# Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility/Chapter 13

CHAPTER XIII
OPPOSITION IN GERMANY—DÖLLINGER
Ignatius von Döllinger became Professor at Munich in 1825. In a mixed University, where Protestant and Roman teachers addressed their students in close proximity, and Schelling taught Philosophy while Mohler lectured on Symbolism, and Klee on the Fathers, a knowledge of modern thought, an abandonment of obsolete methods, became natural and necessary among Roman Catholic advocates. The stricter Italian School looked with grave misgivings on these Liberal tendencies and looser ways. But circumstances rendered this larger freedom more or less inevitable. It is curious to reflect that Dóllinger began life as an Ultramontane, under the influence of the works of that paradoxical extremist Joseph de Maistre; for whom Lord Acton professed a distant regard, coupled with a devout determination to exclude the contributions of the entire school from the pages of his journals. Döllinger's change from the Roman to the Catholic standpoint was the outcome of independent critical and historical study. Cold and critical by nature, essentially intellectual, he was endowed with enormous vigour and insatiable desire for learning. His intention was to write a history of the Papacy. He found the approaches choked with legend. "Many of these were harmless, ​others were devised for a purpose; and he fixed his attention more and more on those which were the work of design." The question raised by the mediæval fables of the Papacy became theologically of grave concern: "How far the persistent production of spurious matter had permanently affected the genuine constitution and theology of the Church?" From the fables, Döllinger advanced to the forged decretals. He studied "the long train of hierarchical fictions which had deceived men like Gregory VII., St Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Bellarmine." "And it was," says Acton, "the history of Church government which so profoundly altered his position." Existing ecclesiastical developments had to be tested by the past; their value disentangled from the fictitious elements which contributed to produce them. The famous Canon of St Vincent of Lerins, the appeal to antiquity, universality, and consent, came to have increasing worth in Döllinger's mind. "He took the words of St Vincent," says Acton, "not merely for a flash of illumination, but for a scientific formula and guiding principle." At first insensibly, but more and more definitely, Döllinger diverged from the axioms of the Ultramontanes. Catholic he continued to be throughout, and to the very last; but historical knowledge seemed to him impossible to combine with the popular Roman theories of the day. Under his intellectual rule the Munich School acquired immense ascendancy. It became the recognised centre of ecclesiastical learning, Catholic yet critical. And, above his colleagues, Döllinger became the adviser of the Church in Germany. Montalembert attended lectures there, and Acton, rejected at ​Cambridge, found a home in Döllinger's house at Munich.
The theological principles of Ignatius von Döllinger could scarcely be in the year 1868 unknown in Rome. For five-and-forty years he had been a teacher in Ecclesiastical History, and his reputation was European. But he was not invited to take any part in the theological preparations for the Vatican Council. An Italian writer indeed assures us that
"in the number of those whom the Pope intended to invite was, contrary to the advice of some, the celebrated historian Dóllinger. … But the Sovereign Pontiff was informed, on the authority of statements perhaps somewhat inexact, that Döllinger would refuse the invitation; and accordingly Pius IX. did not give effect to his intention."
The explanation is unconvincing and superfluous. The presence of Döllinger on a theological commission in Rome at the Pope's request is scarcely thinkable. There were few learned members of the Roman Communion whom Pius IX. would welcome less in Rome. But the minority earnestly desired his presence. Cardinal Schwarzenberg wrote to Antonelli that the consulting theologians selected for the preparatory commissions were not, so far as Germany was concerned, up to the necessary level. Doubtless their merits were considerable, but their learning was small. They were not qualified to do justice to the difficult problems which would have to be submitted to them. They were chosen, so far as the dogmatic section was concerned, exclusively from one School. The Universities of Munich, Bonn, Tübingen, Fribourg, included many eminent men, who were, however, ​omitted, much to Schwarzenberg's astonishment. He noted in particular the absence of Hefele and Döllinger. But while Schwarzenberg wrote in this honest, impulsive way, Antonelli was in receipt of letters of another type from the Bavarian Nuncio, Meglia. According to the Nuncio, among the more hopeful and moderate German Professors was Dieringer of Bonn, who had been proposed for three bishoprics, including the Archiepiscopal See of Cologne. True, he had recently somewhat compromised his reputation by an attack on the Jesuit Kleutgen; but the Nuncio regarded this as a momentary aberration—the general opinion being that at fifty-six Dieringer was not likely to belie his past. To mix him with theologians in the Eternal City would place him more completely at the disposal of the Roman cause. Another promising person was the historian Hefele. True, that his History of the Councils contained some hazardous remarks; but the Nuncio evidently felt secure of him. "Now," adds Meglia, "it is very noticeable that