2 that with him are the promises; that to believe in the Church is to believe in the Pope;' that with him alone are the claims, prerogatives, and duties which we identify with the kingdom set up by Christ; that as God has sovereignty, so has his Vicar upon earth; that he has the power to depose kings; that he has a supreme call on our obedience. Nothing, therefore, can be more unexceptionable in principle. Every claim and power of the Papacy, including his temporal sovereignty over the world, is acknowledged in globo; and the whole is wound up by a strong censure of any spirit of opposition, and grudging obedience, and hesitation in yielding submission to the behests of the supreme authority. All this forms one set of principles; but there is something of a different description under the same hood. Having bowed down with the most prostrate reverence and kissed the Papal feet, the Minimizer rises again in somewhat different mood; and it is to be feared that in this case, as in others, faith is not productive of good works. A Papal statement on faith or morals is presented for the Minimizer's instant acceptance and belief. The Vicar of Christ, the Deputy of Heaven, has spoken; his word is that of the Almighty; another Moses has announced the Divine will. The Minimizer takes the decree, and forth 1 Newman, Letter to Duke of Norfolk, p. 27. 3 Ibid. p. 38. 5 Ibid. p. 51. 4 Ibid. p. 36. with puts on his spectacles; and ascending the tribunal of criticism, pronounces judicially on the question of its validity and obligation. He first inquires whether it occurs in speeches or allocutions of the Pope; in a Papal letter, or rescript, or decision directed to individuals; or to the bishops of some particular country; or in an unsigned missive. If it should come under any such categories, the Minimizer instantly dismisses it as possessing no dogmatic force. The 'Syllabus,' happening to fall under such conditions, is decided to be a mere 'index.' It is mere waste paper as far as regards obligation upon belief. The Pope, he holds, may fall into error, or heresy, or impiety, in any of these deliverances. We must be as much on our guard about his teaching, under these circumstances, as we should be about that of any private and uninspired theologian. It appears, however, on examination that the Papal decision takes a formal and solemn and deliberate character. It professes to be a formal decree de fide. The Minimizer resumes his spectacles, and proceeds to criticise it more closely. He inquires whether this decree purports to be addressed to the whole world.' If it does not, he pronounces it to have no dogmatic character. He inquires whether it occurs in an introduction to the formal definition. If it does so, he pronounces it fallible, and refuses to be bound by it. 6 He examines whether it purports to proceed from the Pope as universal Teacher, that is in the name of the apostles.'1 If it does not, he rejects it as of no force. He inquires whether it has been made with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe it.' 2 If that is not clear, he treats the definition as null. 3 6 He ascertains that it occurs among the reasons' given for a decision. The moment that this appears he places it in the waste-paper basket. He discovers that it occurs indeed in a Papal decision 'de fide,' but incidentally, and not as the immediate object of definition. He immediately decides that it has no dogmatic force or obligation. He rejects it at once." These principles are of the greatest importance, and will be found sufficient to dissolve the authority of most Papal deliverances and definitions, so as to leave them without any obligation on the credence of individuals. But there are still more important and more sweeping principles comprised in this system, which deserve further attention. The Minimizer again ascends the critical tribunal, and, spectacles on nose, scrutinises a Papal utterance. He remarks to himself: His acts and his words in doctrinal subjects must be carefully scrutinised and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said.'6 1 Newman, p. 115. Ibid. 115, 117. 2 lbid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 81. Then, in the first place, the Minimizer lays down these principles: The Lord 'willed the Gospel to be a revelation acknowledged and authenticated, public, fixed, permanent.' Therefore there must be an authoritative permanent tradition of teaching.' Hence 'the Church has the office of teaching, and the matter of the teaching is the body of doctrine which the apostles left behind them.”1 This being settled, if any Pope makes a definition 'it will be without any claim to be considered binding as the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum through the channel either of Scripture or tradition.'2 In other words, it must be shown by Scripture or tradition to have been taught by the Apostles as part of the Christian faith, or it is not binding. Very well. The Minimizer then takes up a Papal definition, and inquires, Is the doctrine there defined actually part of the original Apostolic depositum? Has it been believed semper, ubique, et ab omnibus? He examines Scripture, and he examines tradition, and he sees no evidence that it formed part of the permanent Apostolic depositum, and that there is much to contradict any such view. He then withholds his assent from the Papal definition. It is ultra vires. It is not an article of faith. At this point the Minimizer, suddenly remembering himself and finding himself openly preaching Protestantism, recoils in alarm, and deems it necessary without loss Newman, p. 112, 113. The italics are ours. 2 Ibid. 118. Italics ours. of time to propitiate the Vatican by a compliment. He says, seemingly as a matter of course, the Pope is the judge whether it is so referable or not,' i.e. whether the doctrine in question really does form part of the Christian revelation. As, however, it is impossible to propound a question for examination, and at the same instant to say that there shall be no examination because it has been already settled by the sole judge, it is clear that this is a mere compliment en passant to the Papacy; indeed the entire argument throughout the Minimizing system is, that we are not to take anything of the kind for granted, but to criticise the Papal decrees. Of course in this case the same rule is really meant to apply as the Minimizer applies even to the decrees of the Vatican Synod: 'If the definition is consistently received by the faithful as valid, or as the expression of a truth, then too it will claim our assent.' 1 Accordingly the Minimizer proceeds to lay down rules in the parallel case of Papal definitions in questions of morals (which equally come within the compass of the Apostolic depositum or body of revealed doctrine) without any allusion to the Pope as sole judge, and on the contrary assuming throughout the exercise of discriminative judgment on his decrees on the part of theologians and the faithful. A Papal precept of morals,' he remarks, if it is to be accepted as dogmatic, must be drawn from the moral law, that primary revelation to us from God.' 2 |