Edward Bouverie Pusey · 16 of 21

Note B · Part 1

Doubts among the Roman Catholic Bishops, as to making the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin an Article of faith.

In giving more fully the answers of some of the Bishops, who demurred to, doubted about, or objected to, the definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as an Article of faith, it is right to premise two points: 1. That no one of them objected to the definition, on the ground that he did not himself believe in it. All had been educated from infancy in that belief, as much as in the belief in the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation; they had been taught it in the seminaries; they held it undoubtingly. 2. All were ready to submit their own opinion as to the expediency of making it a matter of faith to the authority of the Pope, and to receive what he decreed as “de fide.” They are then opinions which have passed away, since the doubts or objections were ignored. Yet they have an historical interest, as showing how the subject was looked upon by some distinguished Bishops, how the influence of Roman decisions upon those who are not in their communion was felt by some; what principles were held by some as to the evidence required to establish an Article of faith, or what evidence was supposed to exist as to this, and, in part perhaps, what hopes may be entertained of meeting upon common principles.

France.—1. The late Archbishop of Paris, embodying the opinion of his predecessor. His full answer was written Aug. 25, 1849 (Pareri, &c., ii. 26-45), but withheld until Dec. 17, 1850 (Par. iii. 338). On July 26, 1850, he wrote, “I have consulted the gravest men, the most able theologians of my diocese. I have subsequently myself examined and weighed all things before God with the greatest care. From all this has resulted a work of which the conclusions are—

“1) In conformity with the principles of theology, the Immaculate Conception of the most holy Virgin is not a matter which can be defined as a truth of the Catholic faith, and, in no case, can be imposed as a belief obligatory under pain of eternal damnation.

“2) That any definition whatsoever, even if the Church or the Holy See believed that they could frame it, would not be opportune; for it would add nothing to the glory of the Immaculate Virgin, and it might be hurtful to the peace of the Church and the good of souls, especially in my diocese.”—Par. iii. 310,

11. His letter of Aug. 25, 1849, which was sent four months later than the above, ran— “It was my first care (your Holiness suggested afterwards to the Venerable Cardinal of Bourges) to

call into council the gravest men and most learned theologians of my diocese. They wrote a dissertation hereon, conspicuous for learning and wisdom, which I have judged right to transmit to you, most Blessed Father, at length. Afterwards, I weighed diligently the matter before God, and will humbly explain my opinion to the supreme judgment of the Vicar of Christ. The Encyclical letter of your Blessedness, most Holy Father, raised two questions, the first whereof must be solved by learning, the other by prudence:

“1st. As the theologians, my counsellors, observe, it must be inquired whether, according to the principles of sound theology, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin can be solved by a decree of the Church or of the Holy See, whereby the faithful should be bound to embrace this doctrine:

“2dly. Whether it is opportune to publish such a decree now.

“As to the dogmatic question, the authors of the Dissertation lay down, 1) that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be enacted by a decree of the Church or of the Holy See, so as to be declared certain, yet not so as to be accounted among articles of faith; 2) that the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin cannot, as they think, be placed among articles of faith or truths of the Catholic faith, by a decree of the Church or the Holy See.

“As to prudence, having weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a solemn decree, whereby all the faithful should be bound to embrace the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, they think such a promulgation altogether inopportune. And I myself, mo st Holy Father, as well as the theologians, my counsellors, think that from the promulgation of such a decree the most grave disadvantages, and perhaps great calamities, will arise to the Church. And I myself think with them, that it is not lawful, either for the Church or for the Holy See to count the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in any case among the articles of faith, or verities of the Catholic faith. Yea, most Holy Father, I go further than the said theologians, and doubt whether the Church or the Holy See can enact by a solemn decree, that this doctrine is certain and must be embraced by all under pain of eternal damnation. The Advisers think that their judgment can be easily demonstrated by those grounds which theologians are wont to employ to establish the doctrine as to the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin. For, as these say, setting aside the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, who flourished in the first ages of the Church, whose explanation lies under no slight difficulties, the truth of the Immaculate Conception is demonstrated by most grave theological reasons, which rest especially on the glorious privilege of the Divine maternity, and the constant practice of the Church for the last five centuries.