no member of the German party of savants has been invited to Rome, and the result is that they are in a great state of irritation. It would be, therefore, prudent to meet this by a careful selection from the more moderate among them." As a result of this communication, Pius invited Dieringer, Hefele, and others: thus, the Augsburg Gazette observed, correcting the Italian monotony by an infusion of elements very necessary to give vitality. So Döllinger was left out. But he was by no means unoccupied. He was engaged in writing the five articles, criticising and condemning the Infallibility doctrine from an historical point of view, which appeared anonymously in March 1869 in the Augsburg Gazette. These articles attracted a great attention, and were regarded with profound disgust in Rome. In three months' time ​appeared the volume entitled The Pope and the Council, by Janus. Janus, as the preface assured the reader, was the production of several writers; but, as Friedrich tells us, under Döllinger's control. Janus was an expansion of the five articles in the Augsburg Gazette. The purpose of Janus was to demonstrate that, according to ancient Catholic principles, the chief exponent of the faith in Christendom was the Collective Episcopate; and therefore that the Council stood supreme above the Pope. Leo himself acknowledged that his treatise could not become a rule of faith until confirmed by the assent of the Episcopate. The process by which these principles were reversed is ascribed partly to the ever-increasing ascendancy of the papal power, to which in the long development of centuries many things contributed. The historical evolution was not without protests and reactions, but forged documents, accepted by uncritical ages as correct, misled even such theologians as St Thomas.
Various influences tended to advance the conception of the Pope's Infallibility. There was the influence of the theologians after St Thomas, whose great authority seemed sufficient, but whose opinion was founded on fictitious documents. There was the influence of the Inquisition, which, wherever it was dominant, rendered instruction in the ancient conception impossible. There was the influence of the Index, which meant the suppression of criticism and the conversion of historical literature into partisan productions for the maintenance of Ultramontane opinions. The publication of certain books, such as the Liber Diurnus, containing historic statements impossible to reconcile with Papal Infallibility, was prevented, and impressions already printed ​were destroyed, confessedly because they could not be utilised in the controversial interests of the Italian theories. Alterations were made in the Breviary in the direction of Papal Infallibility. The fact that Pope Honorius had been condemned as a heretic by Councils was now left out. But more than many influences, the powerful Order of the Jesuits contributed to the advancement of the theory. It was congenial to their whole spirit. Accustomed to the principle of blind obedience; themselves exhorted and in turn exhorting others to the sacrifice of the intellect; they identified themselves with this doctrine, protected it, and promoted it with tremendous effect. Since the days of Bellarmine, their theologian, they gave it the benefit of their entire concurrence.
So then, according to Janus, through the co-operation of many foreign elements, the ancient principle is found completely reversed; and whereas in primitive centuries the Council, the Collective Episcopate, was the supreme exponent, in the later it was the Pope. This, says Janus, is no true development. It is rather a transformation. The verdict of History is against this doctrine entirely.
"For thirteen centuries an incomprehensible silence on this fundamental article reigned throughout the whole Church and her literature."
"To prove the dogma of Papal Infallibility from Church History nothing less is required than a complete falsification of it."
The advocates of Papal Infallibility could not avoid the discussion of the serious problem which their theory entailed, namely, under what conditions is the Pope infallible? They found, says Janus, on closer inspection, papal decisions which contradicted the doctrines either ​of their predecessors or of the Church. Janus gives numerous instances. It became necessary, therefore, to specify some distinctive marks by which the product of Infallibility might be recognised. Accordingly, since the sixteenth century there grew up the famous view that papal judgments, when pronounced ex cathedra, were infallible. The remarks of Janus on this point ought to be given as far as may be in the writers' words.
The writers acknowledge that "the distinction between a judgment pronounced ex cathedra and a merely occasional or casual utterance is a perfectly reasonable one," not only in the case of a Pope, but in the case of any teacher. Every teacher will at times speak offhand, and at times speak officially and deliberately. "No reasonable man will pretend that the remarks made by a Pope in conversation are definitions of faith." But beyond this the distinction has no meaning. Every official utterance of a Pope must be an ex cathedra utterance. When a Pope speaks publicly on a point of doctrine, he has spoken ex cathedra; for he was questioned as Pope, and has answered as Pope. To introduce other conditions, such as whether he is addressing an individual, or a local Communion, or the entire Church, is to make purely arbitrary distinctions which are really prompted by the existence of certain inconvenient papal decisions inconsistent with the theory of his Infallibility.
