Chapter 24

FOOTNOTES:[369]Documenta, ii. 388.[370]Tagebuch, p. 283.[371]The Tractarian Movement.[372]VII. x. 348 ff.[373]Vol. ii. pp. 31-34.[374]Tagebuch, p. 344.[375]Ibid.p. 304.[376]Acta Sanctæ Sedis, v. 447.[377]Acta Sanctæ Sedis, vol. v. 501-7.[378]CompareTagebuch(pp. 304, 324, 325, and 344) withQuirinus(p. 432) andVitelleschi(p. 130).[379]Tagebuch, p. 358.[380]Quirinus, p. 477.[381]TheCiviltá, without naming the Syllabus, asserts that by this paragraph the Council itself has put a new seal on all the acts of the Pontiff condemning erroneous opinions. It says the mouths are shut of those sowers of tares who would pretend that opinions not branded as heresies were left free by the Council, because not separately named (VII. x. 524).

FOOTNOTES:

[369]Documenta, ii. 388.

[370]Tagebuch, p. 283.

[371]The Tractarian Movement.

[372]VII. x. 348 ff.

[373]Vol. ii. pp. 31-34.

[374]Tagebuch, p. 344.

[375]Ibid.p. 304.

[376]Acta Sanctæ Sedis, v. 447.

[377]Acta Sanctæ Sedis, vol. v. 501-7.

[378]CompareTagebuch(pp. 304, 324, 325, and 344) withQuirinus(p. 432) andVitelleschi(p. 130).

[379]Tagebuch, p. 358.

[380]Quirinus, p. 477.

[381]TheCiviltá, without naming the Syllabus, asserts that by this paragraph the Council itself has put a new seal on all the acts of the Pontiff condemning erroneous opinions. It says the mouths are shut of those sowers of tares who would pretend that opinions not branded as heresies were left free by the Council, because not separately named (VII. x. 524).

CHAPTER IV

To the End of the General Debate on the DecreesDe Ecclesia, June 3—Temporal Benefit to the Curia of Spiritual Centralization—Spalding's Proposals—Impatience of the Pope and Veuillot—Outcry againstCe Qui se Passe au Concile—All other Subjects to be Postponed, and Infallibility to be brought on out of its order—Renewed protest of Minority—Open Change of Dispute from one on Opportuneness to one on the Merits of the Dogma—Anecdotes of Bishops—Violations of Rules—Private Notes of Bishops on the Dogma—Doubts cast on the Authority of the Council—Formula of New Decree—How it will Work.

"Whowould not gladly pay a handsome sum to be armed with an infallible decision which will at once crush all opposition and put down all adversaries?"[382]This was the practical question suggested by the speculations of Romans. Increased resort to the oracle would certainly follow the lifting of its Decrees above all dispute. What, indeed, they might well ask, would not a party in some hot dispute pay for a Decree that could never be disturbed? and in high affairs of State, when some Crœsus had set his heart on a great enterprise, would he not make offerings to the oracle, which even a Herodotus might rejoice to immortalize? Moreover, as Quirinus adds, almost every Roman had a brother, an uncle, or a cousin, in the clerical circle around which the profits would be distributed. If bishops, with countries to call their own, feared the result of the attempt to set up clerical authority above civil, Roman prelates who had no country, but were only the political dependents of foreigners, openly declared that they looked upon the restoration of spiritual authority over temporal affairs as the one thing called for by the times. So long as this notion was confined to theRoman prelates proper, one could comprehend it. They had lived apart from men and affairs, except their own affairs, and were absolute strangers to the actual age and world. But that bishops from free countries or great ones should entertain such dreams, or while not themselves sharing in the illusions, should adopt the religious expedients by which it was hoped to give them effect, is marvellous. Perhaps it may be partly explained by that weakening of the individual conscience and will, through the principle of authority, to which Vitelleschi so instructively refers; by that complete personal dependence of bishops on the Curia for consideration, and even for means, which is noted on all hands; by the unbroken habit of yielding to Rome, or of being beaten in every attempt at resistance; by old age, and by the incurable isolation of the men themselves from humanity. They were men bound, as we view it, only by artificial ties, to a guild bent upon ruling the world, while they themselves received gold rings and goodly apparel for bearing their share in the enterprise. Or, as they viewed it, they were men separated from the world, identified only with the Church and the clergy, and utterly dependent upon the Vicar of God. What could they do? A quarrel with a government had hitherto always brought a bishop glory, but not so a quarrel with the Curia. In the former case, the Pope took care to make up to the bishop in professional advantage more than he could lose by political collision. In the latter case, no government could or would make up to him for disgrace or ruin. A martyr bishop was one of the most effective figures in every Church display. A great occasion would be comparatively dull without one. Governments could make no such use of bishops who might suffer for loyalty.

