Edward Bouverie Pusey · 18 of 21

Note B · Part 3

“This our judgment, besought from the Lord with assiduous prayers, which we signify to your Holiness,” &c.—ii. 403.

26. Archbishop of Breslau, to the Apostolic Nuncio at Vienna.— “According to the opinion of the most zealous and enlightened Catholics such a disturbance would infallibly arise, if the dogmatic decree [on the Immaculate Conception] should be passed by the Holy See. The Protestant writers contending, pro aris et focis, would seize it as a welcome prey, to deafen anew their poor people by their cries against the papacy and the manufacture of dogmas discovered after eighteen centuries; unbelievers would join in chorus with the pietists, and would discharge fresh floods of sarcasms and blasphemies against this holy mystery; the literary Jewish youth would especially excel therein. So much for those without. Within, the secular war in the schools of theology, appeased with so much difficulty, would be kindled anew; that very delicate point of the infallibility of the Pope would give it an accession of combustible matter; the opposition of a part of the clergy imbued with Neologism, in the Rhine provinces, in Baden, and in Bohemia, would also find food therein; and as the result, instead of edification and a new spring of piety and devotion in the Catholic people, there would be nothing but troubles, divisions, scandals, disturbances without and within,—things a thousand times more dangerous now than they were in past centuries.

“I have re-read before I decided on writing this letter to you, my Lord, the chapters of Pallavicini (Hist, of the Council of Trent), and of Pétau (Theol. Dogm. T. vi. L. xiv. c. 2) on this subject; and this study has encouraged me to do so. History proves that hitherto the Holy See has only given dogmatic decrees to appease polemic and scandalous strifes, or to repress dangerous errors. In the present case neither of these grounds is apparent; the ground for acting would be a pure motive of piety, of devotion,—a motive very

beautiful, very precious in the eyes of God and of every faithful soul,—a motive, which for certain countries and certain people might also be founded on the fruits to be looked for, but which for our country (as I have had the honour to explain to you, my Lord) is counterbalanced by greater considerations, which discover the greatest dangers to the Church in the pronouncing of such a decree. I have allayed my Episcopal conscience, my Lord, in communicating to you my thoughts and apprehensions in this matter. I have spoken to you as the organ of the sovereign Pontiff. I repeat once more, that, in what I have just set forth, I find myself of one mind with all the most zealous and enlightened Catholics in our country. Make what use of this letter you please. ‘Dixi et salvavi animam meam.’”—ii. 466, 477.

The Bishop of Warmia.—“The Clergy of this diocese entertain a singular devotion to the most glorious Virgin; but as to her conception, many (and among them the Chapter of Warmia) have given their judgment, that in these turbulent times, ill-disposed as to ecclesiastical as well as civil matters, for the guarding against heresies and avoidance of schisms, it is not expedient to decree any thing new in this matter by Apostolic authority, but that it is more suitable, that this faith should, until a more fitting time, be left under the terms which the holy Tridentine Synod laid down (Sess. v.), on original sin. Yet after deducting these, there is still a great number of those who have openly professed the Immaculate Conception, with the most ardent desire that this faith should be decreed and confirmed by Apostolic authority.” “Among the people of the diocese of Warmia, which is, with inmost devotion, addicted to the worship of the most Holy Virgin,—the faith of the Immaculate Conception obtains universally, although there are those, who, being less instructed in the faith, under the term ‘Immaculate Conception,’ apprehend and believe not the origin of the Virgin herself, but the Conception of God-Man in the Virgin’s womb, by the operation of the Holy Ghost. The faith in the Immaculate Conception is cherished and fed among the people of Warmia by the diligence of the parish priests, especially in sermons; and, as I am persuaded, none of the clergy, although he hold an opposite opinion, would venture to teach or say any thing to injure the pious faith in the Immaculate Conception among the people, or whereby that faith might be imperilled or made matter of doubt. But there are some among the people of Warmia, who fear lest, if anything new be decreed by Apostolic authority about the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the uninstructed people, who cannot distinguish between dogma and that which is only to be piously believed, may bring into some peril the faith as to the Immaculate Conception too, which now exists universally.”

