Why, therefore, should the Pope,
within his sphere-- the sphere of the Catholic Church-- be denied
a
similar infallibility? If there is nothing monstrous in an Act of
Parliament laying down what all men shall do, why should there be
anything monstrous in a Papal Encyclical laying down what all men
shall believe? The argument is simple; in fact, it is too simple;
for it takes for granted the very question which is in dispute.
Is there indeed no radical and essential distinction between
supremacy and infallibility? Between the right of a Borough
Council to regulate the traffic and the right of the Vicar of
Christ to decide upon the qualifications for Everlasting Bliss?
There is one distinction, at any rate, which is palpable: the
decisions of a supreme authority can be altered; those of an
infallible authority cannot. A Borough Council may change its
traffic regulations at the next meeting; but the Vicar of Christ,
when in certain circumstances and with certain precautions, he
has once spoken, has expressed, for all the ages, a part of the
immutable, absolute, and eternal Truth. It is this that makes the
papal pretensions so extraordinary and so enormous. It is also
this that gives them their charm. Catholic apologists, when they
try to tone down those pretensions and to explain them away,
forget that it is in their very exorbitance that their
fascination lies.
Pages:
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132