It is curious to find in the Archbishop of Baltimore one of the keenest partisans of infallibility. Formerly, Dr. Spalding had foretold that the dogma would only occasion difficulties, and had advised resistance. The causes of his new zeal were of course discussed in Rome, where changes of opinion are liable to be assigned to personal rather than to public motives.Spalding prepared a formula of infallibility to the effect that all Papal decisions must be received with internal assent. It is even said that he took this for a mild form compared with the direct declaration of the doctrine. Two of his American colleagues, on the other hand, the Archbishops of St. Lewis and of Cincinnati, bore a distinguished part among the prelates of the minority, as did also the Archbishop of Halifax.[383]Kenrick, of St. Lewis, left an impression of force equalled only by few prelates in the assembly.

The question of infallibility had been a good while in the hands of the committee before the latter gave any sign of being ready with the formula. Some thought that the committee was not unwilling to let time pass before forcing matters to an issue. The minority had now become anxious for delay, in the hope that the dreaded Chapter XI. would not be brought on before the heats of the Roman summer should disperse the Council. They had the whole of the Decrees on the Duty of Bishops, on the Life of the Clergy, on the Catechism, and ten chapters of the Decree on the General Constitution of the Church, to discuss before the critical eleventh chapter would come on. But these hopes of delay on the part of the minority were perfectly understood by the Curia. It was determined not to let the patience of the majority be worn out. The impatience of men like Mermillod may be imagined when even Bishop Martin is quoted by Friedrich as expressing a wish that the Garibaldians would come and scatter the Council. But most impatient of all was the Pontiff. Briefs and speeches equally tingled with the same excitement. M. Veuillot found it necessary to declare that the Pope was not impatient, but resolute. Still he let it out that something had been hoped for even at the last public session (ii. 45). The voice of the people crying, "The Infallible Pope for ever," had sounded in Veuillot's ears during the Easter festivities, and again on the anniversary of the return from exile. But when, oh when would the voice of God sound? Pius IX would know God's moment, and would take it. As to thecries which nourished the faith of M. Veuillot, the deaf ears of Quirinus and Friedrich heard only faint ones—two voices or three. These writers, at least one or other of them, suggested a calculation as to how manybaiocchi, or halfpence, the cries cost.

The mission of Pius IX was but half fulfilled. He had secured the Immaculate Conception, but not yet the Infallibility; and this was to be, and it must be soon. What Quirinus says (p. 526) of the Pope's two fixed ideas is in harmony with the general belief; they were, first, a persuasion of the infallibility of all his predecessors; and, secondly, a persuasion of his own special inspiration by the Virgin.

Excitement was created in Rome by the appearance ofCe Qui se Passe au Concile. It was believed to be written by the Abbé Gaillard, and said by M. Veuillot to be at least by a theologian; but he did not hesitate to insinuate that it was written under the eye of bishops.[384]By all Liberal Catholics, entitled to be heard, it was and is looked upon as an undeniable summary of facts. The Council condemned it, the organs denounced it; but none the less, when you inquire even in Rome for good information, it is sure to be named, sometimes even by privileged men. M. Veuillot gives its official character thus: "Lies, calumnies, defamations, beyond count. Lies double, fourfold, tenfold. The general lie contains another, and that another, and that yet another, so there is no end." But many pages of righteous indignation expressed in this style leave you to ask, what single fact has been disproved by this gentleman who gives the lie so spiritedly? (ii. 98). Much the same may be said of the other of "the two modern Fathers," Margotti.