This question, "Which of the papal decisions are infallible?" is indeed momentous to the Roman churchman. The authors of Janus are profoundly disturbed, for instance, to know whether the doctrines of the Syllabus produced under Pius IX. in 1864 are or are not included among infallible utterances.
No one will now deny that it was an act of discretion on the part of the authors of this book to produce it ​under the veil of anonymity. They would allow no opportunity, so the readers were informed, of transferring the discussion from the sphere of objective and scientific investigation into the alien region of personal invective.
The sensation created by its appearance was very great. The Dublin Review, among other expressions, declared that the writers of Janus had excluded all possibility of mistake as to whether they were Catholics. They had "shown that they are just as much and just as little Catholics as are Dean Stanley and Professor Jowett." "Janus is an openly anti-Catholic writer." The Dublin Review laid it down that "the Ultramontane doctrine exhibits certainly most singular harmony with the whole past course of ecclesiastical history"; but it manifested considerable embarrassment in determining what papal utterances there were which were really issued ex cathedra. "There have undoubtedly been very many ex cathedra acts not formally addressed to the whole Church," said the Dublin Review, but omitted to add by what characteristics infallible utterances might be known. Meanwhile Janus was called an almost incredible instance of controversial effrontery.
Döllinger's Dublin critic affirmed that—
"in real truth, through the whole post-Nicene period, Pontifical dogmatic letters issued ex cathedra are no less undeniable and no less obtrusive matters of historical fact than are Ecumenical Councils themselves; they meet the student at every page."
The Dublin Review forms a very low estimate of the intellectual power exhibited in Janus. According ​to that authority, it was "very difficult to suppose that so indubitably and extensively learned a man as Dr Döllinger can be mixed up with so poor and feeble a production." These criticisms were followed by another article, entitled Janus and False Brethren. Here the reviewer fulminates against the writers of Janus.
"There are enemies and traitors in the camp. It is not from Protestants only, but from men kneeling at the same altars as himself that the Catholic has to dread the poisoning of his faith."
"In number indubitably these false brethren constitute no more than a small and insignificant clique. But they are energetic, zealous, and restless; and though their intellectual power is sometimes absurdly overrated, they comprise one or two really able and learned men in their number."
The general opinion at Rome was that the book was certainly composed by the Munich School, and the immense historical teaching pointed to one individual, known for his life-long familiarity with Papal history. Renewed efforts were made by opponents of Infallibility to induce Döllinger to reside during the Council in Rome. Cardinal Schwarzenberg did all that lay within his power. Strossmayer, one of the most eloquent members of the Council, declared that Döllinger's presence was urgently necessary. Maret, the learned author of the volumes defending a modified Gallican view, entreated Döllinger to overcome his reluctance and render this service to the Church. "Although without official place," wrote Maret, "your knowledge and advice would greatly influence a multitude of unenlightened and undecided minds." Bishop Dupanloup thought much the same.
​Döllinger, however, thought otherwise. He came to the conclusion that he could be of more real service to the cause through the Press.
Döllinger's massive learning and extraordinary abilities constituted him naturally the leader in Germany against the Ultramontane proposals; but it must never be forgotten that he was only the leader. Behind him was a vast body of Bavarian and German approval. Meetings and protests and petitions against an Infallibility decree sprang up all over Germany. Munich, Coblentz, Berlin, and many other cities pleaded vigorously for the older convictions. A very serious anonymous protest circulated through the Bavarian Kingdom in May 1869. It solemnly emphasised the momentous character of the impending conflict. Two antagonistic principles were engaged in final strife for supremacy: on the one hand, Papal absolutism ; on the other, the genuine Catholicism. The principles of the Syllabus declared that the Church had the right to resort to coercion, and possessed direct power even in temporal affairs. Liberty of conscience and liberty of the Press were denied to be human rights. Were these principles to be erected by Papal Infallibility into dogmas of faith? Was Christendom to witness the triumph of absolutism and a new Ultramontane confession?
An address was sent by the Catholics of Coblentz to the Bishop of Treves, dissociating themselves altogether from the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
"A distinguished religious Order is concentrating all its forces upon this project. To be silent would imply approval. As Catholics, they feel constrained to protest ​to their Bishop that the ideas and hopes of this party, who call themselves the only true Catholics, are not and never can be theirs. The coming Council would do the Church great service if it would suppress the Index of prohibited books. To punish the errors of Catholic writers by placing their names on the Index is neither worthy of the spirit nor the dignity of the Church, and is hurtful to the real interests of the advancement of truth."