“I will presently, most Blessed Father, set forth several doubts as to the force of these reasons, which, moreover, are reducible to the single ground of convenience. But for the time, admitting the gravity of this argument, I would explain modestly, and not without some fear, the following doubts.”—[The original contains answers, enforcing these doubts. These I have omitted, when they seemed to be involved in the terms of the doubt itself, or were nearly identical in terms with it:—]

“Doubt 1. Can the Church make a definition as to a doctrine, which rests neither on Holy Scripture nor Tradition?

“D. 2. Can any thing else be inferred from the passages adduced from the Fathers of the earlier centuries, besides the sanctification of Mary from her mother’s womb? [He instanced such expressions as ‘Immaculate,’ ‘Most pure,’ ‘Free from stain of sin,’ which, he says, were used by S. Bernard, or S. Thomas Aquinas too, who denied the Immaculate Conception.]

“D. 3. Can the Church, when it exceeds the limits of her authority, declare any truth as certain, on the sole ground of intrinsic suitableness?

“D. 4. Is the Church bound by no limit of lawfulness in the exercise of her authority, so that she can make a definition in all possible cases, in all circumstances, at her own will?

“D. 5. Did the Church without evident necessity, ever define a question of doctrine as to which, here and now, no controversy is raised? Would not the practice of Councils and the Holy See be contradicted by so doing?

“D. 6. Are the wishes of the faithful a sufficient motive that the Church should, by a solemn decision, settle a question of doctrine in their sense? [‘One of the most learned Bishops of Belgium, who extremely desires the doctrinal decision, confessed to me, that this practice of the Church seemed to him of so much moment, that on this ground alone he somewhat hesitated.’]

“D. 7. Can the Church propose as obligatory an opinion as to doctrine, which is not necessarily connected with any revealed dogma?

“D. 8. Can the Church define, either as ‘de Fide,’ or as infallibly certain, a proposition which cannot be brought under theological conclusions? [He explains, ‘Among the truths which the Church teaches with infallible authority, the last place is held by those which are contained in theological conclusions, i. e., such as are deduced from a major proposition, not revealed, and a minor, revealed. Such conclusions then must be connected by some necessary and evident link with some verity of faith. But the Immaculate Conception is not so connected.’]

“D. 9. Can the Church define, as certainly to be believed, a truth which does not touch upon the economy of religion?

“D. 10. Can the Church propose, under pain of eternal damnation, a doctrine which is altogether indifferent, in respect of dogma or rule of life?

“D. 11. Was it not always the mind of the Council of Trent to maintain liberty of opinions which

do not injure dogma or morals?

“D. 12. As to the Immaculate Conception itself, did not the Holy Council of Trent and the Holy See decree that opinions were free, and so, in themselves, indifferent?

“D. 13. After the Church has declared, at least implicitly, that neither of these opinions affects dogma or rules of life, would it not, by defining that the one was necessarily to be believed and anathematizing the other, seem to confess that it had erred, in tolerating error in its bosom?

“D. 14. Would not a new decision presuppose fresh grounds? But whence have these arisen? [‘From the “pious wishes” of the faithful perchance?’]

“D. 15. Failing testimonies of Scripture or tradition, can a doctrinal decision rest on pious wishes of the faithful?

“D. 16. Failing texts of Scripture, or Apostolic tradition, what else will the testimonies of Bishops be, save a new weighing of theological grounds in favour of the Immaculate Conception?

“D. 17. Can a new judgment, as to the value of theological grounds, be prudently passed without a new controversy, which however has not been raised?

“D. 18. But why this new controversy, if the question has been solved by the Council of Trent and the Holy See?

“D. 19. After a decree, declaring that opinions as to the Immaculate Conception are free, who will dare to assert the contrary?