The day previous to the late public session, a deputation of bishops had been received with great distinction by his Holiness. They said that they spoke on behalf of four hundred prelates, and requested that he would be pleasedto order the question of infallibility to be immediately brought before the Council, postponing other subjects which had precedence. The Council itself was not able to fix even the order in which questions were to be taken up. There soon was a sign that the change of plan thus recommended had actually been adopted. The proposed Decrees touching the duties of bishops and the life of the clergy were set aside; and the Decree on the shorter catechism was taken first in order. The former could well wait. The latter was really an important element of centralization. But, it may be asked, Was not the Council in possession of a subject after it had once been proposed and discussed? The reply must be, No, for such subjects could be withdrawn from its cognizance at any moment without its leave.

No sooner were the minority aware of the intention to take the discussion on infallibility out of its order, than they resolved on sending a solemn deputation direct to the Pope to make urgent representations. Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati, was to be the spokesman.[385]But this movement was forestalled by one from the other side. TheSynopsis of Notes, written by the Fathers upon the Dogma, was suddenly distributed. This not only marked the resolution of the Curia to press forward, but it accomplished a step in the progress. Either from discouragement, or from a calculation of the futility of the step, the bishops allowed their intended deputation to fall through. They resorted once more to a paper protest, which was signed by sixty-six prelates.[386]The true spirit of an Oriental Court made them conscious that a petition and a surrender were the measures of which they were capable. In fact, as will presently appear, they had passed the stage even of petitioning, and had come to that of hopeless complaint.

As if to console themselves by strong words for doing nothing, they recalled the fact that as soon as theCiviltáhinted that thework of the Council was to be the proclamation of infallibility, all the enemies of the Church had exclaimed that the Holy Father, after having made a pretext of the general good, had really convoked the bishops for his own exaltation. This they had then treated as a calumny. But if the weighty matters already laid before the Council were to be put aside, and nothing was to result from their labours during six or seven months but the one Decree already adopted, with the second now proposed on infallibility, they would find on returning home that those calumnies against the Church would have acquired life and force such as they could not contemplate without deep sorrow.

The sixty-six bishops formally announce that they donot make any request. They simply state their convictions. Again, to prefer requests would, they feel, be no longer consistent with their episcopal dignity, with their position, or their rights, as members of the Council, since they have already learned sufficiently, and more than sufficiently, by experience that any prayers of theirs are so far from being granted that they are not even answered.

Nothing now remains to us but to disclaim for ourselves, as far as may be, all accountability before men, and before the dreadful judgment-seat of God, for the ill-omened events which, beyond all doubt, will soon arise, and indeed are already arising; and of this our disclaimer the present document will abide the perpetual witness.If the Decree to be pronouncedDe Ecclesia, putting aside controverted points, aimed only at displaying to the eyes of all men the beauty and majesty of the Spouse of Christ to the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, how easily might we set forth the whole of the doctrine of the Church; and, perhaps, we might all on the approaching festival of Pentecost, wherein the foundation of the Church is annually called to mind, celebrate it together. Then indeed would a right solemn Pentecost shine upon our Synod, whereof the splendour streaming over the entire world would fill all Christians with mighty gladness. But, alas! so far is such gladness from being granted to us, that it would appear that on the approaching Pentecost we must look forward rather to a day of mourning than to one of joy. The accountability for this would rest on those who—no necessity of the Christian commonwealth demanding it—would, by means of the Council, wave the victor'spalm because certain opinions of the schools had triumphed, not over the enemies of the Church, but over brothers, and who would thus inflict the gravest injury upon the Church; injury which, both at the present time and in view of the circumstances of future times, would give cause for abiding fear and pain of heart.May it please the almighty and merciful God to avert so great an evil from the Vatican Council, and to lead us all by His heavenly grace to a sense of true concord and unity!

