is guaranteed by the promises of God, and secured by the watchful and unintermittent Agency of the Holy Ghost. It cannot, therefore, but be most displeasing to God, if any Catholics, for the sake of conciliating externs, seek to disavow or explain away any part of what He has infallibly taught as true. For non-Catholics, the only path to Christian unity is the path of humble retractation and submission.* For Catholics, the only method of promoting peace is to exhibit, vindicate, recommend, the paramount claims of truth.

* To prevent misconception, however, of our meaning here, we will reprint a paragraph from our number for last April. "A candidate for reception," we said, "will perhaps speak thus: "These constant prayers to Mary are quite external to my previous experience, and I shrink altogether from plunging into them headlong. Yet I see that the Church sanctions them, and I have no doubt, therefore, that they are pleasing to God. By degrees I shall probably understand and practise them myself. To say the least, there is nothing reprehensible in this;" on the whole, indeed, it is probably the most healthy state of mind for a convert. "At the same time such a man, when once he has become a Catholic, will probably advance very far more speedily than he had thought possible, in sympathy even with the more extreme forms of Marian doctrine" (p. 436).

515

Notices of Books.

W

Analecta Juris Pontificii, Livraison 62.

"E wish to notice the first paper contained in this livraison of the "Analecta," because of its close bearing on a theological question which is now of extreme importance—the extent of the Church's infallibility. It is admitted by all Catholics, that all instructions issued by the Pope ex cathedrâ,-i. e. in his capacity of Universal Teacher, and accepted by the Episcopate, are infallibly true consequently the whole question turns on this; what are those cases in which the Pope speaks ex cathedrâ? Now it is certain from the "Quantâ Curâ" and its appended Syllabus, that instructions may really be ex cathedrâ, which in form are addressed to local churches or to individual bishops; but it is a matter of some difficulty to determine what documents of the kind possess this authoritative character. We suggested with much diffidence, that every Papal pronouncement on doctrine, which is published by the Pope's order, is intended by him (and therefore is) ex cathedrâ. (See October, 1865, p. 386; Dr. Ward on Doctrinal Decisions, p. 128.) Another suggestion, by no means inconsistent with the former, but simply additional to it, is contained in that paper, reprinted in the "Analecta," to which we began by drawing attention. It is called "Epistola Gratulatoria, &c." The editor of the " Analecta " speaks of it in the highest terms, and inclines indeed to ascribe it to no less a personage than Benedict XIV. If he wrote it at all, he wrote it when he was Pope; and its occasion was the following.

Several priests in Portugal had been in the habit of requiring penitents, as a condition for Absolution, to reveal the name of their accomplices in sin. On July 7, 1745, Benedict XIV. addressed the Apostolic Letter "Suprema" to the bishops of Portugal, gravely reprehending this practice and the doctrinal error which it implied. This was followed in June, 1746, by the Brief “Ubi primùm," and in the following October by the Brief" Ad eradicandum." The "Epistola Gratulatoria" was written in the interval between the first and last of these three pronouncements. An objection had widely prevailed, that Benedict XIV.'s original censure, having been merely addressed to the local Church of Portugal, was not ex cathedra and infallible: The passage to which we

*We quote from an earlier paper in livraison 29. Circumstances, says the writer, "make us suspect that Benedict XIV. was no stranger to the Epistola Gratulatoria;' we do not dare to say that it may be attributed to him; it is not unworthy of him" (p. 1202).

would draw attention replies to this objection, and is literally translated as follows:

"I would inquire of these chatterers what it is to define ex cathedrâ; for from their way of speaking I suspect that they do not know and I will say briefly. The Pontiff is then said to define ex cathedrâ, as often as, in his capacity of the Church's Supreme Pastor and Universal Teacher, he proposes and appoints something to be observed, avoided, or believed; and informs and instructs all Christ's faithful concerning some dogma. But now these sciolists foolishly prattle (nugantur) that I have fallen upon Scylla, and they turn round on me, because, as they say, the Holy Father directed his letter, not preceptive but monitory, not [as intended] for the Universal Church, but for the kingdom of Portugal alone, and to its bishops. I am covered with humiliation because men, commonly accounted learned, are not ashamed of being as foolish as the multitude (apud indoctos desipere), and to intersperse their articulate words with these foolish whispers. How far astray are they led by their boastfulness and obstinacy! When the Holy Father teaches the bishops of Portugal concerning dogmata and the necessary administration of Sacraments, does he not also instruct the Universal Church? Is the Faith, is the necessary ministration of the Sacrament of Penance, is the necessity of the Sacramental sigillum, one thing in Portugal, another thing in other parts of the world? Because the Holy Father addresses his rescripts to these or those bishops [in particular,] in that he knows them to need his admonition or teaching, is he not to be counted as having addressed them to all who need the same admonition and teaching? The Apostle teaches us of one Body, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism, and consequently one Sacrament of Penance which John had proclaimed. Therefore one and the same obligation of the Sacramental sigillum which is urged (commendatur) on some bishops should be accounted as prescribed to all. This necessity of the sacred sigillum is perceived [at once as appertaining, not to discipline, which it will be lawful to observe differently in different provinces, but to Christ's institution; to the intrinsic substance of the Sacrament; to the universal benefit of the faithful; and consequently to infallible dogma.”

Now we need not necessarily understand this to mean, that the Pope is promised infallibility whenever he officially instructs some local Church in Christian doctrine. But the following view at least is indubitably advocated: "Whenever a Pope, writing officially to some local Church or individual bishop, brands any practice or tenet with a theological censure, he is understood by that very fact to teach ex cathedrâ." And, whoever may be the author of this "Epistola Gratulatoria," an extremely strong confirmation of such a view is derived from the following circumstance. The Brief “Ad eradicandum," which was undoubtedly issued after the "Epistola" had appeared, contains the following passage :

:

"We are not ignorant that in other places also complaints of penitents have been heard, concerning the importunate inquiries of certain confessors concerning the names of accomplices and other information, according to the practice mentioned and condemned in Our [previous] Apostolic Letter. [Nor are we ignorant] that the erroneous opinions of certain doctors on this head,-and [again] the wrong interpretation and application of [what has been said by] other doctors who are themselves right thinking-which was mentioned in that letter, [still] find favour with some; and are not considered to have been sufficiently exterminated by the aforesaid letter: concerning which it has been temerariously denied by some that it possesses the force and authority of

a general definition and law, on the ground that it was addressed to the peculiar circumstances (opportunitatem) of Portugal, its kingdoms and dependencies, and only published for them. Therefore We, motu proprio, and from certain knowledge, by the tenour of this Our General Sanction, and from the plenitude of Our Apostolical Power confirming and corroborating Our [previous] letter, decree and declare that the above-mentioned practice was reprobated and condemned by Our Apostolic authority in itself, and for all places and times, and so ought to be accounted."

Here Benedict XIV. declares ex cathedrâ, in terms which cannot be mistaken, that an Apostolic Letter, addressed formally not to the Universal Church but to the Bishops of Portugal, was nevertheless issued ex cathedrâ, and possessed "the force and authority of a general definition." A similar inference is deducible from another of his utterances; viz., a letter which he wrote to the Archbishop of S. Domingo, and which stands n. 113 in the first volume of his "Bullarium." The following is an extract :-

"We have occupied some time in examining the books of Our private library, in order that We might answer the question proposed by thee, which We do in Our present Letter; not however with the authority of that" Apostolic See which We undeservedly occupy, but merely as sustaining the character of a private doctor. For the question did not seem to Us

to need the oracle of a Pontifical decision."

He thus concludes :-" "Now at length, in ending Our Epistle, We resume the part of Supreme Pastor, that We may impart to thee Our Apostolic Benediction, and besides may admonish thee" of certain ecclesiastical misconduct. Nor do we see what conclusion can possibly be drawn from the letter, except that Benedict XIV. considered himself fully competent, as Pope, had he judged the matter of sufficient importance, to have answered the question ex cathedrâ and by an infallible "oracle," even while directing his answer formally to the Archbishop alone.