The Bishop of Munster.—“As to the longing that this opinion should now be defined by the Apostolic See as a doctrine of the Catholic Church, no wishes of this sort have reached me hitherto, except of some men whose opinion was especially sought. Nay, there are not wanting those who think that a dogmatic decision will not be without peril for these times and for Germany. Nor would I deny that, according to the character of the times, and in the provinces of our German fatherland, in which so many adherents of un-Catholic dogmas lire mostly mixed with Catholics, controversies might arise on occasion of this definition, injurious to Catholicism, and perilous to those Catholics who are less deeply acquainted with Catholic doctrine, and so are more easily moved by the objections of unbelievers and heretics.”—vii. pp. cxxxviii., ix.

The Bishop of Paderborn.—“But even though I am persuaded that the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception rests on a firm foundation of truth, yet about the other question, whether this our time is opportune and fitted for the emanation of the aforesaid dogmatic declaration, I can scarce remove all doubt. At least, considering the circumstances of my diocese, which is manifoldly extended amid regions altogether Protestant, and weighing especially the character of this restless time, very much inclined to dissensions and disputations, religious as well as political, it is to be feared that the adversaries of the Church would from that dogmatic definition get a handle for disputations and revilings against our holy religion; and lest to such of the faithful as are inadequately instructed in Divine things, or who cleave but lukewarmly to the Holy Mother Church, scandals should arise thence and perils of discord and alienation from the orthodox faith. When I weigh these things, and at the same time revolve that the greater part of the faithful people are already heartily devoted to the pious opinion of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and so, that there is no urgent necessity for the dogmatic declaration of the same; after having long and much weighed in my mind the bearings of this most grave matter, it seems

to me most expedient, to the benefit of the Church, and to the praise of our most loving Mother Mary, if that dogmatic definition should be ‘ not abandoned altogether,’ but deferred for a time, until more quiet and peaceful times be restored to our Germany, and until the Church shall enjoy a firmer and consolidated fruition of the liberties granted to her in these last times by kings and princes.

“This my sentence, whereto all the members of the Chapter of this Cathedral Church and other learned and good priests agree, I, explaining to your Holiness with the greatest devotion and all fitting confidence, leave the whole matter to your prudence and wisdom; and whatever you, under the inspiration of God, shall think it conducive to His honour to determine or define thereon, that I will, with readiest heart and due submission, receive as the utterance of God, will ratify and profess by word and deed throughout the diocese intrusted to my pastoral care.”— iii. 181.

The Bishop of Trèves.—”I confess that, for some little time, I, with some other Ecclesiastics, hesitated whether, having regard to un-Catholics, with whom, in most dioceses in Germany, we live intermixed, an opportune time has arrived for such a solemn declaration, in that I fear therefrom new cavils and incriminations against holy Mother Church, and against the holy Apostolic See.

“But, having weighed the matter more maturely, I have laid aside all doubt, and firmly trust in the Lord, that the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin, defined as a doctrine of the Catholic Church, will contribute most exceedingly to confound the adversaries of the faith, inasmuch as it is she who alone slew all heresies in the whole world.”—vii. p. clvii.

The Bishop of Hildesheim.—“1. In celebrating this [feast of the Immaculate Conception] the most Blessed Virgin is considered by the people all beautiful and without stain, so that they could not think that it would come into controversy; hence they do not desire any decision.

“2. There is scarce any hope that the devotion of the people should be increased by such decision; rather, it is to be feared lest they should marvel at such a decree in a matter certain to them, and lest the younger should by its publication be incited ‘ad cogitationes minus puras.’ But as to the rest, who are alien from the Catholic Church, there is danger lest it should be made a handle of assailing the cultus of the Blessed Virgin with new calumnies.

“Wherefore the greater part thought that a dogmatic decree was neither necessary, at least in these regions, nor desirable.

“As to the Clergy, their opinions differed. The greater part professes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin; others consider it only a ‘pious opinion,’ supporting themselves by the decree of the Council of Trent. (Sess. v., of Original Sin.)