If the Decree to be pronouncedDe Ecclesia, putting aside controverted points, aimed only at displaying to the eyes of all men the beauty and majesty of the Spouse of Christ to the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, how easily might we set forth the whole of the doctrine of the Church; and, perhaps, we might all on the approaching festival of Pentecost, wherein the foundation of the Church is annually called to mind, celebrate it together. Then indeed would a right solemn Pentecost shine upon our Synod, whereof the splendour streaming over the entire world would fill all Christians with mighty gladness. But, alas! so far is such gladness from being granted to us, that it would appear that on the approaching Pentecost we must look forward rather to a day of mourning than to one of joy. The accountability for this would rest on those who—no necessity of the Christian commonwealth demanding it—would, by means of the Council, wave the victor'spalm because certain opinions of the schools had triumphed, not over the enemies of the Church, but over brothers, and who would thus inflict the gravest injury upon the Church; injury which, both at the present time and in view of the circumstances of future times, would give cause for abiding fear and pain of heart.

May it please the almighty and merciful God to avert so great an evil from the Vatican Council, and to lead us all by His heavenly grace to a sense of true concord and unity!

Among those who sign are Prague, Munich, Colocza, Cologne, St. Gall, Maintz, Halifax, Clifton, St. Louis, Paris, St. Augustine in Florida, Cincinnati, Chatham, Plymouth, Kerry, Milan, and Sault St. Marie in Michigan.

For us it is hard to account for the fact that language so strong, from men representing interests so large, should be deemed not even worthy of the courtesy of an answer. Why did the bishops not go to the Pope directly?

"Sad as it is to confess it," saysLa Liberté du Concile, "the Pope does not easily grant audiences to bishops of the minority. Many have been expressly solicited, as to which up to this hour no reply has been received. We know several of the oldest and most respected bishops of France, who have been six months in Rome, and have not yet been admitted to the presence of the Pope. Of those who have been admitted, to none, with two or three exceptions, has the Pope given any opening for conversation on the concerns of the Church, or for exchanging a single word with the Holy Father on the position of affairs."[387]

Quirinus represents the Roman prelates as saying that the German bishops at Fulda had already showed that they felt how unity was to be preferred to veracity. Thus the Curia had implicit faith in the feebleness of conviction, compared with the force of the habit of submission. Only two things would they have feared—a schism on the part of the bishops, or a separation of the Church from the State on the part of the politicians. But they confidently reckoned on the submission of the one, and on the political calculations of the other.

The pretext that all the objections to infallibility related only to opportuneness, had been gradually dropped. In fact, neitherside could keep it up, even before the public. It was possible to conceal most of the speeches, and to deny everything that was reported of them; and it was hoped that the secret petitions would never see the light, but tracts and pamphlets could not be so readily hidden. So the Jesuits at last boldly turned round and accused the opponents of attacking the doctrine itself.Observationes Quædem de Infallibilitatis Ecclesiæ Subjectois the title of one publication, in treating of which theCiviltásaid that opportuneness no longer related to the character of the times, but to the character of the doctrine. The doctrine itself was declared to be alien from Catholic tradition,—a new doctrine, and consequently a false one.[388]Ketteler had brought a pamphlet to Rome, in Latin, composed under his authority. It was long detained by the police, but, after vexatious delays, was released. One of the things which exposed him to the charge of being double-faced was the fact that he "hawked" this pamphlet about among the bishops, and yet said that it attacked only the opportuneness of the definition.[389]Hefele said, "You are a Rhine Frank, and the Rhine Franks are clever people. I am only a Swabian, and I cannot see it."

As Bishops Krementz and Namszanowski left Friedrich on April 25, they met Bishop Martin. He told them with delight how the King of Prussia, their own monarch, had written to his ambassador not to trouble himself further with the decisions of the Council. Martin extolled the king to the skies, and declared that he would now make a Prussian Propaganda. But Namszanowski replied, "If that is your idea, you are greatly mistaken. The king at first believed that in Rome one had to do with reasonable and sensible men; but now, seeing that he was misled, he says, "Do what you like, and we shall let you do it quietly. If you adopt conclusions which are injurious to us, we shall draw the sword." That is the language which the consciousness of power inspires."[390]

