Edward Bouverie Pusey · 17 of 21

Note B · Part 2

“To condense my meaning in few words, I declare it as represented with wonderful clearness and absolute precision in the following clause of the most learned Pétau: ‘To bring to a close the discussion of this question, I think that the most holy Virgin Mother of God was free, not only from all actual sin of her own, but from original also. But I am so far persuaded of this, that I would not have it counted of faith, nor would I believe that any one was to be condemned, or speak hardly of one who thinks otherwise; nor am I prepared to maintain it in any other way than that now prescribed by the Roman Pontiffs and the Council of Trent, i. e. by the Catholic Church’ (de Incarn. xiv. 2. 10). This tempered zeal circumstances seem to me especially to recommend, as also Apostolic moderation, and the very necessary counsel not to add sharpest strifes about matters of faith to horrible civil tumults. I think that nothing ought to be added to the causes of division and heat of mind, whose fury and rage is unexampled from the beginning of the world. For the glory of the Virgin and the good of the Church, what, as Pétau says, has been already decreed by supreme Pontiffs and the Council of Trent suffices. If, in a short time, as I most firmly believe, the most splendid benefits of the Virgin, who is terrible as an armed host, require other attestations of gratitude, your Holiness has other honours at hand to discharge this debt, and declare throughout the world your piety and grateful remembrance.”—i. 175, 176.

The Bishop of Anneçy.—“We readily own to your Blessedness, that to us it would appear better, if a solemn sentence, whereby the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin should be proposed to be believed as an article of faith, and true dogma, should be abstained from. For, in our opinion, such a judgment could not easily escape the note of novelty, as being contrary to the practice of the Church, which has not been wont to define Christian truths, resting on Scripture or transmitted by tradition, as to be held as dogmas under pain of anathema, unless they were impugned by some.”—i. 445, 446.

The Bishop of Meaux.—“We confess that we do not think that, in the circumstances of these times, it is opportune that a matter, about which Doctors and Theologians, most distinguished for piety and knowledge, have so long controverted among themselves, should be defined by a solemn judgment. We

confess too, that we fear lest the cultus of the most Holy Virgin, conceived without stain, should suffer detriment: and the piety which now of its own accord pays her distinguished honours should be chilled, when, by force of a dogmatic definition, they shall seem less voluntary. It is to be feared too, lest the authority of Mother Church should perchance be diminished by the clamours of the pseudo-reformed and unbelieving philosophers of these times, on all sides, that the faith is changed in the lapse of time, and that new doctrines are daily coined by the Church.”—ii. 363.

The Bishop of Carcassonne.—“In these most miserable and sorrowful times, very many, who have been baptized in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, desert this faith, or, retaining its elements, have entangled it with so many false doctrines, that their mind, ever struggling against the truth, is most ready for every sort of scandal. Wherefore we fear lest, things being so, a solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary would give occasion to the ungodly and to heretics to sadden the Church by disputations, and to assail with contumelies and blasphemies the Mother of the Saviour, whom we venerate singularly with the inmost affections of the heart. Whence we think that there is ground to doubt, whether the promulgation of such a decree, which in other times would fill our heart with joy, would be opportune at present.”—iii. 333.

The Bishop of Amiens.—“But although, by that definition, the most pious opinion as to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God is set forth, as founded in the doctrine of the Universal Church, nor can it be called in question without condemnable temerity, or contradicted without note of error, there lack not among us such as think that, if that doctrine should be assimilated to an express article of faith, there would be ground to fear, lest controversies should arise in the schools as to the conditions required for an express article of faith. Thence, they say, perhaps would be scandal to the weak, discussions and strifes of words among the learned; and to the heretics and unbelieving occasion would be given of speaking things wrong and injurious to religion.”—i. 135.

10, 11. The Archbishop of Rheims and the Bishop of Soisson said the same, more concisely, but with the same leading words, as the wish of themselves, the Canons, Directors of Seminaries, Professors of Divinity, Parish Priests, and pious Laity.—i. 121, 122. iii. 290.