“D. 20. Can a more vivid sense of some reason of theological congruity, even if it affected the mind of all the Bishops of the Catholic world unanimously, be a sufficient ground for a doctrinal decision?

“D. 21. “What weight is there in the ground of congruity, whereon alone the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rests?

“D. 22. Does not God destroy all those reasons of congruity by the mystery of the Incarnation?

“D. 23. Why, in such a mystery of the self-emptying of the Word, should there be any dispute as to the one or other degree of humility?

“D. 24. Might not perhaps the ground of congruence be brought forward more truly to prove that the Virgin Mary was sanctified in her mother’s womb?

“D. 25. If some Theologians hold that the dogma of the Divine Maternity is connected by a bond of mere congruence with the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, do not others contrariwise teach that it contradicts several revealed dogmas?

“D. 26. In matter of revealed religion, before the authority of the Church pronounces decisively, must it not first be examined, whether the difficulties both of sacred and profane knowledge can be solved? [Dismissing the difficulties of modern physiology, he asks,]

“D. 37. If, by a special grace, the fruit of human generation can be holy, immaculate, free from all fault, why was not Christ so born? [He says, ‘The learned Bishop whom I mentioned, when urged by this argument, did not hesitate to assert that the Fathers only hinted a certain necessity of propriety, when they speak of the Virginity of the Mother of God being necessary, and that in truth the Son of God might have taken flesh in the ordinary way of generation. I doubt not f hat that pious Bishop, on weighing the matter more maturely, would acknowledge that such a concession was altogether contrary to the doctrine of the Church. All testimonies of tradition, I deem, contradict it.’]

“D. 28. Would not Christ have been united with us by a closer bond of brotherhood, if born of man and woman, had this been possible, as is supposed in the opinion of the Immaculate Conception?

“D. 29. Is any special teaching for the forming of life derivable from that mystery, so that a definition could be judged, if not necessary, at least useful?

“D. 30. Do they not do wrong to the Blessed Virgin, who expect singular and illustrious graces from the decree as to the Immaculate Conception? [‘Such as, that there should hereafter be no foreign wars, no civil discord, the empire of error be destroyed; everywhere truth, peace, and charity.’ ‘When they exhibit to us the Blessed Virgin rejoicing in such honour, and therefore exulting, that we acknowledge her singular privilege, and, as a reward, taking care to pour most copious treasures of her gifts into the Church, do they not clothe the Queen of the heavenly Court with the failings of our infirmities? Do they not

represent her as a woman, desirous of vain glory, to whose feet each makes his way by flattery and blandishments? These things, if not vain phrenzies, are invented to the reproach of the Virgin.’]

“D. 31. Will not the doctrinal decision, contrary to the mind of the Church, diminish the cultus and glory of the Blessed Virgin?

“D. 32. The doctrinal decision will profit neither the faithful nor the Church, nor the glory of the holy Mother of God.

“D. 33. Will not the Dissenters mock the Church for such a solemn decision, and be repelled further from it?

“D. 34. Perils, which will arise thence, in respect to the unbelievers and politicians of this time.

“D. 35. Perils, which will arise thence in respect to some faithful, especially in the Diocese of Paris. [‘These, though they neglect the precepts of religion, yet profess to reverence its doctrines. Their faith, philosophic (so to speak) rather than Christian, will be too weak to bear such a trial. We fear, lest they should reject what they have hitherto venerated, or at least remove further from the Church. These perils are especially to be feared in the diocese’ of Paris. ‘There are to be found in Paris, more than anywhere else, men eminent for civil dignity, or science, or wealth, or authority, who by their example affect others, and whom we are constrained to count in this class. Moved thereby, my predecessor of glorious memory’ (the Archbishop who died as a martyr) ‘gave the same opinion as myself to the Holy See, asserting that the definition as to the Immaculate Conception would be rather a scandal than to edification among those of his Diocese.’]

