I have previously commented on the odd procedure of minimisers of papal infallibility who claim that Louis Veuillot and Dr. Ward were guilty of exaggerating this doctrine, and treating their opponents uncharitably or harshly, yet without adducing any evidence that the doctrinal views they reject are in any sense actually mistaken.

In this connection it is interesting to find the following in one of the 1867 volumes of the Dublin Review (Dr. Ward):



So the procedure has been the same from the beginning.

Of additional interest is the fact that I have just now realised where Mr. John S. Daly learned his style!

This is truly excellent. Are copies of the Dublin Review, or what ever from which this was taken available anywhere easily seen?

Ken, Google Books, look for Dublin Review, New Series. Here's one: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mezP ... navlinks_s

From 1867, Dublin Review.

WE need hardly remind our readers how often we have returned lately to the task of examining the nature of the authority which attaches to the doctrinal instructions of the Holy See conveyed through such documents as Encyclical Letters. We have incurred much criticism, and even odium, by the fulfilment of what appeared and still appears to us the unavoidable duty of a Catholic Review at the present time. The chief burden of the criticism — the chief justification of the odium — has been that we have put forth, and sought to impose on others as essentials, personal idiosyncracies, crotchety exaggerations, extreme theories of our own.

In vain have we constantly protested that our one object was to ascertain and to inculcate simply what the Pope himself teaches on the subject. In vain have we declared that we advocated no private views, but only the teaching of approved theologians. In vain have we called attention to the labours of the Jesuit Fathers in the "Civilta Cattolica," formally approved and commended by the Holy Father. The cry has gained power by repetition, that the Dublin Review holds on this subject singular and extravagant opinions, and represents them as essential The misapprehension would be of comparatively small importance, if it affected only the contributors to this Review; but it strikes at the same time at what we believe to be the doctrine of the Church, and the rightful authority of its head. We are particularly glad, therefore, of any pronouncement by theologians of name, not, of course, as adding any weight to the Pope's own utterances, but as a means of convincing our critics of their mistake in imagining the doctrine we have maintained to be a personal view or theory of our own.

It must be remembered that the precise question, unlike that of the Church's infallibility in minor censures, is necessarily a modem one; because it is only in recent Pontificates that the particular channel of Encyclical Letters has been chosen to any great extent for the purpose of conveying doctrinal instructions. Hence it is useless to seek for any direct treatment of it in older writers. Two theologians, however, of the greatest distinction have recently published treatises on the Church — Dr. Murray, theological professor at Maynooth, and F. Schrader, of the Society of Jesus, theological professor at Vienna. We called attention in our last number to their express treatment of this question, and their entire agreement with all that we have said upon it. We wish now to bring under the notice of our readers the teaching of another distinguished Jesuit. The work named at the head of this notice is not a scientific treatise; but a popular brochure of something more than a hundred pages, on the obligation laid upon the faithful by the "Encyclical and Syllabus” of 1864. It is the first of a series of pamphlets, by writers of the Society, on that great Pontifical act.

A few extracts will show how completely P. Riess’s teaching coincides with our own language. To this purpose we shall confine our quotations.

"The Pope issued the Encyclical, not as a private person, but as head of the Church — as Vicar of Christ, to the whole Church; it binds, therefore, all the Church's members to submission. The Syllabus shares the same official character. . . .
"When the Pope speaks in his official capacity, he may address either particular individuals, or particular Churches, or the whole Church. The obligations arising from the document are to be ascertained from its contents" (p. 85).

"That the Encyclical was issued by the Pope in his official capacity, that it is addressed to the whole Church, and that it imposes an obligation on all her members," is "evident beyond a doubt from the very superscription, for it is a circular letter addressed to all the members of the Catholic hierarchy by Pius IX, as their head. ... It is equally clear from the contents of the letter. The Pope pronounces his decision with an appeal to the teaching office divinely committed to him, and as the sequel to similar official acts. Moreover, he expressly obliges those to whom the letter is addressed to assent and obedience — bishops as well as faithful.
" ‘We will and command that they (the pernicious opinions which he condemns) be considered by all the children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.'

"Upon this point, therefore, no reasonable doubt is possible. The Pope issued the Encyclical as head of the Church, and it was his intention to enact a decree binding on the whole Church. Therefore, all the members of the Church are bound to submission" (p. 85, 86).
But what sort of submission is this to be? The Pope may, as head of the Church, enact a disciplinary decree simply prohibiting to teach or maintain this or that opinion; such a decree would, of course, bind all the faithful to obedience, but its whole requirements would begin and end with an exterior submission. Are the decisions of the Quanta Cura of this nature. F. Riess answers this question.

"The Pope issued this Apostolic decree, not simply as spiritual head in general, but as the universal, infallible teacher of the Church; so that it is not merely a disciplinary, but a doctrinal decree, and must be received by Catholics with the same submission which is due in all cases to the infallible utterances of the Ecclesia Docens.

" … It is not merely an exposition of doctrine, which may be worthy of the greatest consideration without claiming the infallible authority of the Church's teaching. That is to say, in both documents, as a glance at their doctrinal contents will show, erroneous teachings are condemned, and that, as the preamble of the decree expressly remarks, with the plenitude of Apostolic authority, and with the intention that the whole Church should reject them; and they are condemned as errors contrary to the Church's teaching. We have therefore before us an infallible judgment of the Church, and hence that which it proposes to us, namely, that the propositions selected and accurately drawn up, are errors against the Catholic teaching, is binding upon us, and requires our interior assent on peril of our salvation' (pp. 89-90).

