Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/878

 INFALLIBILITY

798

INFALLIBILITY

implication tlie infallibility, of papal teaching. Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome" (Hardouin, I, 1471). Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: ".so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo" (Hardouin, II, 306). More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (6S0- 681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho" (Hardouin, III, 1422). After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly be- fore the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this pro- fession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's prom- ise : "Thou art Peter, etc.", "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the .\postolic See " (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont., I, 8.53; Denzinger, 171-2 — old no. 141). Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438- 1445), repeating what had been substantially con- tained in the profession of faith of Michael Pala?ologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) (Denzinger, 466 — old no. 389), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the univer- sal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the oecumenical covmcil and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur — Denzinger, 694— old no. 587). Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been im- plicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early oecu- menical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the fiallican movement in the West (see Gallicanis.m) there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted.

(c) Objections alleged. — The only noteworthy ob- jections against papal infallibility, as distinct from the infalliliility of the Church at large, are based on certain historical instances in which it is alleged that certain popes in the ex cathedra exercise of their office have actually taught heresy and condemned as hereti- cal what has afterwards turned out to be true. The chief instances usually appealed to are those of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius in the early centuries, and the Galileo affair at the beginning of the seven- teenth century.

(i) Lilierius, it is alleged, subscribed an .\rian or Semi-Arian creed drawn up by the Council of Sirmium and anathematized St. Athanasius, the great cham- pion of Nicffia, as a heretic. But even if this were an accurate statement of historical fact, it is a very inadequate statement. The all-important circum- stance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once de- prives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as .soon as he had re- covered his liberty, made amends for the moral weak- ness he had been guilty of. This is a quite satisfac- tory answer to the objection, but it ought to be added that there is no evidence whatever that Liberius ever anathematized St. Athanasius expressly as a heretic,

and that it remains a moot point which of three or four Sirmian creeds he subscribed, two of which con- tained no positive assertion of heretical doctrine and were defective merely for the negative reason that they failed to insist on the full definition of Nicsea (see Liberius, S.unt, Pope).

(ii) The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite con- troversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Si.xth Ecumenical Council, the de- crees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bit- terness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled l)y the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter's misrepresentation of his opponents' position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or disconlant wills. Finally, in refer- ence to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no crcumenical sen- tence affirming the fact cither that Honorius's letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has cccu- menical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important (|ualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral grouml that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his .\postolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its begin- nings (see Honorius, Pope).

(iii) There is still less rea.son for trying to found an ol)jection to papal infallibility on the wavering con- duct of Pope Vigilius in connexion with the contro- versy of the Three Chapters; and it is all the more needless to delay upon this instance as most modern opponents of the papal claims no longer appeal to it (see Vigilius, Pope; Three Ch.\ptehs).

(iv) As to the Galileo affair (see Galileo), it is <^uite enough to point out the fact that the condemna- tion of the heliocentric theory was the work of a falli- ble tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congrega- tions, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way \>y the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infalliljle. 'The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions alrea<ly explained — which neither Paul V nor Urban \T1I did in the Galileo case.

The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.

C. Mutiiid lielalions of the Organs of Infallibility. — (1) .\ few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infalli- bility still clearer. Three organs have been men- tioned: the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See; oecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and the pope himself sepa- rately. Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyilay teaching authority of the Church; through the seconil and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practi-