“D. 36. Perils, which will arise as to some Catholic Theologians. [‘These will endure anxiously this new head of controversy, this new definition which can be confirmed by no tradition, nay, which, as many learned among them think, is at variance with the belief of former centuries of the Church. Which peril, if it be lighter on the part of those who listen tractably to the Church, will appear much graver, if we consider those who profess to reject the heretics who condemned in modern times, yet tread closely in their footsteps. Such perchance may be found among us.’]

“D. 37. Will not new heresies arise out of a doctrinal decision? [‘Probably “Anti-conceptionists” will arise, and some of them will not hesitate to assert that the assistance of the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Church, to settle at pleasure mere theoretical questions. What marvel, if among the adherents of the new dogma, some, of more rigid minds, resting on the grounds I have hinted at [Doubts 27, 28], should come to deny the Virginity of Mary, and the operation of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation?’]

“D. 38. Will not the decision of the question turn to the ruin of a great number of souls without any compensation?

“The wishes of the faithful, that the pious opinion of the Immaculate Conception should be counted among dogmas of faith, or at least among truths defined as certain, are incessantly produced to us as a decisive ground. They who so boast, most Blessed Father, exceed the limits of truth. To us the faithful seem to have no wish as to this definition. They are contented to pour forth devout prayers to the Immaculate Virgin. If any pious souls, more inclined to that faith, have uttered such a wish, they are, beyond question, very few. But be they, in respect to the unbelieving, heretics, or indifferent, as one, I do not say, to a thousand, but to a hundred, the piety or faith of this faithful soul will profit nothing by that definition, if it turn to the destruction of those hundred unbelievers, heretics, indifferentists. Why, without reasonable or sufficient motive, without evident necessity, or any benefit, at the good pleasure alone of some pious faithful, should we imperil so many souls? I conclude—

“1. It is at least doubtful whether the Church can declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be certain and obligatory. If its power is doubtful, it ought to be silent, since there is no necessity of speaking at this time. Your Holiness is not unaware, that many of the theologians who have written about the definability of this question, even such as have grave weight with the Holy See, went further than we; they do not say that the authority of the Church in defining such questions is doubtful, they deny it altogether. But we, most Blessed Father, believe the matter to be doubtful, and that in matters of doubt there ought to be no action. 2. Since the Immaculate Conception cannot be demonstrated to the unbelieving or to heretics, either by Holy Scripture or by tradition; since, moreover, both reason and

science raise difficulties, either in themselves insoluble or at least inextricable, against this opinion, if the Church were by a solemn decree to declare it obligatory, the Catholic controversy would in this point become weak and powerless. But thereby the authority of the Church becomes cheaper, the gravity of her decrees becomes questioned, and the truth of her doctrinal decisions is denied with increased temerity. Again then, most Blessed Father, moved by this most grave argument, we will say, the Church ought to abstain from any decree whereby the opinion as to the Immaculate Conception would become obligatory. 3. Although by such a decree the Church should neither weaken her own sacred and infallible authority, nor the deposit of revealed doctrines which have been already defined, in sight of the unbelieving and of heretics, she ought to abstain from passing it, on account of the inutility of the decree itself. For as we have tried to show, the decree in question would be useless, if not hurtful,—useless to the faithful, useless to the Church, useless in respect to the glory of the Blessed Virgin. This threefold inutility, even apart from the perils to souls, abundantly suffices to make the course, which some’ expect the Supreme Pontiff to attempt, to appear illegitimate.”— ii. 26.

