Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/875

 INFALLIBILITY

795

INFALLIBILITY

foretold, but to take away all justification for their occurrence; men were left free to disrupt the unity of Faith inculcated by Christ in the same way as they were left free to disobey any other commandment, but heresy was intended to be no more justifiable objec- tively than homicide or adultery. In reply to the second point we would observe that it seems highly inconsistent for the same objector to blame Catholics in one breath for having too much defined doctrine in their Creed and, in the next breath, to find fault with them for having too little. Either part of the accusa- tion, in so far as it is founded, is a sufficient answer to the other. Catholics as a matter of fact do not feel in any way distressed either by the restrictions, on the one hand, which infallible definitions impose or, on the other hand, by the liberty as to non-defined matters which they enjoy, and they can afford to decline the services of an opponent who is determined at all costs to invent a grievance for them. The objection is based on a mechanical conception of the function of infallible authority, as if this were fairly comparable, for example, to a clock which is supposed to tell us unerringly not only the large divisions of time such as the hours, but also, if it is to be useful as a time- keeper, the minutes and even the seconds. Even if we admit the propriety of the illustration, it is obvious that a clock which records the hours correctly, without indicating the smaller fractions of time, is a very use- ful instrument, and that it would be foolish to refuse to follow it because it is not provided with a minute or a second hand on the dial. But it is perhaps best to avoid such mechanical illustrations altogether. The Catholic believer who has real faith in the efficiency of Christ's promises will not doubt but that the Holy Ghost Who abides in the Church, and Whose assist- ance guarantees the infallibility of her definitions, will also provide that any definition that may be necessary or expedient for the safeguarding of Christ's teaching will be given at the opportune moment, and that such definable questions as are left undefined may, for the time being at least, be allowed to remain so without detriment to the faith or morals of the faithful.

(5) Penally, it is objected that the acceptance of ecclesiastical infallibility is incompatil)le with the theory of doctrinal development which Catholics com- monly admit. But so far is this from being true that it is impossible to frame any theory of development, consistent with Catholic principles, in which infallible authority is not recognized as a guiding and controlling factor. For development in the Catholic sense does not mean that the Church ever changes her definitive teaching, but merely that as time goes on and human science advances, her teaching is more deeply analysed, more fully comprehended, and more perfectly co- ordinated and explained in itself and in its bearings on other departments of knowledge. It is only on the false supposition that development means change in definitive teaching that the objection has any real force. We have confined our attention to what we may describe as the rational objections against the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, omitting all mention of the interminable exegetical difficulties which Prot- estant theologians have raised against the Catholic interpretation of Christ's promises to His Church. The necessity for noticing these latter has been done away with by the growth of Rationalism, the logical successor of old-time Protestantism. If the infallible Divine authority of Christ, and the historicity of His promises to which we have appealed, be admitted, there is no reasonable escape from the conclusion which the Catholic Church has drawn from those promises.

III. Okgans of Infallibility. — Having estab- lished the general doctrine of the Church's infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. We have already seen that it is only in

the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exer- cised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's suc- cessor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicsa this ordinary every-day exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effective- ness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of veri- fying that fact of moral unanimity, once any consid- erable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority, arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal ques- tions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such ima- nimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been eml)odicd in a de- cree of an oecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so- called "magisterium ordinarium " and confine our attention to oecumenical councils and the pope.

A. (Ecumenical Councils. — (1) An oecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provin- cial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically con- stituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an es.sential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an oecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent anti co-operation of its head. Hence (a) the right to summon an oecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For oecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present, (b) As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his repre- sentative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required, (c) Finally, papal appro- bation is required to give cecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subse- quent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his per- sonal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see Councils, Gen- eral).

(2) That an oecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above .stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself — unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matt., xviii, 20), a fortiori will He be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His au- thorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He prom- ised will be present, so that whatever the council de- fines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us ". And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of ortho- doxy insisted. The councils insisted on their defini-