Edward Bouverie Pusey · 20 of 21

Note B · Part 5

“To return; notwithstanding the pious industry of more recent theologians, and their diligence in scrutinizing the works of the Fathers, and adducing every thing which, directly or indirectly, evidently or inferentially, supports our opinion, it remains difficult to prove, in my opinion, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was believed always, and especially that it was believed everywhere. But will not minds, weak in the faith, be by that difficulty put in danger of doubting not only the articles defined, but moreover tradition itself, which was the shrine of this revelation? But hence what perils are not to be feared for weak faith, to whose infirmity it is our office to be indulgent?

“So then, most Blessed Father, I should prefer that the truth of the Immaculate Conception of Mary should remain among truths which are generally admitted to be ‘ piously believed.’“— iii. 354, 355.

50. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.—“It must be confessed, that there are some

among us (I believe, very few), who are otherwise minded, and who think that it has not been revealed with sufficient clearness, that the Holy Virgin Mary had no ground to cry out like the other daughters of Adam, In sin did my mother conceive me.—[S. Bernard, Ep. 174, n. 8.] Although they most readily acknowledge that, through the foreseen merits of her future most Holy Son, He who is mighty freed her immediately from original fault, and made her full of richest graces. Now as to that, on which your Holiness vouchsafed chiefly to inquire, whether or no it seems expedient for the advance of the glory of God, that the Holy See should declare by a dogmatical decision, that it is to be believed de fide, that the most Holy Virgin never, even in the first instant of her Conception, bore the very slightest spot of sin, herein too the opinions are different. For the greater part of the priests of this diocese think that the time is come, when the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Holy Ever-Virgin Mary is known to be so universal, that it may and ought to be promulgated as an article of faith. But no contemptible part of grave, pious, and learned priests and laymen think otherwise; and although they believe undoubtingly, that the Mother of the most Holy Saviour was always free from all spot of original sin, they do not at all think it expedient, that such a doctrine, however true, should be proposed to the faithful, to be believed as of Divine faith; and that chiefly for these reasons: 1. A dogmatic decision of this matter, on which there is no dissension, would seem to them contrary to the practice of the Church, since hitherto such decisions have only been promulged at such time as heretics dared to assail sound doctrine; and they are not aware of any ground sufficiently grave for departing, in the present case, from the ancient custom, and incurring the note of novelty. 2. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary is believed peacefully almost everywhere, and is assailed publicly by no one; and they think it much safer for the peace of religion ‘quieta non movere,’ than under no pressure of necessity, to agitate the question as to a new article of faith in the present state of minds, when men, even Catholics, both in foreign parts and in Italy itself, are, alas! too much inclined to examine, without due reverence, the limits of Ecclesiastical power. 3. They would hardly dare to hope that the devotion towards the most Blessed Virgin, which already everywhere is lively in the hearts of the faithful, could be much increased by the solemn decision that she was always Immaculate, since, on the one side, the Church, which is already extensively attacked, would be exposed to new assaults by embittered and ever-vigilant enemies, who would doubtless seize occasion thence of chattering, ‘Lo! the Church of the Catholics has devised a new Article of faith after ages, which, as is evident, was not believed everywhere, nor always, nor by all. What new light then dawns now upon that Church, which was denied to its Council of Trent?’ Such fallacies the well-instructed Catholic will easily dissipate; but they think that it is to be feared that the minds of the simple may be disturbed thereby, and their faith also perchance shaken. 4. Lastly, they fear, lest many Protestants who, as they hope, are now verging towards the Catholic Church, seeking a refuge there from their ever-varying errors, may be driven further from us on account of this new Article of faith, recently, as they will perhaps think, devised. These are some of the reasons which move those whose minds I have explained, to desire vehemently, unless the Holy Lord shall think differently, that nothing further should be done therein at present.

“Among those who thus think are the Jesuit fathers at Dublin, almost all the Professors of our national College at Maynooth, and many others, both priests and laymen, conspicuous for zeal for religion. And knowing their most pious feelings towards the Blessed Mother of God, and their desire that she should be honoured and worshipped everywhere with most ardent devotion, I cannot hold their opinion cheap; and therefore do not venture to advise that a dogmatic decision should go forth from the Holy See, declaring that it is to be believed, de fide, ‘that the most Holy Virgin Mary was conceived without stain of original sin,’ however certain it be that that doctrine is true.”—ii. 142—144.

He subsequently joined the other Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops in praying the Pope to define it.—iii. 376—378.

The Archbishop of Tarragona left the question of expediency to the judgment of the Pope (ii. 126). The Bishop of Oviedo said, “Perhaps the fulness of time has come to declare this article” (ii. 229). The Archbishop of Braga desired it, “if there was no reason to fear for other realms, as in this most religious nation nothing is to feared” (i. 126). The Bishop of Lamego evidently leant to think it inopportune: “Whether in the actual state of things the passing of such a decision is more opportune than it was in the

time of some supreme Pontiffs of venerable memory, and of the most learned fathers of the Council of Trent, I dare not give an opinion” (iii. 73).

So, I think, did the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon: “Whether for this longed-for definition a more opportune time has now come; and those things are no longer to be feared, which were a hindrance to the Tridentine fathers, and the supreme Pontiffs; whether the present state of many nations, most turbulent and most hostile to all authority, and the impious and most insidious efforts of Protestants and of all enemies of the Catholic Church, who do not cease to censure as new dogmas what are defined in the Catholic Church, and who endeavour with their whole might to impugn the infallibility of that Church, the existence of Divine tradition, and the authority of the Apostolic See, ought to cause some delay to that longed-for and implored decree;—this, I think, to be left to thy most wise and prudent judgment.”—iii. 56, 57.

Narvaez (p. 48), counting the Bishops in Communion with Rome at 748, and those who answered the Encyclical at 576, leaves 172 who did not answer, of whom, allowing for vacancies, letters not reaching, &c., many like the Austrian Bishops, must have been silent, because they did not wish to express their dissent.

Narvaez gives, in strange contrast with 1864, this statement as to Cardinal Bona: “Alexander VII., when asked by the ambassador of Philip IV. of Spain to decide the Conception of the Blessed Virgin to be a dogma of faith, asked the wise and pious Cardinal Bona, whether he could decide the question by himself? The Cardinal answered, that ‘neither the Holy See, nor the Church herself, can form new articles of faith; that it can only declare what God has revealed to His Church, after having examined the matter according to the rules of the traditions transmitted by the Apostles.’ The Pontiff replied, ‘Can I decide what is to be believed on this matter under inspiration of the Holy Ghost?’ Cardinal Bona said, ‘Most Holy Father, if any thing should be revealed to you by God, this will profit yourself alone; but it will not be lawful for you, nor can you bind the faithful to adhere to your decision, as neither can you bind me.’”—pp. 91, 92.

One of the earliest fruits of the decision fell upon Spain, where the last sacraments were refused to “Father Mr. Pascual who, until A.D. 1865, was the oracle of Salamanca, and was held by learned men a fountain of religious wisdom, gushing forth on all sides,” because, “when interrogated by certain Bishops, he wrote that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin never could come to be an article of faith, and never acknowledged the dogma, after the Lord Pope Pius IX. pronounced it a dogma of faith, and did not recant.” And yet “inconsistently,” Narvaez says,” the divine office was said for his soul.”—p. 54.