Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/263

 ] Council either concerning the pre-eminence of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church and General Council, or concerning his Infallibility.

Another Bishop protested that this ascription to the Pope of absolute or unconditional Infallibility, separate, i.e. independent of the consent of the Episcopate—personal, that is to say, uttered at will—is neither opportune nor lawful: not opportune, for it will involve souls and religion in innumerable difficulties; not lawful, because founded on no certain argument either of Scripture, or Tradition, or Councils; and because it would revolutionise the constitution which Christ has imposed upon His Church.

Next came a witness from the Irish Catholics. This Bishop said that although during the last thirty-one years before the Council assembled the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff had been taught in the Irish schools, and he himself during fifteen years had inculcated it upon the young ecclesiastics entrusted to his care; yet for two hundred years it had always been taught in the schools that the decrees of the Roman Pontiff were not irreformable, except with the consent, either expressed or tacit, of the Episcopate. Therefore this doctrine of personal Infallibility of Roman Pontiffs could not reach the people and sink into the minds of the faithful laity. Moreover, a denial of personal Infallibility had been publicly made when the Irish Bishops were interrogated by the English Government. Nor was any censure to this day ever uttered against the doctrine which prevailed in Ireland. The Irish Catechisms had always taught the Infallibility of the Church, meaning the Bishops or teaching body in agreement with the Pope.

Sixteen other Bishops joyfully accept the doctrine, and declare it supported by the entire Dominican Order. Twenty-five others did the same.