The Bishop of Beauvais.—“In order to proceed with due prudence in a matter of such moment, we did not neglect to consult the Canons of our Church, and some presbyters conspicuous for piety and learning. Some of them (although all believe from the heart that Mary was free from original taint, yet having maturely weighed the question) had some doubts whether the testimonies of Holy Scripture and tradition were so clear and unshaken that it might be settled by a dogmatic decree. They thought also that perhaps it was not necessary, since the most pious opinion as to the Immaculate Conception is, at this time, not impugned, and is not connected with the defence of other dogma or rules of life; nay, that it was not opportune, since there was ground to fear that heretics and unbelievers would say, that tradition was corrupted by the Church, or that new dogmas gradually crept in or were invented at will, and that thus, on account of a new decree on controverted doctrine, the weak might be turned away from embracing the ancient faith. We should be glad that the words of the decree should be so softened, that they who do not assent to this privilege [of the Blessed Virgin] should remain free from the note of heresy, in that it should be declared that the Church does not err when it teaches, that the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, was wholly free from all taint of original fault. By a decree thus tempered, the end intended would be gained, the Catholic truth would be asserted, the piety of the faithful fostered, and heretics or unbelievers would have no place of crying out against the Church.”—i. 320, 321.

The Bishop of Blois.—“In publishing such a definition, there is need of very great caution and indulgence for the salvation of many, since, in our times, the sense of Catholic truths is much diminished. Every one sees this, who considers things attentively and judges from experience, that there are men now, some indifferent to religion, others wholly intent on politics, many fevered with the licence of thinking what they will, and so that the truths of Christian faith and piety are obscured among the people; and, accordingly, that the dogmatic definition of our most pious opinion, whereas at first it would be entertained with joy and gratulation by the pious and learned, would be received by most other Catholics with a dull carelessness, not to say, worse. For perchance (and this is not improbable on account of the age, the

feverishness of men and the pride of the insolent) an opinion which seems to them new will cause hindrance or delay to some sinners in returning to the Father’s house. Nay, manifoldly as the pastors may instruct the people, it is to be feared that many pious faithful will, with difficulty or not at all, understand how the Church, after eighteen centuries, should now employ itself in proposing to all Christians, as an article of faith necessary to salvation, that which before it had left to the free and pious choice of each; especially since, in these our times, there is scarcely any one who disputes the truth of the Immaculate Conception, but every learned and religious Catholic accounts it a duty and merit to believe and profess it.”—i. 211, 212.

On the other hand, the Bishop of Blois set the need of consolation which the Church had from the Blessed Virgin, which rendered the definition timely; and so, in due regard to the charity needed by so many, weak and ignorant, blind and unbelieving, asked the Pope not to define it so directly and expressly, that they who should not believe it, should thereby be separated from the Church, and incur the note and penalty of heresy.

The Archbishop of Bourges gave the opinion of ecclesiastics very distinguished for theological science, whom he had con suited, and who had given him their mature judgment. “It seems that, in these troubled and stormy times, the publication of this definition would perhaps give a handle to the enemies of God’s Holy Church to raise new calumnies, and vomit forth blasphemies, whence no light scandal might arise, especially to the unlearned and weak; they, too, who are frequently engaged in controversy with un-Catholics, fear lest the very greatest hindrance should thus be put to the return of heretics on the point of coming back to the bosom of Mother Church, since there is nothing which they more abhor, nothing which turns them more from the Catholic faith. Moreover, some, who piously believe and profess the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, think that this question, although clear, is not such that that well-known rule of Vincent of Lerins, ‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est, could be applied to it. Whence they think that, according to the ancient custom of the Church, it ought not to be defined. But I, most Holy Father, although I exceedingly desire whatever would be to the honour of the glorious Virgin, cannot but acknowledge, on the aforesaid grounds, that a definition thereon from the Apostolic See perhaps would be inopportune, and would not make for peace and unity, especially amid these present storms, fearing that greater evils would come from it than good.”—i. 497, 498.