The Congregation of April 29 was occupied in discussing the Decree on the Catechism. Hefele read a speech of Rauscher. The Cardinal affirmed that, according to the Concordat, the Catechism in Austria could not be changed without the consent of the government. He demanded therefore that the new Catechism should not be declared obligatory. The majority burst out into loud laughter. Hefele looked firmly and indignantly at the disturbers. The noise ceased, and he proceeded. A second time the laughter occurred. At the conclusion, he went to the Presidents and complained. One of them observed that as a historian he must know that even at Trent there had been interruptions. Yes, he said, but he did not know that interruptions were essential to a Council; and he would call attention to the fact that such proceedings would cause the freedom of the Council to be called in question, and possibly its œcumenicity.[391]

On May 2, as afterwards appeared by a letter found among papers in the Tuileries, Darboy was writing to Napoleon III stating that the minority was compact, would do its utmost, and did not despair of victory. On May 4 the Council came to a vote on the Catechism, when as many as a hundred votedNon placet. Then occurred a recess of several days; but twenty-four French bishops put in that day a protest against arbitrary violations of those very Rules which had been imposed upon the Council by the Pope himself. In the late public session the Rule that non-members should be excluded during the legislative acts had been departed from without the Council being consulted. Further, this day, they add, when the votes on various amendments to the Decree on the Catechism had been taken, the Rule required that the vote on the whole should be deferred to another day. But, against the Rule, it was taken on the spot. Several Fathers, who had counted thatthe Rule would be kept, were absent. It is further alleged that no opportunity of pointing out these irregularities was given; because, say they, contrary to the rule of all deliberative bodies, it is not allowed in the Council to speak even to order, unless the name of the speaker has been inscribed the day before, which of course is impossible in unforeseen circumstances.[392]

During the recess the Fathers could study the contents of the notes on infallibility. The Synopsis of them, as we have already mentioned, had been put into their hands. Some of these notes are printed entire, some are abridged; but there does not appear to have been much complaint that this was unfairly done. The two sides were represented by about an equal number of memoranda. The Synopsis contained two hundred and forty-two pages, consisting of one hundred and thirty-nine memoranda. Sixty-five of these were adverse to the definition. Of these, again, only thirteen advanced merely the plea of inopportuneness, and fifty-two opposed the doctrine itself. Yet Cardinal Manning never heard of five bishops who denied the doctrine of Papal infallibility![393]

Adepts readily traced many of the anonymous memoranda to their authors, and, of course, the authors frequently acknowledged their handiwork. The first memorandum was by Rauscher, the last by Kenrick—two men who showed as much capacity as any of the minority. In these notes, the student will find a real source of light on the thoughts and principles which were then common to all men convened to reconstitute human society, as well as on those in which they disagreed.[394]They are almost the only portion of the proceedings which have real interest for the pure theologian. Attempts have been made since the Council, by many bishops, to represent the whole amount of difference of opinion as having been a trifle, touching only the question of opportuneness. The character of those statements is sealed by these notes. We shall not attempt to give a general outline of them; but the very first memorandum, that of Rauscher, is perfectly explicit.He immediately handles the doctrine, not the prudence or expedience of proclaiming it. It was fair to treat an objector like Dr. Newman as opposing on grounds not either theological or moral, but from subtle expediency. Such men were simply afraid of hurting the credit of their Church, though admitting that the claims she advanced were warranted. They counselled a reserve which would have been thought natural for Italians, but impossible for Englishmen, before the time when Dr. Newman's power of making the flow of our mother tongue smooth and winning began to be used, in order to rob it of its good name for straightforwardness. But Rauscher showed cause. He declared that it had never yet been proved that the alleged authority which the new claims professed to formulate, had any existence. He declared that the attempts made to prove it were partly artifices and partly fallacies. Two positions so distinct as this simple one of Rauscher and the double one of Newman could not be confounded, even by men much less apt at splitting hairs than Roman Catholic bishops.

"The subterfuges," indignantly writes Rauscher in his first paragraph, after alluding to the necessity, under which he lay in Germany, of showing reasons, and tacitly contrasting such a position with the facility of demanding submission in Rome,—"The subterfuges employed by not a few theologians in the matter of Honorius, would expose me to derision. To employ sophisms seems to me unworthy both of the dignity of a bishop and of the nature of the subject, which ought to be treated in the fear of God; but prudence itself would put me on my guard against artifices." What a testimony! delivered in the face of Rome at that moment, it showed the effect of free enquiry in compelling men to be truthful, as compared with the effect of what Rome calls "authority" in making them first supple and then deceitful. It is a testimony of permanent value in the three spheres of history, morals, and theology.

