If the Pope were indeed nothing more than a
magnified Borough Councillor, we should hardly have heard so much
of him. It is not because he satisfies the reason, but because he
astounds it, that men abase themselves before the Vicar of
Christ.
And certainly the doctrine of Papal Infallibility presents to the
reason a sufficiency of stumbling-blocks. In the fourteenth
century, for instance, the following case arose. John XXII
asserted in his bull 'Cum inter nonnullos' that the doctrine of
the poverty of Christ was heretical. Now, according to the light
of reason, one of two things must follow from this--either John
XXII was himself a heretic, or he was no Pope. For his
predecessor, Nicholas III, had asserted in his bull 'Exiit qui
seminat' that the doctrine of the poverty of Christ was the true
doctrine, the denial of which was heresy. Thus if John XXII was
right, Nicholas III was a heretic, and in that case Nicholas's
nominations of Cardinals were void, and the conclave which
elected John was illegal-- so that John was no Pope, his
nominations of Cardinals were void, and the whole Papal
succession vitiated. On the other hand, if John was wrong--well,
he was a heretic; and the same inconvenient results followed.
And, in either case, what becomes of Papal Infallibility?
But such crude and fundamental questions as these were not likely
to trouble the Council.
Pages:
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133