attacks; the very notion of God; the Divinity of Jesus Christ; the whole supernatural order. These are chiefly the dangers of the faith and of souls. To bring back souls to the feet of the Saviour, is the sure way to make them confess the authority of His

3

Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.

4 Ib. § 9, p. 380.

296

Mgr. Maret: Effects of defining

Vicar. The first, most pressing, need of souls who doubt or deny, is not then a new definition of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. This definition, on the contrary, by the unlimited increase of power which it would ascribe to the Pope, would become a new and perhaps invincible obstacle to the return of souls which are under the influence of antiChristian science.

"Without real benefit to those who believe, full of stumbling-blocks to those who doubt, the new definition would attest to the world, that, up to 1870, the Catholic Church did not exactly know in whom resides the sovereign authority which is to govern her.

"After 18 centuries, 20 General Councils, 258 Popes, we should have to own to the world that we do not yet know with an entire certainty, whether the Church is a monarchy, pure, indivisible, absolute, or composite and tempered! We should have to own that we are still ignorant, whether the Bishops are purely and simply the subjects of the Pope, or whether they participate, under his authority, in the spiritual sovereignty! We should have to confess, lastly, that the sure and certain conditions of infallibility are still unknown to us!

"The men of authority, they who maintain in the world respect and trust in it, would be obliged to confess publicly, that they have not known completely to this day, the authority invested with the supreme and irrefragable right to command them.

"What a spectacle we should offer to the world, to the men of science, politicians! Should we not become their fable, and while we wished to elevate above measure the authority of the sovereign Pontiff, should we not compromise the sacred cause of authority itself?

"There are other inconveniences. We have shown that the new definition would transform the constitution of the Church, and would make the ecclesiastical rule the most rigorous, most absolute, most unlimited monarchy, which ever existed. Now, saving the case, happily very rare, when a dictator

66