His next blow is at a logical trick, which, however, is one employed by Roman Catholic theologians at almost every step in their attempt to prove Romanist as distinguished from Christian doctrine—the trick of begging the question. It isinferred that the Decrees of the Pope, in matters of faith and morals, must be infallible, because the power of legislation in faith and morals for the whole Church having been conferred on Peter and his successors, it is clear that what was false could not be allowed to enter into such Decrees. Very good says Rauscher; but this is calling the thing to be proved to give evidence for the thing to be proved. The question turns on the very point whether any such power of universal legislation, in faith or morals, without appeal or revision, ever was conferred on Peter and his successors. Even here Rauscher assumes as proved what is altogether incapable of proof, that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter. That Peter ever was in Rome is not proven; that he ever was Pontiff is absurd; that he ever was the Christian bishop of the city admits of scarcely a show of proof, except on those principles of evidence which have been naturalized in Romish theology by the necessity of supporting fables and forgeries.

Not only do men like Rauscher show that they dispute the doctrine itself, but the memoranda of many who commence by alleging inopportuneness, end by attacking the substance of the doctrine. For instance, No. 136 says, "Finally, I cannot find this infallibility in the acts of the General Councils. On the other hand, it is certain that three General Councils condemned Honorius for heresy." Yet this prelate seemed, in his first sentences, only to oppose the opportuneness of the definition. Kenrick takes the opposite course. He begins by saying that the doctrine is not so certain that it can be defined as an article of faith, and then takes up lower ground, that, even if it were certain, it would not be expedient that it should be defined by the present Council. We do not wonder at any man who could put upon paper the last principle, submitting to anything, or concealing anything, or professing anything, if it is expedient. What, it may be true that, on earth, God has set up a man as His representative who, whenever he puts on his full official character, utters the Word of God without error or possibility of erring, and yet it may not be expedient to tell this most pregnant of truths by any and every organ possible! Howcan any moral foundations exist in men whose whole substance is honeycombed by principles like these? When they submit, their submission has not the grace of any real sacrifice. When they affirm, their affirmation has not the authority of any real conviction.

This moral obscurity does not prevent Kenrick from clearly seeing theological points. He boldly says that the doctrine expressed in the proposed definition is wanting in authority both from Scripture and from ecclesiastical tradition. We shall not enter into his examination of the alleged scriptural proofs, but it is well worth the attention of theologians. He clearly puts the retrospective and prospective aspects of the new dogma, when contrasting it with an ordinary point of doctrine like that of the Immaculate Conception—

The new dogma not only impairs the rights of bishops, but imposes on the faithful the necessity of believing that the Roman Pontiffs never did err in faith, which indubitable monuments of history seem to disprove; and that they never will err in the future, which we hope, but are not able to believe with the certitude of divine faith.[395]

Kenrick says that, in defining the Immaculate Conception the Pope proposed the greater glory of the Mother of God, and previously to doing so consulted all the bishops, and acted on their advice. Now, however, he proposed his own infallibility, to be defined by a Council, which seems to have been convened for that purpose, although many bishops, and those representing the principal Churches of the Christian world, do not approve of it either in itself or in its concomitants.

Kenrick embraces under the head of expediency matter very different indeed from what one would have anticipated. He barely indicates the social and political dangers likely to arise out of the contemplated changes in dogma and polity. Having done this, he at once declares that the authority and œcumenicity of the Council are liable to be called in question, and will be called in question, on two separate grounds: first, the composition of the Council, and, secondly, its defect of liberty. Asto its composition, he divides the members of it into five classes—

1. Diocesan bishops having Sees and governing them by ordinary episcopal authority.

2. Bishops of theRing—episcopi annulares—who have the orders of bishops, but have neither Sees nor flocks, and who, with few exceptions, hold offices in the Court of Rome.

