FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536  
537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   >>   >|  
they took courage in extremity. Rauscher, Schwarzenberg, Hefele, Ketteler, Kenrick, wrote pamphlets, or caused them to be written, against the dogma, and circulated them in the Council. Several English bishops protested that the denial of infallibility by the Catholic episcopate had been an essential condition of emancipation, and that they could not revoke that assurance after it had served their purpose, without being dishonoured in the eyes of their countrymen.[394] The Archbishop of St. Louis, admitting the force of the argument, derived from the fact that a dogma was promulgated in 1854 which had long been disputed and denied, confessed that he could not prove the Immaculate Conception to be really an article of faith.[395] An incident occurred in June which showed that the experience of the Council was working a change in the fundamental convictions of the bishops. Doellinger had written in March that an article of faith required not only to be approved and accepted unanimously by the Council, but that the bishops united with the Pope are not infallible, and that the oecumenicity of their acts must be acknowledged and ratified by the whole Church. Father Hoetzl, a Franciscan friar, having published a pamphlet in defence of this proposition, was summoned to Rome, and required to sign a paper declaring that the confirmation of a Council by the Pope alone makes it oecumenical. He put his case into the hands of German bishops who were eminent in the opposition, asking first their opinion on the proposed declaration, and, secondly, their advice on his own conduct. The bishops whom he consulted replied that they believed the declaration to be erroneous; but they added that they had only lately arrived at the conviction, and had been shocked at first by Doellinger's doctrine. They could not require him to suffer the consequences of being condemned at Rome as a rebellious friar and obstinate heretic for a view which they themselves had doubted only three months before. He followed the advice, but he perceived that his advisers had considerately betrayed him. When the observations on infallibility which the bishops had sent in to the Commission appeared in print it seemed that the minority had burnt their ships. They affirmed that the dogma would put an end to the conversion of Protestants, that it would drive devout men out of the Church and make Catholicism indefensible in controversy, that it would give governments a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536  
537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

bishops

 

Council

 
written
 

advice

 

Doellinger

 

required

 

Church

 

declaration

 

infallibility

 

article


replied

 
erroneous
 
conduct
 

believed

 
arrived
 
consulted
 

confirmation

 

oecumenical

 

eminent

 

German


conviction

 

declaring

 

proposed

 

opinion

 

opposition

 

heretic

 

affirmed

 

minority

 

Commission

 
appeared

conversion

 

Protestants

 
indefensible
 

controversy

 

governments

 
Catholicism
 

devout

 
observations
 

rebellious

 
obstinate

condemned

 

consequences

 

doctrine

 
require
 

suffer

 

perceived

 
advisers
 

considerately

 

betrayed

 
doubted