This address from the Catholics of Coblentz drew from the dying Montalembert words of impassioned admiration. All his old eloquence and fire for a moment re-appeared. His end, he said, was near. He believed himself possessed of the impartiality which is the privilege of death. His body is already a ruin, but his spirit lives; and he turns with a thrill of joy to the Catholics of Coblentz. Their protest is sound from beginning to end. He could willingly endorse every line of it. His only sorrow is that a similar spirit does not animate the French; akin to that which filled them in the first half of the nineteenth century.
The Bavarian Foreign Minister, Prince Hohenlohe issued enquiries to the Faculties of Theology in the Bavarian Universities. The Professors were requested in particular to explain what criteria existed for the discernment of an infallible decree.
The Faculty of Wurtzburg replied that, so far as the faithful were concerned, it did not much matter whether a definition of faith were formulated by the Pope after consultation with the Bishops (as in 1854) or by an Assembly of Bishops directed by him. It is all the same to the individual believer. If one has to recognise a human authority in matters of faith, ​it is as easy to yield to the decision of one as to that of a thousand. Which of these two Christ had ordained, this Faculty did not discuss. They thought, however, that a kind of Infallibility existed in any court of final appeal, and must in a manner be possessed by the Pope. As to the signs whereby an infallible decree might be distinguished from fallible utterances, various opinions of theologians were given. Some maintained that deep and exhaustive study of Scripture and Tradition was an essential preliminary. No decree could possess Infallibility unless addressed to the entire Church. They recognised that if the coming Council were to define Papal Infallibility, it would be necessary to make certain modifications in the Catechisms of the Church; but they did not consider that the necessary alterations would be very profound.
The Munich theologians replied in a very different strain. They said that no certain criticism was universally acknowledged whereby a decree which was infallible could be distinguished from those which were not. Twenty different opinions were held and disputed about it. If the Council at Rome undertakes a definition of Papal Infallibility, it had better determine also the nature and conditions of its exercise. Otherwise endless disputes and similar insecurity will remain. The Bavarian Catechisms spoke only of the Infallible Authority of the Church—that is, of the Pope, together with the entire Episcopate. There existed indeed a Jesuit Catechism, recently introduced into a number of dioceses, which affirmed that the authority of the Church is expressed either by the Pope or by a Council approved by him. But this modification was obviously designed to transfer the privilege of ​Infallibility entirely and exclusively to the Pope. Manifestly therefore a revolutionary alteration would have to be made in the diocesan Catechisms if Papal Infallibility were decreed.
That a doctrine contrary to Papal Infallibility was being taught as Catholic, under sanction of Episcopal Authority, in Germany in the first half of the nineteenth century is indisputable. Liebermann's theological writings were published in five volumes at Mainz. The third edition was in 1831. It was first published with the imprimatur of the Vicar-General of Mainz in 1819.
Liebermann was a distinguished personage in his day. He became Superior of the Seminary at Mainz and Canon of the Cathedral, afterwards Vicar-General of Strasburg. His Institutiones Theologicæ, became the standard work in many seminaries in France, Belgium, Germany and America.
Liebermann's doctrine is:—
"It is certain from the principles of the Catholic Faith that the supreme Pontiff has the chief place in determining controversies of Faith; and that his judgment, if the consent of the Church be added, is irreformable. But whether his judgment is infallible before the Church's consent is a matter open to dispute among Catholics without detriment to their Catholicity."
To this proposition Liebermann adds:—
"Although there are many saintly and learned men among Catholics, who in their regard for the See of Peter have taught or still are teaching that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra cannot err; yet there have always existed very many other theologians who have taught the opposite, and these the Church none the less considers to be pious and earnest defenders ​of the Faith. Therefore, this question is of the number of those which may be disputed without detriment to Catholicity."
His conclusion is that:—
"accordingly the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff cannot be urged against heretics, nor utilised to establish the Catholic Faith. … Nor can it be adduced, even by those who are fully convinced of its truth, as a test principle. For nothing can be employed as a basis of divine Faith which is not in itself indisputable. Neither can that be made the rule of faith which itself forms no portion of the faith."
The Catechism of the Catholic Religion by Krautheimer, approved by the Bishop of Mainz in 1845, contains the following question and answer:—
"Do we believe that, as a consequence of this primacy, the Pope is infallible and may decide as Christ Himself; as the non-Catholics allege?