3. Other bishopsin partibus, who, under the designation of Vicars Apostolic, preside over missions, and are all of them so immediately dependent upon the Holy See as to be removable at the discretion of the Pope.

4. Cardinals who are not bishops, and Cardinals who, having the orders of bishops, have no Sees.

5. Abbots and Generals of Orders.

Kenrick asserts that out of all the five classes the right of definition in matters of faith belongs, by a certain and universally acknowledged title, to diocesan bishops alone. The right of the Bishops of the Ring to define in matters of faith is a subject of dispute among theologians. The right of the Vicars Apostolic is disputable, but on different grounds. They have Sees, yet they are immediately dependent on the See of Rome, even to the extent of being removable at the will of the Bishop of Rome. As to Cardinals who are not bishops, with the Abbots and Generals, there is no doubt. They are confessed by all to have no right of definition in matters of faith, except as derived from custom.

Having thus described the composition of the Council, he adds the following solemn words—

In this Council the subject in hand affects the conflicting claims of the Pope and the bishops. If the Pope alone is infallible, the bishops do not exercise the office of judges, and, in a Council, they are only his councillors. Hence it ought to belong not to the Pope singly, but to a Council of diocesan bishops presided over by the Pope, to determine what right properly belongs to the other four classes; for otherwise the Pope would seem to dominate the Council.

How that argument to prove that the proper constitution ofa Council was violated at the Vatican is to be met, it is not easy to see. The point next touched by Kenrick is one that has been less dwelt upon in public, but which would probably have some weight in a legal argument. In the Bull of Convocation it was enjoined upon bishops who should not be able to attend, to send their deputies furnished with proper credentials. Forty such deputies actually presented themselves; they were refused admittance, not by the Council, but by the Pope acting alone! Now, insists Kenrick, diocesan bishops would appear to have a strict right to send deputies to the Council when themselves unable to attend, which right was recognised by the ancient Councils. The exclusion, therefore, of those deputies from the Vatican Councilby the sole authority of the Pontiff, would seem to raise a doubt of its œcumenicity. Had there been any question as to their title, it belonged to the Council itself to determine, but permission was not given to take the opinion of the Council on the point!

Kenrick further specifies, as a blot upon the authority and œcumenicity of the Council, the withdrawal from the bishops of the right of proposition by a mere Papal constitution. He adds the important fact that, owing to the privation of this right, many Fathers who wished to take the opinion of the Council on the admission of the deputies of absent prelates were unable to do so, although they left no means untried. Yet one at least who was born an Englishman can say that this Council was as free as our Parliament—a Council that had not even the right of verifying the titles of its own members! Kenrick concludes by expressing his persuasion that if the definition of Papal infallibility should go out in the name of this Council, it would rather increase dissension than promote peace, and would lead to a diminution of the rights of bishops and to the dishonour of the Pontiff himself.

The Liberal Catholics began, about this time, to notice the frequent expressions in Curialistic circles anticipating a war, in 1871, between France and Prussia.[396]TheUniversnow fixed a new date for the settlement of the great question—AscensionDay. All that could be saidproorconhad been said, according to this journal, in the memoranda written by the prelates; and so in the Council there would be only an exposition of the Decree prepared by the committee, after which the Fathers would at once proceed to the vote. No doubt the avoidance of further discussion was a matter of great account with those who were looking to the future. The effect of the new constitution, at least its immediate effect, would greatly depend upon theéclatwith which it should be promulged, and on the state of preparation to which the Catholic populations might be brought. If a tale of Friedrich, at the expense of Cardinal Capalti, be anything more than a joke, the question might have been settled by leaving it open. The Cardinal declared that he should be content with a definition of the infallibility of the Pope, whether it was infallibility with the bishops or without them.[397]The circulation of such a tale illustrates an impression prevailing, that even many of those in high places had not mastered the bearings of the question in dispute.

