period of constant, immemorial, universal, and public practice, down to the Council of Constance; secondly, through the period of conflict, and therefore of analysis, from the Council of Constance to the Assembly of 1682; thirdly, from 1682, in the Pontifical Acts by which the opinion adverse to the infallibility of the Successor of Peter, speaking ex cathedrâ, has been, if not condemned, at least so discouraged that the opposite opinion may be affirmed to be at least certain, if not de fide, though not imposed as of universal obligation. In this stage of the question an Œcumenical Council meets. The question, therefore, is not whether the doctrine be true, which cannot be doubted; or definable, which is not open to doubt: but whether such a definition be opportune, that is, timely and prudent.
Those who maintain that the time is ripe, and that such a definition would be opportune, justify their opinion on the following reasons:—
1. Because the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, speaking ex cathedrâ, in matter of faith and morals, is true.
2. Because this truth has been denied.
3. Because this denial has generated extensive doubt as to the truth of this doctrine, which lies at the root of the immemorial and universal practice of the Church, and therefore at the foundation of Christianity in the world.
4. Because this denial, if it arose informally about the time of the Council of Constance, has been revived, and has grown into a formal and public error since the closing of the last General Council.