“For myself, I profess that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin seems to me inseparable from the dignity of the Mother of God, and, on the ground of the consent of the Church at this time, certain. But whether or no its dogmatic definition is desirable, at least for our regions, and is for the good of the Church and the greater honour of the Blessed Virgin, this, for the reasons set forth above by the Clergy, and which are not to be altogether thought lightly of, I would not dare to affirm.”—iii. 346.

32. Bishop of Fulda.—“Yet neither among the Clergy are there wanting men, who, distinguished for knowledge, full of piety towards Mother Church, have indeed the same faith as others as to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and who, should any thing be enacted by the Apostolic See thereon would embrace it most humbly; yet do not advise or wish that it should be done in our turbulent times, wherein impiety rages with such impunity, and neither Church nor State enjoy peace. They regard the greater part of the faithful people, who, even without any declaration of the Church that the most Blessed Virgin enjoys this prerogative, venerate the undefiled Mother: they regard the tepid, living chiefly in cities with un-Catholics, who, not being stable in faith, nor well grounded in charity towards the most pious Virgin, if a controversy should perchance arise between them and the adversaries of the Catholic faith, may easily be worsted: they regard the countless host of enemies, to whom, as they fear, an opportune occasion and handle would be given by the doctrine decided by the judgment of the Apostolic See, of calumniating the spouse of our Lord, the Catholic Church, and of inveighing most bitterly against the undefiled Virgin, especially since, at this time, all things are disturbed in Germany, all are confused, and that ancient serpent aims at the heel more vehemently than ever. Although I do not deny that these anxieties

are not to be held cheap or despised, and would not conceal them from your Holiness, yet, after having poured forth copious prayers to God the Father of Light, I cannot subscribe to their opinion, which, approaching the throne of your Holiness, I candidly confess. For the greater the number of adversaries, the more insolently they persecute the Lord Christ in His Church, the mo re the secular arm is shortened, the more impotent have become the kings who protect her, the more ought the Church, who has to contend with the powers of darkness, to pray for her aid and help, who bruised the serpent’s head, to extol with praises and venerate with prayers her, who, praying her Son, alone slew all heresies in the whole world.”—

ii. 439.

33. J. A. Paredis, Apostolic Administrator of Limburg.—Alleged against the decision: “1. The question was too much agitated formerly without any fruit to souls. 2. Both sides have been defended by persons above all exception, nay, saints. 3. Those who denied or opposed it were as devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and venerated her as much as those who defended it. 4. The question is at this time extinct altogether, at least in this country. 5. The faithful are either ignorant of, or misunderstand the question.

“But on the other side, 1. According to the mind of the most Holy Lord, the mind of all Bishops, &c., in this matter has been sought. 2. The faithful were instructed of this, and exhorted to pour out prayer to this end. 3. The question then has in some measure revived, and if a definition do not follow, its issue is unknown. 4. For the affirmative, there are motives founded on theological reason, and on practice pretty general at this day; therefore on this side I think the contrary, and judge that a dogmatic definition may be published.

“Meanwhile, our most Holy Lord, Pope Pius IX., will judge in his prudence and infallibility, and his judgment is ours.”—iii. 308.

b) The Bishop of Spire.—Himself desired its promulgation as an article of faith, but added, “The matter being of so great moment I cannot but observe, that there are some theologians and ecclesiastics who do not at all think that a doctrine hitherto left to the disputations of the schools should be defined by an immutable sentence, whereby free judgment on the matter should be cut off. and pertinacious spirits might be harassed and irritated.”— ii. 442.