Louis, Archbishop of Rouen.—“I consider that this belief is not clearly contained in the deposit of the Holy Scriptures. I consider that tradition in this respect is wanting in precision and unanimity. Had the tradition been clear, could S. Anselm, S. Bonaventura, S. Bernard, S. Thomas, Bellarmine, and so many others, have been ignorant of it? I consider that the belief of the Immaculate Conception does not reach, in a way at all explicit or imposing, above the eleventh century; and that if new beliefs or devotions, favourable to piety and nowise contrary to order, may be wisely tolerated and even encouraged, it is still advisable to leave them as free beliefs and simple devotions. I consider that a dogmatic definition, under present circumstances, would be both superfluous and perilous. Superfluous, because no one now disputes the Blessed Virgin the privilege of her most pure Conception, and it is not the custom of the Church to erect into an article of faith what is disputed by no one. Perilous, because, considering the state of minds at this moment, it is to be feared that such a definition will only be a signal for the most lively discussions, the most wounding imputations. What, for instance, will the English Theologians, so well versed in the study of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, do or say, when they shall see the Holy See define, as a point of faith, a matter which so many ages have scarcely had a glimpse of (entrevue), which so many holy persons and great doctors have either denied or been ignorant of? Will they not think that the Church, at this day, holds cheap that principle of S. Vincent of Lerins, so certain and venerable, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus? And will not the Catholic doctrine itself suffer much, as a whole, if, as has been recently the case, certain imprudent champions of the most Holy Virgin, in order the better to support the privilege of her Immaculate Conception, maintain publicly, that many of our sacred doctrines do not rest on any more solid foundation, on any more certain tradition? Instead of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception being fortified, will not other much more important doctrines be shaken? And, most Holy Father, I fear much that in this case the wish to make good better will injure the good. I fear for the peace of the Church, which, on occasion of this new dogma, may witness destructive passions roused against her and within her own bosom. I fear for the honour of the Popes, who will be represented as having been, for 300 years, occupied in stifling free discussion on the subject; forbidding on the one side, under grave penalties, any sort of attack upon the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, and, on the other, favouring, by all possible means, the expansion of this pious belief. I fear even for yourself.—Will it not be said that Pius IX. exposed the bark of Peter to frightful tempests, for a matter in which the faith is not concerned, and which is incapable of any application to human conduct? On all these grounds, I opine that there is no room for erecting into a dogma of faith the pious belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin. Far from desiring such a decree, I should regard it as a dangerous thing, as a two-edged sword, capable of wounding the hand which should use it. I should rejoice certainly, in the interest of the mother of God, but I should be disquieted, in the interest of the Church and her glorious head; and I would not purchase so dear the consolations of piety.”—i. 357-9.

The Bishop of Coutançes.—“Having been taught that pious opinion from boyhood, we, for ourselves and as the interpreters of the whole Clergy, all profess that Mary was conceived without stain. Yet we are persuaded, that there is no necessity or advantage in deciding or teaching, as an Article of faith,

that Mary was conceived without stain of original sin; nay, we all unanimously think it inopportune and full of peril. For whence should that necessity or advantage be derived? No question is raised about it; no adversary of the Immaculate Conception, not the very least, appears; Catechists teach it to boys, Divinity Professors to seminarists, Preachers of the Divine word to the faithful. Everywhere piously preached, it is everywhere piously received.

“Moreover, neither the Church nor the Holy See ever, as far as we know, erected any opinion piously believed into the dignity of a dogma, unless some controversy of greater moment were raised about it.

“We think then, positively, that there is absolutely no fitting occasion for it; but there appears to us grave peril, if the matter be touched in the very least.

“Every one knows with what efforts Rationalists and Protestants are assailing the bark of Peter, the authority of the Roman Pontiff, nay, the Church herself. Every one knows how many blasphemies the enemies of the Christian name pour out to weaken the Divine Monarchy. Every one knows with what calumnies those same inexorable enemies impugn daily the articles of faith.

“If what was hitherto a mere opinion is to-morrow, at the good pleasure of certain Bishops, to be believed de Fide, under pain of damnation; if, what the S. Council of Trent itself (as Pallavicini attests) would not decree, although then controverted and strongly impugned; if, what Pope Pius V., of holy memory, Gregory XV., and Alexander VII. declared to be, not a dogma, but a mere pious opinion, what might be contradicted without note of heresy, should be delivered as a doctrine by decree of the present supreme Pontiff, would not the aforesaid Rationalists and all uncatholics take occasion for assailing anew and more fiercely all our doctrines with their impious speeches? Nay, doubtless, a handle would be given them causelessly for so doing.