The Bishop of Versailles.—“Although I was myself among those who, out of a feeling of filial piety toward Mary, humbly prayed his Holiness, Gregory XVI. of glorious memory, to declare the Conception of Mary Immaculate by a solemn decree, I think it due to my conscience to set before your Holiness a thought of fear, perhaps exaggerated, which takes hold of me.

“In the bosom of France there still live unbelieving children whom heresy keeps far from their home. In their deplorable blindness, they still reproach us with the worship we render to Mary. It is not without difficulty that we can bring them to believe about the Mother of God, what is already of faith. Shall we not find more obstacles to their return, when, to reconcile them to the Church, we shall have to require of them explicit faith in the Immaculate Conception? Perhaps, to anticipate this difficulty, there would be ground for not giving the character of a Catholic dogma to the truth of the Immaculate Conception, especially seeing that, even if the Immaculate Conception should not be a necessary object of faith, the glorious Virgin would not be less honoured by all the pious faithful under this title.”—ii. 101, 103.

The Bishop of Angers.—“A doubt arises, first, because minds are at rest, as I said, not only in my Diocese, but in every part of France, yea, in the whole Catholic Church. Would it not be to be wished, that this peace and rest of souls should be maintained? “Would there not be peril of disturbing minds by passing a decree on that subject, the minds not of the pious, but of those, no few, who contradict the truth, and subject all things to the examination of reason? I confess that there is, as far as I know, no such peril for my diocese; but, in our times, there are many who love liberty, impatient of a yoke, who superextol reason and its discoveries. In France, there is great liberty, not to say great licence of thinking, writing, printing, which writers, and those of no mean sort, use and abuse, to bring all things, even religious and sacred, into mockery and contempt; and so they impel others and are impelled themselves to evil and blasphemy. In this condition, then, of things and minds, it is to be feared that a dogmatic decision may

perhaps cherish evil passions and open a door to dangerous discussions.

“A doubt arises, secondly, not now from the clamours of impious men, but from the novelty of the definition itself. For among those who are less audacious, among those too who seem fairly good, not a few may be found, who will wonder that this definition has been so long delayed, the thing being so evident and clear; and who will venture to say, although undeservedly, the new dogmas are fabricated and devised by the Church. Many things have indeed been defined, in the lapse of time, which before were not counted among articles of faith. They were often impugned, whence it became necessary in a manner to define them. Here the case is different. The fact of the Immaculate Conception is admitted, and securely believed, in the whole Catholic Church; nor does it appear, that piety toward the Blessed Virgin would be much increased by the supervention of such a decree.”—i. 257.

Savoy. The Archbishop of Chambéry.—“The Clergy and people of this diocese burn with the most sincere devotion towards the Blessed Virgin; they profess her Immaculate Conception as a pious and most probable opinion, but not as a doctrine to be held of necessity and ‘de fide,’ i. e. in much the same way in which they profess the Assumption of the Virgin to heaven, and her preservation from all, even venial sin; and this, because the tradition of former ages of the Church does not seem clear enough to constitute an article of faith, and a true dogma to be believed by all under pain of mortal sin. It would seem then to us better to imitate the prudent line of the Council of Trent, by abstaining from any definition, as did that same Council (sess. 24, can. 7 and 8), by asserting, e. g. that the cultus which ‘the Catholic Church uses towards the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mother is pious and holy.’”—i. 411, 412.

Switzerland. The Bishop of S. Gall.—“From all this, I and my Councillors are persuaded that the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom, with the Holy Father and Holy Church, we firmly believe to have been conceived without stain and exempt from original sin, cannot be increased by any dogmatic decision or definition that she was so conceived, and that such a dogmatic decision is for this time superfluous.