Engelbert, Card. Archbishop of Malines.—“I thought, however, that I ought to add, that in these regions (and especially in the neighbouring kingdoms of France and Holland) there are ecclesiastics, conspicuous for piety, knowledge, and prudence, who, although they acknowledge that great advantage would arise from an Apostolic decree, whereby it should be enacted, that all must believe of Divine faith, that the most Blessed Virgin was preserved from original stain, since thereby larger honour would accrue to the most Holy Deipara, and the faithful would conceive yet greater reverence towards her, and would be kindled more and more to worship her, fear lest very great inconveniences should arise from it. They fear especially lest heretics and unbelievers, who, in journals and other writings dispersed everywhere do not cease to attack the faith, should derive thence fresh ground for calumniating the Catholic Church, as though it were devising new doctrines, and paying undue cultus to the most Holy Mother of God. Whence also it might follow that many, who now seem ready to embrace the faith, might start back from their purpose. If, then, having heard the report of the most eminent Divines) Doctors, Cardinals, and other distinguished men, to whom the examination of that most grave matter has been committed, your Holiness should judge that the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God is to be defined as a Catholic dogma, perhaps it will be better to explain the Divine tradition clearly and luminously in the Apostolic decree, that it may be plain that nothing new is enacted, but that the ancient faith of the Church is alone declared and confirmed. For thus it may be hoped that the month of the malicious may be stopped, or at least the defenders of the faith may more readily refute their calumnies.

“Then, seeing that in these times those who have care of souls are compelled in moral matters to interpret the laws favorably [to men’s wishes], and to use great indulgence, because the faith of many is langxrid and charity is cold, those same men doubt whether it is expedient at this day to bring in a new obligation in a matter of doctrine, as to which not only there is no controversy, but it is extended more and more with a marvellous consent of all Catholics. For they fear lest perchance in countries in which there are theologians, who groundlessly deny the infallibility of the Roman See in defining dogmas of faith, some

[174]

may arise even out of the Clergy themselves, who, out of the itch of writing which there prevails, may with rash boldness openly impugn the Apostolic decree, and so raise public scandal. These doubts and these fears I report, most Blessed Father, simply that your Holiness may clearly know the state of things, and provide by a fitting remedy for any inconveniences, if it should seem that any are to be apprehended.”—pp. 447, 448.

Italy. The Bishop of Adria.—“I know that the gates of hell cannot prevail against this rock founded by Christ; yet we must beware lest we give occasion to our enemies, that it should be assailed with new wars, which will, I am horribly afraid, be the case, if the Church after so many centuries exhibit to the faithful to be believed a new mystery, of which we find no testimony in the Scriptures or holy fathers, if we except many allegories spoken of the Eternal Wisdom.

“But what if very many faithful, who, while the world rages, persevere still in the faith? I fear lest they too suffer scandal, rather than be built up. For faith in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mother is so deeply settled in their minds, that they do not allow themselves even to doubt its truth. Where is room for suspicion? The Bishops continually discourse thereon in their homilies, the Parish Priests in their catechizings, Preachers in their sermons. What, when they know by the new decree of this holy See, that that was for so many ages uncertain which they held for certain, and which was everywhere announced as so certain? ‘If we were deceived in this,’ they will say, ‘perhaps we are mistaken and deceived about other mysteries of faith too,’’ or perhaps they will allow themselves to doubt of the truth of the same.”—i. 317.

The Bishop of Mondavi.—“But whether the arguments, which they who at this day uphold this pious opinion, derived whether from Scripture or tradition and the almost universal zeal of the Church of the present time, suffice to prove that it ought to be transferred to a dogma of faith, if they be compared with what the fathers of the Councils of Florence, Lateran, and Trent, have uttered on this subject, and very chief theologians have discussed, I should fear to affirm. Nor, now that prayers have been poured out to God through the whole diocese, is it given to me to dare to do so. And I own that I am withheld by the same doubt, when I consider the fitting season of the aforesaid definition which, since it is not of necessity to salvation, it seems to some may with greater advantage be put off to happier times of the Church. None of these difficulties, however, would perhaps arise, if it were only defined that the Church rightly promotes the cultus of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, yet so that the contrary opinion cannot be ever accounted heretical.”—iii. 144.

The Cardinal Bishop of Viterbo and Toscanella.—“Two classes of the faithful are to be distinguished, the learned and unlearned. The unlearned, speaking of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, suppose and believe de fide that it was most exempt from all stain, and therefore do not think it a matter liable to be disputed, and so neither to be defined by the Apostolic See; wherefore, from ignorance, they neither have, nor can have any wish about it. The learned have not all the same mind or wish. Although all now hold most firmly that the most Blessed Virgin was conceived without any stain whatever, they are not unanimous that it is necessary or convenient to define it by a dogmatic judgment of the Holy See. Some wish such decision; others think it ought not to be proceeded to, especially considering the circumstances of the times.