No. The Pope possesses in controversies of faith only a judicial decision which can only become an article of faith when the Church gives its concurrence."
This and similarly worded books of instruction had been recently withdrawn in parts of Germany through Ultramontane influence, and replaced by a Jesuit Catechism.
Philip Neri Chrismann was a Franciscan monk, and reader in Theology and Ecclesiastical History. His Rule of Catholic Faith was republished at Wurzburg in Bavaria, with the permission and approval of his ecclesiastical superiors in 1854. In this work on Dogmatic Theology he gives an exposition of the Infallibility of the Church, its nature and restrictions, ​without any reference to the Pope. At the close of the volume he gives a list of Adiaphora, or things indifferent, in which he observes that
"although the greatest reverence, obedience and submission be due to the Supreme Pontiff yet he is not favoured with the special privilege of inerrancy which was given by Christ our Lord only to the Church."
Indeed, the majority of the faithful, and above all the Bishops and clergy, did not share in Germany the Ultramontane views. The theological faculties of Tübingen and Munich were firmly attached to the Episcopal conception, and thereby equally opposed to the autocratic Roman idea. Hefele at Tübingen had pronounced, as a historian, hardly less distinctly than Döllinger at Munich.
Before obeying the summons to attend the Vatican Council, an Assembly of German Bishops was held at Fulda (September i869). Some twenty Bishops were present. There was Melchers, Archbishop of Cologne, who presided; there was Döllinger's Diocesan, Scherr, Archbishop of Munich, well acquainted with the historian's principles, and no more an Ultramontane than Döllinger himself; there was Ketteler, Bishop of Maintz, in whose diocese the recognised Catechism had for years instructed the faithful to reject Papal Infallibility, and who became one of the most persistent opponents of the doctrine to the very last in Rome, and in the Pope's own presence; there was Conrad Martin, afterwards an Infallibilist, but at present known as author of a widely disseminated handbook in which the doctrine was denied; and there was Hefele, Bishop ​elect of Rottenburg, whose History of the Councils told heavily against the Ultramontanes.
The German Episcopate was under no illusions as to the introduction of this doctrine into the coming deliberations in Rome. Accordingly they set other subjects aside to discuss the question. It was declared that a question so momentous required the production of proofs from Tradition; proofs of such a kind as to satisfy fully the demands of criticism, while leaving opponents full liberty of speech. They proceeded to examine the opportuneness of any definition. On the one side it was declared that Councils hitherto had only passed decisions on questions of urgent necessity. Now the present subject presented no such necessity. There existed no danger, either to the purity of the Faith, or to the peace of the Church. Viewed relatively to the Oriental Churches, a definition would be altogether inopportune. Eastern Christians admit a primacy of honour, and might be induced to admit a primacy of jurisdiction. But they hold with such tenacity to the ancient traditions that it was hopeless to imagine they would ever assent to Papal Infallibility. The same consideration holds with reference to Protestants. And also for the Catholics of Germany the dogma would be dangerous.
On the other hand, a member of the Assembly urged that by many people the dogma was desired ; that the opposition must not be exaggerated; that the number of German Catholics was relatively few; that the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception dogma already involved implicitly that of Papal Infallibility.
In the following discussion Bishop Hefele spoke with strongest emphasis. He had never believed in Papal ​Infallibility. He had studied the history of the Church for thirty years; but nothing could be found for Papal Infallibility in the ancient Church. It could not be rightly discussed as merely inopportune, for it simply was not true. These assertions were opposed. Eventually a petition was sent to the Pope, declaring the doctrine inopportune by a majority of fourteen Bishops out of nineteen. Then, as a curiously incongruous sequel to their own grave anxieties, the Bishops set themselves to the work of re -assuring the German Catholics in a Pastoral which declared that an Ecumenical Council would not impose a new dogma, a dogma not contained in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition; that they were confident that no obstacle would be placed either to the liberty or duration of discussion in the Council's deliberations. The Pastoral, said a contemporary writer—
"contains a promise, worded with all the distinctness that could be desired, that, so far as it depends on the votes of the German Bishops, the yoke of the new articles of faith shall not be laid on the German nation."
When the King of Bavaria read the Pastoral, he congratulated the Bishops on the line adopted, and expressed a hope that a similar spirit would prevail in the approaching deliberations in Rome.
On the other hand, a distinguished Prelate compared the opponents of Infallibility to the possessed at Gadara; and described them as crying piteously, "What have we to do with thee, Vicar of Christ?" No one, he said, would be deprived of freedom of thought or expression ​in the coming Council. No conflict of opinions would be there; nor any parties, as in a political assembly.