“But what, in our disturbed times, everywhere seduced by a false worldly light, seems to advise, not to enact, at present, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but rather to defer it to a new era, as is hoped, more friendly to the Catholic religion and obedient to the Vicar of Christ and Bishops of the Holy Church is as follows:—

“Such a superfluous dogmatic decree being delivered and published in Switzerland and Germany, infected by un-Catholics and innovators, various disputations would be caused, pamphlets full of hatred and calumnies would be published, the dogma would be impugned and wickedly deformed in public papers, which find entrance everywhere; and so the seduction of many would be to be feared, the obstinacy of un-Catholics would be strengthened, and they be turned further away from the truth. Public papers and pamphlets written against religion would be published in far greater numbers than those in defence of the Catholic faith.

“It does not seem advisable to bring forward a matter so delicate as that of the Conception, or any treatise about it, without necessity. The temptation to wicked and carnal authors, of casting forth foul things after the manner of the wretched Voltaire and his followers, would be too great.”—iii. 302, 303.

Bavaria. The Archbishop of Munich.—“But whether, in the present circumstances of the Church, a definition is advisable or no, I scarce venture to decide, since it may be said, not without some appearance of truth, that such a definition will provoke fresh discussions in countries where Catholics live mixed with heretics.”—ii. 417.

Archbishop of Bamberg.—“By far the greatest part of the Clergy is persuaded that this is not the time to decide what remained so long undecided, and which so many of your Predecessors, and those so great, and the fathers of the Tridentine Council itself, hesitated to decide. They think that such a decision will be of no benefit to the faithful people, in that it adheres to the pious opinion of “the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin spread far and wide; and to the body of the more erudite and learned in our Germany the matter does not seem so clear that (whatever the very learned and illustrious Tramontanes may say, who have very recently written in behalf of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin) they can think that this opinion, which has been hitherto cherished as pious, should be enrolled among

dogmas, about which no one may doubt. They think that account should be had of the state of the times, most troubled both as to the ecclesiastical and civil polity; that it does not belong to these times to revive inveterate disputes; that there is peril, lest new rents should take place in the Church; lastly, that it is no derogation from the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, if that should be left longer undecided, which has so long seemed matter of most difficult discussion. In this opinion of far the greatest part of my Clergy, which I have learned from the report of the Deans, the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Bamberg joined unanimously, to which I cannot but unite myself. Be the dogmatic definition of this question left, most Holy Father, to other times. Be the decision of this matter reserved to a General Council to be celebrated hereafter. We have that sacred deposit of dogmas decided by the most holy fathers in General Councils, to defend which against the very frequent attacks of the heresies of this time, and to establish it in the minds of our faithful people, will suffice for our most arduous office.”—ii. 59.

21. Archbishop of Gorizia and Gradisca.—“The peasantry, and other of the lower orders of the Diocese committed to my care, worships [colit] most devotedly the most Blessed Virgin Mary, and frequents in great numbers the shrines in my diocese dedicated to her; but it does not desire that the pious belief of her Immaculate Conception should be turned into a Catholic dogma, an Article of faith; nor is the least wish for any such decision manifested among the people, as far as has become known to myself and other neighbouring Bishops. As for persons of the upper, and, as they are called, more cultivated classes, they do indeed still retain the devotion and cultus of the Virgin Mary, although not in that fervour and number observable in the peasantry and poorer artisans; but so far from desiring that the most pious opinion of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary should be raised to the rank of Catholic dogmas or articles of the Holy Faith, they (at least the larger part of the aforesaid classes) are of directly the opposite mind.

“The fratres minores of S. Francis, called Observants in the Convent of Castagnavira, are most devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have an office of their own of the Immaculate Conception, but they have never manifested the least wish that the most pious belief of the Immaculate Conception should be changed into an article of faith, nay, rather, though most observant of the discipline of their rule, they fear the effect of such a decision in regard to the heterodox and to lukewarm Catholics, the number of whom is at this time immense.

