Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/256

 236 the very opposite of the earlier doctrine, which thereby would be subverted."

Döllinger contended further that all theologians agree that the ecumenical character of a Council depends, among other essential conditions, upon the possession of real freedom. Real freedom does not consist in mere immunity from physical force. Fear, ambition, avarice, as effectually destroy true freedom as bodily constraint. Moreover, urged Döllinger, even if a Council be ecumenical in its vocation, it does not follow that it is also ecumenical in its procedures or in its conclusions. "It is still necessary that the authority which stands ever above every Council—the testimony of the whole Church—should come forward and decide."

This was Bellinger's final protest before the decision. A Bishop of the majority replied by prohibiting theological students in his diocese from attending Döllinger's lectures. Pius congratulated the Bishop on this action, and wished that others would follow his example; which however they declined to do. A war of pamphlets followed. Döllinger was attacked in a party newspaper as having by his recent writings placed himself outside the Catholic Church. Hötzl, a Franciscan lecturer on theology, afterwards Bishop of Augsberg, published a pamphlet entitled, "Is Döllinger a Heretic?" This was too much for the King of Bavaria. He expressed in a birthday letter the earnest hope that Döllinger might long be spared in undiminished mental and bodily powers to the service of religion and of learning. Hötzl's imprudent act awakened so many demonstrations of sympathy and approval towards Döllinger that it was thought wise to transfer Hötzl to Rome.