Döllinger, as Janus shows, was the victim of no illusions as to the main purpose to which the Vatican Council would be directed. Whatever impressions might exist in France or elsewhere, the student of History did not misinterpret the steady direction of events, the persistent intention of the dominant influences in the Church. And, although permitted no official work among the theologian consultors of the Council, he placed at the disposal of the Bishops the conclusions of his historical learning, in his Considerations respecting the question of Papal Infallibility.
Döllinger insisted that the principle by which the Church had been hitherto controlled in matters of faith was the principle of immutability. To demonstrate that a doctrine was not the conviction of the entire Church, that it was not logically included as an undeniable sequence in the original Deposit of Revealed Truth, was hitherto regarded as a conclusive demonstration that such doctrine could never be raised to the dignity of a dogma of the Church. Döllinger contended that on this principle the case for Papal Infallibility was already adversely determined. In the Eastern Church no voice had ever been heard to ascribe dogmatic Infallibility to the Pope. The doctrine did not arise within the West until the thirteenth century. It renders the history of Christendom for the first thousand years an incomprehensible enigma: for history exhibits Christendom toiling by painful, circuitous methods to secure what, if the Popes were infallible, might have been gained in the simplest way, from the utterances of a solitary voice in Rome. ​Nor is it possible, argued Döllinger, to account for the transference of infallible authority from the Church to the Pope, as a process of legitimate development. The new theory is the negation of the old. The ancient doctrine was that the Divine guidance is given to the Church collectively. It is the Church, as a whole, which cannot fall away. But the Ultramontane theory reverses this. It asserts that Divine guidance is given not to the Church collectively, but to one individual person; that Infallibility is his alone—a prerogative in which the Collective Episcopate has no share; that from him alone the Church receives light and truth. This is not development. It is negation. Among the Scripture passages to which Infallibilists chiefly appealed was the exhortation to strengthen his brethren. But this is an exhortation, not a promise. "It is a violent perversion to turn an admonition to duty into a promise of the invariable fulfilment of that duty." Still less can this exhortation be transferred as a promise to his successors, when it was only a personal admonition. It was, moreover, an exhortation which Peter himself did not invariably fulfil. Far from strengthening the Church at Antioch in the faith, he rather perplexed it by his dissimulation.
Döllinger contended that the historical growth of belief in the theory of Papal Infallibility was sufficiently instructive. When proposed to the Council of Trent, it was withdrawn by the legates who proposed it; because they recognised that a number of the Bishops disapproved it. Since that time the influence of the Jesuits and the Inquisition had steadily extended the theory, for they made the presentation of any other doctrine in books or teaching impossible in Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Every attempt to test the theory by historical criticism had been put upon the Index and suppressed, with the solitary exception of Bossuet and Cardinal de la Luzerne.
* ↑ Acton, History of Freedom, p. 418.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 420.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 388.
* ↑ Goyau, L'Allemagne Religieuse, ii. p. 89.
* ↑ Cecconi, ii. p. 329.
* ↑ Ibid. ii. p. 331.
* ↑ Friedrich, Döllinger, iii. p. 485.
* ↑ Vol. xiv. N. S. (1870), p. 194.
* ↑ Friedrich, iii. p. 489.
* ↑ Friedrich, iii. p. 518.
* ↑ Documents in Cecconi, iii. p. 312 ff.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 315.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 326.
* ↑ Documents in Cecconi, iii. p. 339.
* ↑ Memoirs, i. p. 328.
* ↑ Cecconi, iii. p. 479.
* ↑ Cecconi, iii. p. 524.
* ↑ Lichtenberger, Encyclopédie des Sciences Rcligreuses.
* ↑ Liebermann, Institutiones Theologicæ, ii. p. 540.
* ↑ Page 542.
* ↑ Page 543.
* ↑ Page 87.
* ↑ Chrismann, Regula Fidei, p. 319.
* ↑ Ollivier, i. p. 424.
* ↑ Cccconi, iv. p. 155.
* ↑ Cecconi, ii. p. 459.
* ↑ Ibid. iv. p. 160.
* ↑ Friedrich, ii. p. 190.
* ↑ Cecconi, ii. p. 462.
* ↑ Ibid. iii. p. 372.
* ↑ Quirinus, Letters from Rome, p. 36.
* ↑ Acta, p. 1201.
* ↑ Acta, p. 1296 (November 1869).
* ↑ See Declarations and Letters (October 1869).