“But what is to be more feared, than to raise up these waves of passions and opinions, especially at this time, when the whole world is shaken with unwonted commotions, in which Peter (alas!) is ejected from his See, &c.? In these storms of tribulations, in this whirlpool of great crimes, in these perils and straits of all sorts, all faithful Christians turn their eyes to Mary, think of Mary, and call on her, piously and most inwardly believing that she was conceived without stain.

“Moved by these reasons of graver moment, we judge that a dogmatic decree as to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which could with the greatest difficulty be derived from Holy Scripture or tradition, should, at least for a time, be abstained from.”—i. 362, 363.

4. The Bishop of Evreux.—“In obedience to the commands of your Holiness, I have convened the most able Theologians of my diocese; I joined them to my Episcopal Council, and, after having interrogated and heard them, after having long studied and meditated in presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, after having humbly entreated the Holy Spirit to have pity upon rny misery and profound ignorance, this is my answer to the questions put by your Blessedness in your admirable letter.

“1. I do not think it well-timed to agitate at this moment the question of the Immaculate Conception; (1) because it is attacked by no Catholic, and has never been more generally admitted than in our century; (2) because many Protestants, reconciled by our most loved and holy Pope Pius IX. with the Papacy, are in the way to return, and that nothing would be more calculated to alienate them, than the obligation which would be laid upon them to cease to regard the belief in the Immaculate Conception as a matter of opinion.

“2. I do not believe that the passages of Holy Scripture are precise enough, nor the language of tradition explicit enough, or certain enough in all Centuries, that this opinion (certain as it seems to me) should be advanced to be a dogma of faith.

“The rules laid down by all Theologians seem to contradict this. “Our great strength, when we discuss with heretics, is this maxim of S. Vincent of Lerins,—Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est, &c. “On these grounds, which it would seem to me unsuitable and perfectly useless to develop to your Holiness, I would conjure you to abide by the examples of your Venerable Predecessors in the Apostolic

See, and to leave amid oppositions this holy opinion, which Bossuet called the most certain of truths.”—i. 100, 101.

5. The Bishop of Chartres.—“Never in my flock, and, I assert confidently, in all the Dioceses of France, did faithful Catholics burn with greater devotion and love towards Mary, never did they place fuller confidence in her; never in tribulations did they with more fervent impetus seek protection at her feet. Nothing can be added to the most lively significations of cultus towards Mary, which burst forth on all sides from the hearts of the faithful. It follows, that the pronouncing of this dogma ‘of faith’ will add nothing to this full, complete, and (so to speak) exuberant devotion. Nay, so far from kindling, it would burden, hinder, disturb it. For what confusion! what tumults! what protestations of rebellious men! The Jansenists and other Catholics of weak or less proved faith would cry out against the insertion of this dogma among articles of faith; they would rise up most boldly against it, try to draw Augustine, Bernard, Thomas, on their side; excite discord, assail with doubts and cavils the cultus of the Deipara which already includes the Immaculate Conception, and, so far from procuring any relaxation or comfort, would further accumulate the most vehement affliction of the Church.

“2. The Protestants, who incline to the Catholic faith, which the numerous conversions of very learned men, especially in England, attest most gloriously, would be deterred by the newness of this dogma from completing what they have begun. They would think, that all the articles of faith were declared in the Council of Trent, and that that most learned synod completed the Catholic doctrine. The impious Rationalists, Socialists, who are busy in entrapping the ignorance of the people by false interpretations of Evangelic doctrine, would try to accommodate this novelty to their ends, exclaiming that the Apostolic See, by sanctioning things hitherto unknown and unheard of, plainly favours their detestable comments. So then this plague, which no tears can expiate, would exult with fouler and more abominable licence.

“3. The faithful spontaneously, without constraint, without terror of Apostolic fulmination, believe, admire, venerate most profoundly the Immaculate Conception: devotion towards Mary seems thence the sweeter; for voluntariness is the condiment of love, the sweet aspiration of piety, the seal of filial affection, &c.