“For myself, I own ingenuously, that on the one side, from my observance and devotion to the most Holy Virgin, I wish that your Holiness should number the mystery of the Immaculate Conception too among the articles of faith; yet, on the other, weighing the reasons adduced by many most grave theologians, and especially by the most Eminent Cardinal Gotti, in his discourse on this controversy, exhibited to Clement XII., and recently published at Home, I feel myself vehemently urged to judge that, in the present state of things, and especially in the coldness and infirmity of faith and religion at this day, it is more useful not to proceed further in so weighty a matter.”—iii. 33, 34.

The Archbishop of Urbino.—“As to the necessity of publishing any definition, I do not think that there is any. For the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin has no such close connexion with the other articles of faith (at least as far as I know), that, if this privilege were denied, it’would follow that any of those articles should be impugned. But this being removed, I see not from what other head this

real necessity should be extracted.

“Whether this definition should be held to be opportune, I confess that I still doubt. I have again and again weighed the ending of all contentions, the dissipating of doubt, maintenance of truth, greater-glory of God, prais e of the Virgin, hope most sweet of new benefits to the good of the Church militant, and other grounds, which seem to support such opportuneness, and I have always owned them to be most excellent. But the peril of perdition which may come to some from the definition, makes me doubt, now as ever, whether it is opportune. For although, as seems to me, it is now sounder to hold the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and less sound to doubt it, and altogether folly openly to deny it, yet since, in these most unhappy times, the number of those is very great, who do not hesitate to question, or altogether to impugn, all the dogmas of the Church, yea, and the existence of God too, with the ruin of many, there seems to be a probable peril that they will the more easily impugn this doctrine too; and that thence will follow the perdition of those, who, lightly esteeming the definition of the Church, seduced by perverse discourses, will either not embrace the pious opinion, or, having embraced, will desert it, or at least be unable to lay aside their doubts. Nor does it seem difficult for the malice of the ungodly to pervert in this the understandings of the simple, since we see it done in more evident truths; and since the example of those, who, in past time, though distinguished for learning and holiness, are thought to have denied this privilege, may be very moving; and because, apart from the authority of the Church, the theological grounds do not seem to be so consequent, as to leave no room for the possibility of the contrary, nor so transparent, that at the first glance this truth should be clear to any one. Since, then, there seems to be this evident, or at least probable peril of perdition, which would be imminent to some, though perhaps few, even of those who are now counted among such as have been gained to Christ, I should not fully believe it opportune to add dogmatic certainty to this truth.

“I say this, most Holy Father, with inmost grief of heart; but the necessity of charity seems to require it of me to consult alike for the salvation of the wise and the unwise; and the example of the Apostolic See itself moves me thereto, which hitherto seemed to have ‘been made weak to the weak, that it may gain the weak ,’ wishing that those who hold the contrary shoukVneither Bin, nor be heretics.”

The Archbishop of Urbino appended to this response a letter to the same effect, which he had written Nov. 10, 1847, to the Bishop of Fano, who had urged him to ask for the decree. He used there the same topics, and quoted the maxim of Sixtus III., that treating of dogmas, “nihil addi convenit vetustati.”—

iii. 43 —45.

The Bishop of Ancona and Umana.—“Having asked aid of God, I venture to opine that it is best to adopt that mode of defining, which should be free from all asperity, viz. by deciding directly that the Church is not deceived as to the truth of the object proposed by this cultus, whereby the immunity of the Blessed Virgin from all stain in the first moment of her Conception is celebrated; and that the Church does not err, when, according to the pious true opinion to be held by all, she proposes that the immunity of the Holy Mother of God from all fault in the first instant of her Conception should be celebrated.