“I must say the same of the secular Clergy, which, with few exceptions, is pious and studious of sacerdotal discipline. [Then follows, ‘If the present state—full of peril,’ given above, pp. 177, 178.] “For in past years there were heard, and still are heard, the assertion of Protestants and indifferent Catholics, ‘that Rome puts an unbearable yoke on the faithful, by coining new dogmas, and forming articles of faith from the rhetorical expressions of one or two fathers, and enjoining that that should be held with firm faith as a dogma, which a few centuries, nay, a few decennia before, might be questioned, and the assertors of the contrary whereof Roman Pontiffs had forbidden to condemn.’ What then would happen, if the most pious faith (yea, ‘the pious opinion,’ as it still stands in Catechisms) of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, should be declared as a dogma of sacred faith? Will it be an increase of faith? Will it be a happier condition of the Catholic Church? Is a restoration of affairs at Rome to be hoped therefrom? I, as far as it is given me by God to see, fear exceedingly the contrary. It is a matter, I must repeat, full of peril. When some years ago, under Gregory XVI., the same question was proposed to the Bishops, there came to me letters of Catholic Bishops from countries very remote from this, the writers whereof exclaimed in amazement, ‘Does Rome mean to form new articles of faith?” Should we have a more beneficial result now? I doubt most exceedingly.” [Then follows, ‘Under these circumstances—the Son of God.’ Above, p. 178.] He sums up, “This is what, after instituting a mature examination in the .sight of God in this most grave matter, I thought I ought to explain to your Holiness, and I do explain it with all befitting submission of mind and reverence,” &c.—i. 178, 179.

22. The Archbishop of Salsburg.—“This pious faith being now nowhere controverted, nay, every one being free, undisturbed by any, to indulge this cultus in his own way, all gladly acquiesce in the most wise constitution of the Council of Trent published thereon, so that I do not know that any one wishes for a new decree of the Apostolic See. Moreover, history attests, that the Church then chiefly intervened by a

peremptory decision, when the wrongful zeal of men attempted either to question, or to corrupt by sinister interpretation the faith given by God, neither of which is done (it is known) in the present case. Added to this, the opinion is fixed in the minds of very many, that there exists not such authority of Apostolic tradition, that the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin can be established by a decree divinely certain. Wherefore I think that it is much to be feared, that, whereas formerly most grave and lasting controversies were lulled by Apostolic decrees, issued on matters of faith, the declaration of the Holy See would this time rather furnish fresh matter for doubts and discords about that question which are now quite hushed or unknown, and the enemies of the Church, ever ready to censure, would take occasion thence of impiously calumniating her, as though she delivered new dogmas without the suffrage of Divine tradition. Being then commanded by your Holiness to exp lain candidly my mind in this matter, considering the adjuncts of the times, I cannot bring myself to think that the counsel to declare that pious belief as a Catholic dogma is opportune, or that it will really advance that cultus. In that ferment of minds which now prevails, very inimical to religion and piety, I fear that such a public and solemn declaration is a matter full of peril, such as the other many and great difficulties with which the Church now struggles, seem to dissuade from voluntarily provoking.”—i. 326, 327.

23. The Bishop of Trieste.—“The people of the united Diocese of Trieste and Capo d’Istria are animated with such devotion to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that any doubt which might be newly raised as to this doctrine would excite the greatest disturbance of mind, and give useless, nay, very perilous occasion to theological questions among the laity themselves. For this cause I omitted express mention of the wish that it should at last be decided by a solemn judgment that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original taint, in order to maintain the laudable and firm opinion of the faithful people herein; and also I did not venture to express openly the consideration of the topic, to guard against discussions among some of the clergy themselves, who keep silence as to the opposite opinion, not out of any conviction of their own, but rather out of obedience.

“For myself, I own plainly, that it is extremely to be desired that the intention of the most Holy Council of Trent (Sess. v.), according to which the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary was not comprised in the decree as to original sin, should be explained more clearly, and the Catholic doctrine of her Immaculate Conception should be defined in unambiguous terms; yet, having weighed the aforesaid considerations, I should wish to follow the counsel of many brethren (‘confratrum,’ other Bishops), who in the present circumstances and at this time hold that it is better that any direct definition should be deferred, and wish only for a tacit definition, decreeing the sanctity of the ecclesiastical rite now used in the cultus of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin.” —i. 435, 436.

