Page:Petri Privilegium - Manning.djvu/299

Rh by Innocent the Tenth, were appeals to the Cathedra Petri, and judgments ex cathedrâ, to which the consultation of the African or of the French bishops respectively contributed no influx of infallibility. And those two judgments were regarded as infallible, from the moment of their promulgation, by the whole Church.

If there be no certain judgments ex cathedrâ apart from the episcopal body, what are the judgments of Alexander VIII., Innocent XL, and Pius VI.?

What are the condemnations in the 'Theses Damnatæ?' The episcopal body was not united with the Pontiff in their publication. When did it become so? Till this concurrence was verified, these Pontifical Acts, according to Mgr. Maret's opinion, were not ex cathedrâ, and therefore were not certainly infallible. How long were they in this tentative state of suspended or conditional infallibility? Who has ever discerned and declared the epoch and the crisis after which they became judgments ex cathedrâ? Silence is not enough. Even strong terms of adhesion are not enough. The bishops of France received the condemnation of Jansenius by Innocent X. as infallible in 1653, but in 1682 published the Four Articles.

All this, if I rightly understand it, seems to present an inverted theory, at variance with the tradition, praxis, faith, and theology of the Church.

But further, if the Pontiffs are bound to employ 'the most certain means' to avoid error—namely, the concurrence of the episcopal body—they must either convoke a General Council or interrogate numerically the Episcopate throughout the world. Is