“But since the sanction of this opinion necessarily involves the disapproval and proscription of the contrary, which no few eminent and learned man held determinedly, men of eminent deserts towards the Christian religion, some account ought, it seems, to be had of them, that the words of the decree should be softened, and no note be branded on the advocates of the contrary opinion; and that it should be so concluded, that the authors of the opposite opinion should be said to have expressed the contrary out of love of truth; and the more, because they were destitute of those supports which came in afterwards, and which, burning as they were with piety to Mary, would have inclined them to the opinion which now prevails.”— ii. 153.

The Bishop of Cervia.—“If I turn to weigh what is the rigorous imp ort of a solemn, and that a direct declaration of any dogma, as de fide, no slight difficulties float as clouds over my mind, and I do not in any way ascertain which opinion I ought to prefer. That saying of Vincent of Lerins must move me, received as a rule by all theologians, and constantly observed, whenever it was the question of distinguishing or defining dogmas of faith, what was always, everywhere, by all, received as a dogma of faith, and has been believed till now. Every Catholic dogma, being a fact manifest to us by Divine

revelation, can neither be known nor proved, save by the work of God, written or handed down; and, since God could, either expressly or implicitly, by Scripture or tradition, reveal a truth unattainable by human intellect or reason, the Church never proposes any truth as a dogma to be received and believed by all, under pain of anathema or heresy, unless it be contained explicitly, or at least implicitly, in the Word of God, written or handed down. But some theologians contend, that this could scarcely be affirmed as to the proposed truth. For, had it been expressly or implicitly revealed in Scripture or tradition, how should older Fathers, and Doctors, Theologians, and the whole order of Dominicans, and the whole school of the Thomists, not only be ignorant of it, but venture, with all their might and vehement abundance of argument [assail it], the Supreme Pontiffs conniving, or at least not condemning as heretics those who for many ages opposed with their whole strength the Conception,’immaculate at the first instant’? On what ground was that most wise, and, above all the Œcumenical Councils held in the Church, most learned Council of Trent, unwilling to define this truth expressly but left it ‘in its own possession’ and statu quo, yet with that prudence and precision of words, that a grave and reverent weight should be added to establish and strengthen so pious and Catholic a truth, yet not to advance it to the sublimity of a dogma by a judgment and unalterable decree? There was a deep silence as to this truth in the first centuries; in subsequent centuries it was controverted, which would not have been, if in any of the above ways the Church had owned it as either expressly or implicitly revealed. Else we should fall into the heresy of Lutherans and un-Catholics, who, no less absurdly than impiously, tattle that the Church was obscured after the Apostolic times, the light of faith being almost extinguished, and that true dogmas were involved in the darkness of ignorance, &c.

“It must be confessed that all dogmas were not always believed in the Church with a solemn and open faith, which now, errors having been defeated, we profess with a noble and universal belief. Yet scarce did error dare to raise its venomous head, but the Church too did not keep silence: it took arms, and gained an entire triumph over the rash attempt.

“The question, which now occupies minds, does not relate to the truth of the Immaculate Conception, as is clear. For it is so supported by most solid arguments, and engraven on the minds of all, that the opposite opinion is rejected by the faithful as a manifest error. This truth, so sweet, so sublime, and to be cherished, remains unconquered, and now very near to faith; yet so, that the doubt is not lost out of sight or mind, ‘whether it be dogmatically definable de fide, as mysteries, which are proposed to all by the Church, to be believed by an act of faith under pain of heresy.’ For although all dogma is truth, yet not conversely is all truth dogma. God willed not to reveal to us all truths, as of the end of the world and the time of His Second Advent, and many others, which John confesses to be unwritten, and so many, that if they had been written, they would fill the world. Many of the most profound Theologians of the first rank, whom P. Perrone mentions, have impugned its definability, chiefly on the ground that it cannot be plainly extracted either from Scripture or tradition as de fide. The Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, cannot deceive the faithful in teaching; but it does not frame new and impervious dogmas, but either explains or proposes to be believed what occur, as expressly or implicitly revealed. But all do not agree as to this express or implicit revelation: the divine revelation then remains as yet doubtful, or at least inevident, and consequently the foundation necessary for directly promulging a dogmatic definition fails altogether.”—ii. 217—219.