24, 25. Moravia. The Archbishop of Olmütz, and the Bishop of Brünn.—“Nevertheless, the most humbly subscribed cannot adopt the opinion that now at present this pious assertion should be placed by a Pontifical decree among dogmas of faith. The gravest reason, whereby, after mature deliberation and fervid imploring of light from above, they feel themselves moved so to judge, is taken from the most difficult circumstances of the countries over whose Churches they are set. A most cunning heresy spreads with impunity in these parts, which has been wont most greedily to seize every handle for criminating the Catholic Church. Among divers protests, whereby it attempts to entice the faithful to its side, is this also, that they blatter (certainly, without any solid foundation), that the Catholic Church forms new dogmas at will. But if, by a solemn judgment of the Holy Apostolic See, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin should be defined at this time as a dogmatic doctrine of the Catholic Church, doubtless that most false incrimination would shake many, less firm in the Catholic faith, with great peril of souls. This peril ought the more to be considered, because hitherto, through an erroneous statement of the subject, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been considered by many faithful of the Catholic Church as only a pious opinion; accordingly, it could not be without disturbance of minds, that what (although persuaded of its truth, and not doubting) they seemed until now only to opine, they should be obliged to revere as a Catholic dogma.

“Our counsel, therefore, tends to this, that, until circumstances be changed, things should remain as they are. The faithful do not doubt the Immaculate Conception to the Virgin Deipara; the cultus of that

mystery increases daily; souls then are not imperilled on the head of truth’s not being acknowledged; but contrariwise no slight perils are avoided, which come reasonably to be feared from the dogmatic pronouncement of the truth by the Apostolic See.

“This state of things was the ground why the most humbly subscribed hesitated to execute the exhortation of your Holiness, prudently accounting that the appointment of public prayers in their dioceses for the obtaining of light from above for counsel to be taken in this matter, could not be without detriment to religion and the Holy Apostolic See.”—iii. 232, 283.

25. b) The four Bishops of Bohemia.—They thank the Pope, for “the most precious letter, wherein in sweetest words the feelings of our mind towards the most Blessed Virgin are expressed; “and they state that they had assiduously endeavoured to promote among the people “the Catholic cultus of her.”

“Full of the same faith as your Holiness, that the most Blessed Virgin was conceived without any stain of original fault? we gave public testimony of this faith in the prayer addressed to the Predecessor of your Holiness, of most pious memory, Gregory XVI., that we might be allowed publicly to enunciate and add the word Immaculate in the Preface and Litanies of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

“So then, unanimous and joyous, we report to your Holiness that this faith, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without stain of original fault, is held both by the clergy and the faithful people as a doctrine of our Holy Church from most ancient tradition.

“Nevertheless, since the question is, that this faith be decreed by the solemn judgment of the Apostolic See, we, following the most venerable example of your Holiness, thought that we ought to consult some persons proved by piety and theological discipline. Having heard their judgment, and weighed it maturely in the Lord, we thought that we ought to signify to your Holiness that this faith, as we have set forth, is vivid, and is taught of old in our Christian people and clergy, but that because in these last times there has been no controversy about this belief, and no heretical doctrines, opposed to it, seem to urge such a decision; the modern adjuncts of time, place, and men do not recommend that this most ancient belief should be decreed as a doctrine by the solemn judgment of our holy Roman Catholic Church. For the multitude of unbelievers, heretics, and adversaries of our holy Church in our neighbourhood, and living among the faithful in our regions, would abuse such a decision most foully to their own perverse ends by their diabolic calumnies; so that we have good grounds to fear, lest many of the weak, the number whereof hath very greatly increased through the machinations of false prophets, be seduced, and make shipwreck of their faith, and, with their faith, of their everlasting salvation.