"Even from the Galilean stand-point it would still be certain that the Pope's decisions (in the Quanta Cura) are decisions of the supreme teaching authority of the Church, and therefore infallible, ... for the universal acceptance of the Encyclical by the bishops of Catholic Christendom… is now a fact... Not a single bishop has raised his voice against the decision of the Holy See" (p. 93).

F. Riess's proof for his conclusion is that —

"It is easy to see there are all the requirements for a judgment from the chair of Peter. The first, and for Catholics properly sufficing one, is the moral certainty that the Pope meant to bind the entire Church to receive his doctrinal decision. This intention is most clearly expressed both in the Encyclical and in the letter accompanying the Syllabus (p. 94).

F. Riess considers it clearly expressed by the fact that "The Holy Father appeals to his predecessors, who at all times have made it their chief aim ‘through their most prudent letters and decrees to expose and condemn all heresies and errors:' treading in these glorious footsteps of his predecessors, Pius IX has, from the commencement of his Pontificate, condemned the ‘principal errors of our time,’ and now sets himself once more ‘to extirpate other false opinions.' So speaks the Pope to the Universal Church, to which he imparts his doctrinal decree, and invites, or, rather, requires it to conform to his decision; and he himself says that he thus acts in the fulness of Apostolic authority. Whatever, therefore, this decree contains is the infallible teaching of the Church, and comes within the province of faith." (Ibid.)

Whatever our critics may think as to F. Riess's proof and reasoning, they can hardly read the extracts that we have quoted, and doubt that our doctrine is identical with his. This has been the one scope of our notice. We trust it may at length make them hesitate to characterize our principles as singular opinions and personal crotchets.

We will conclude with a few sentences of F. Riess, which express a truth too little thought of in these discussions. Catholics sometimes speak or write about the infallible teaching of the Church as if it were a burden hard to bear, and hampered the freedom of their minds: and as if, accordingly their natural course was to limit and restrict its exercise within the narrowest possible bounds. F. Riess says, "Does this" surrender of our judgment "affect our freedom of conscience? Yes: but so as to promote and ennoble it. ‘The Truth shall make you free.’ Freedom of mind and conscience has its root, not in license to hold as true whatever I please; but in the inward discipline by which I submit my understanding to truth; just as the moral freedom of the will consists in doing cheerfully and willingly what we ought to do. God is the first Truth, the source of all Truth; what He reveals to us can be truth alone. He has revealed the Truth, and bequeathed it to us in the Catholic Church, and established her as the infallible teacher of His Truth. To submit to the Church when she proposes this truth to us for our belief is to submit our mind to God Himself, is to put ourselves in possession of truth, that is, to secure freedom of mind, freedom of conscience … It is the great service of the Popedom to mankind that it assures this freedom, the freedom of our surrender of ourselves to Christ and to His ordinance both to individuals and to the human race, to all times and to the present time" (p. 109).

Notice of Books, Dublin Review 1867.

When does the Church speak Infallibly? or, the Nature and Sphere of the Church’s Teaching Office, By Thomas Francis Knox, of the Oratory. London : Bums & Oates. 1867.

WE are indebted to the courtesy of the author for the sheets of this pamphlet, which will probably appear simultaneously with our own issue. We exceedingly regret that they have reached us so late as to make it impossible to notice the work as we should desire, for its own sake and for the interest of the subject. We may, however, briefly mention that Father Knox treats, as his title indicates, the subject which has recently excited so much attention among Catholics; but he studiously avoids any allusion to the controversy which has taken place. He has come forward to supply a want which the discussion has partly revealed and partly created — by putting forth an uncontroversial and dispassionate statement of the Church's doctrine on the whole subject, as gathered from express declarations of the Holy See, and from the common teaching of approved theologians.

We have the deepest satisfaction in finding all the principles for which this Review has been so long contending, now recommended to the acceptance of English Catholics by the weight and authority of the Superior of the London Oratory. Every fresh testimony contributes to prove that we have not been guilty of representing as the teaching of the Church a singular or personal opinion of our own: — but that is comparatively a small matter; the great gain is a fresh and powerful testimony to the fact of the Church's teaching.

Father Knox, as we have said, carefully avoids any reference to the recent controversy. We cannot, however, doubt that the pamphlet has been in fact called forth by it; and in this we have reason to rejoice at one good effect of Father Ryder’s publication which we have all along augured from it; that it would lead to a careful examination of the subject, and result in the end in the firm establishment of the true doctrine in the minds of large numbers who had hitherto never reflected on the subject.

We need not say we earnestly hope Father Knox's pamphlet may be largely read; and we may add that no one need be deterred from reading it by fears of the abstruseness which has been attributed to the subject.

Nothing can be more clear and simple than it is throughout; and the author takes care to state in his preface that his work is not meant as a theological treatise, but is expressly intended for the information of Catholic readers in general.

I've found most the volumes edited by Ward. Here's a clickable list: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1118

Ken and others,

This volume has a great deal of really top-shelf material on infallibility: http://www.archive.org/stream/dublinreview05wisegoog

The articles on this subject were in reply to the extraordinary attack made upon Dr. Ward by the theological illiterate Fr. Ryder, described elsewhere as Newman's henchman. Ryder ended with a great deal of egg on his face, but it didn't modify the slanderous minds of the liberals. It merely forced them to remain in the realm of generic accusations, having tried specific attacks on this one occasion and being thoroughly routed.

If you want a really solid exposition of infallibility as such, read Knox (Lance recommended his book a few months ago, and it is reviewed above - and Pius IX subsequently ordered it translated into Italian, a signal honour). If you are interested in more technical detail, this present volume of the Dublin Review is marvelous.

We are most definitely interested. My wife is heavily involved in writing a new article for our website in which Benny will be the main matter for discussion. These Dublin Review articles will be a big help. Thank you.