His great work on the Canonization of Saints was written, as every one knows, before he was Pope; but his name as a theologian stands so high, that his volumes are of very great authority. We will extract from them, therefore, the following passage on a somewhat similar question :—

"Concerning works written by those Supreme Pontiffs whose Beatification or Canonization is on hand, it may reasonably be doubted whether these are subject to the law of revision.. Either the question concerns works written by those servants of God before their Pontificate, and then they are all without exception to be examined; . . or else it concerns works composed afterwards. In this latter case works which have the force of law, or which concern the affairs and government of the Universal Church, are to be distinguished from works which have not this character. For in works of the former class revision has no place; since they issued from the Pope, either as teaching ex cathedrâ, or as being Supreme Governor and Pastor of the Church. But the case is otherwise in regard to works of the second class, as having been composed indeed by a Pope, but composed by him as a private individual or a private doctor” (1. 2, c. 26, n. 4).

And he adds that such was the course adopted in the processes of S. Pius V., B. Gregory X., Innocent XI., and Benedict XI.; the only Papal processes which have taken place, since "judicial order" was first intro

duced into causes of Beatification and Canonization. In his opinion, - therefore, nay apparently in the Church's judgment, pronouncements officially put forth by the Pope, not as Universal Teacher, but as Supreme Governor and Pastor, are in some most special sense under the Holy Ghost's overruling guidance; and do not proceed from him as "a private doctor." On the other hand, the author refers (l. 1, c. 43, n. 2) to a certain "concio" pronounced by Pope Sixtus V., in "the last consistory held for the canonization of S. Didacus;" but considers that this "concio" did proceed from him as from a private doctor.

Benedict XIV. published his work "de Synodo Diæcesanâ" when he was Pope. In the last paragraph of his Preface to that work, he explains that he has written it merely as a private doctor. "Wherever," he says, "nothing has been defined with Apostolic authority, either by the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, or by Ourselves in the Bullarium or elsewhere, and generally in all those things to which no weight has been added from the Church's public authority, we intend [herein] to define nothing nor put any thing forth as authoritative [decretorium]."

Our readers will have observed that the "Epistola Gratulatoria" contains a very intelligible and serviceable definition of the term "ex cathedrâ." We have spoken before now (January, p. 262; Dr. Ward on Doctrinal Decisions, p. 193) of the misapprehension to which several Ultramontane theologians have been exposed, who have said that the Pope never speaks ex cathedrâ, unless he expresses or implies an anathema on the condemned tenet. Some careless readers have understood them to mean, that the Pope is not infallible in pronouncing censures lower than that of heresy. There cannot, however, be a greater mistake: for, on the contrary, it was the admitted principle of Ultramontanes and Gallicans alike, that the same authority which is infallible in condemning tenets as heretical, is no less infallible in condemning tenets as theologically unsound in any degree. This fact has been shown by Dr. Ward —we venture to think conclusively--in the preface to his work on "Doctrinal Decisions," pp. xviii-xxvi. But the controversy between Ultramontanes and Gallicans turned directly on the question of heretical tenets; and the latter party challenged the former to explain, what they precisely meant in confining the Pope's infallibility to his declarations ex cathedra. Ultramontanes replied that no Pope could ever be considered to condemn ex cathedra any tenet as heretical, unless he expressed or implied an anathema on that tenet.

At the present time, however, as we have several times observed, the question between Ultramontanes and Gallicans has become of little comparative importance; while the extent of the Church's infallibility is certainly among the most momentous theological issues of the day. It has become, therefore, we think, in the highest degree desirable, to drop all reference to an anathema" in defining the term " ex cathedrâ." This has been one reason of our drawing attention to the "Epistola Gratulatoria;" which does so proceed in its definition of the term. On the same account we will conclude with a reference to Phillips, the great contemporary German canonist. He contributes an article on "the Pope" to Goschler's "Dictionary of Catholic Theology," and we translate the following from the French translation of that work (Paris, Gaume) :