It was on May 10 that the proposed Decrees of Infallibility were distributed. "I shook all over my body," says Friedrich; "my senses seemed to forsake me as I read on." What was the amazement of the Professor to find not only all the mediæval pretensions taken up again, but the cool assertion made in notes, that all monuments of antiquity showed that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff had been held as a truth divinely revealed. Another assertion which he noted, is that infallibility could never be disproved by history; but if any historical facts did appear to conflict with it, in so far as they did so they must be taken to be false. Again, the conclusions of any science, even those of ecclesiastical history, if opposed to the infallibility of the Pontiff, must be held to be errors. This is a very practical way of carrying out the principle announced by Cardinal Manning as to the dogma conquering history.

After reading this sort of matter, the indignant Professor cries, "Will our bishops dare to return home with such a verdict against all science, and against all sound reason?Does not this amount to saying—I believe it because it is absurd?" The Archbishop of Bamberg gave Friedrich some light on the way in which history was to be kept right. He said that the Pope was irritated at Hefele's pamphlet on the case of Honorius, and said, "There must be falsification of documents. The documents must be in the archives. Let them seek and they will find them; I am persuaded of it." It was publicly announced that the Pope had appointed two men to perform this duty. The Archbishop thought that the Curia would shrink from facing the judgment of the world. He placed his finger on his forehead, and said, "I cannot understand how a man in his senses can think of a personal infallible Pope." Archbishop Scherr having joined them, Deinlein added, "The world must rescue us. Had it not rescued us, we were already lost, and the Council over."[398]To this Friedrich adds that Bishops Krementz and Namszanowski are already thinking of the coming excommunication; and that Hefele had said gladly would he lay down the mitre and crozier, but what would become of his diocese?

Friedrich, wearied out in spirit, now spoke of going home. "You must stay," said Bishop Namszanowski, "for the historians must sit in judgment over this perfidious proceeding. It is impossible any longer to speak of a General Council. I only wonder that the German bishops have not already jumped out of their skin."[399]

One of Friedrich's notes is to the effect that the Nuncio in Munich having reported that Archbishop Scherr in opposing infallibility commanded no sympathy among his people, the Pope sent for the Archbishop, and asked him why he took the side of the minority when he was isolated in his own diocese. The Archbishop asked Friedrich to tell Döllinger that even at this peculiar audience he had stood by him. Still he wishedDöllinger not to do anything more; it would only increase the difficulties.[400]

The proposed Decrees on the Church were wonderfully changed. The celebrated twenty-one Canons were now omitted. The whole Draft was compressed into four chapters, with three Canons. Vitelleschi, as we have seen, cannot understand how governments, especially the government of France, should attach so much importance to the Canons, and so little to the dogma of infallibility. The latter, as he well says, virtually includes them all, and as many more besides as may spring from the sole and irresponsible will of an individual. John Lemoinne had hastily said that Infallibility affected France no more than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; but Prévost Paradol had, with better insight, shown that, on the contrary, it gave the Pope everything in theory, and left him in the position, step by step, first to assume and next to acquire everything in practice. The Immaculate Conception seriously affected France; not the doctrine, but the proceeding which set up a single master over the faith of France. That proceeding paved the way for Infallibility, which in its turn was to confirm for ever and render ordinary a despotic procedure which otherwise might have been treated as exceptional.

TheUniversof April 29, after asking whether objectors meant to remain Catholics after the definition, and saying that if they answered No they were judged already, went on to remark, If they answer Yes they are preparing themselves for a kind of faith and obedience that is hardly reasonable; preparing to believe that what was black has become white through a Council invested with power to make true that which was false. Poor Montalembert did not live to read that taunt and menace both in one. Mrs. Oliphant mentions someone who said that the Count had expressed his intention to submit at last, for he must do so. That is one thing, and expressing an intention to believe is another. But those who know how such statements as that quoted by Mrs. Oliphant are made, would not give much for it if it came only from a female or a priest.

Bishop Martin related how Friedrich, as he walked on the Pincian the evening before leaving Rome, said, pointing to St. Peter's, "If only the lightning fell from heaven and annihilated St. Peter's with all its glories!" "No," retorted Friedrich, "I never said anything so silly. What I once did say on the Pincian was, referring to the superstition of the Pope, 'Nothing can restrain the Pope from the definition, unless, indeed, at the critical moment, the well-known sunbeam fails, and some other natural phenomenon comes in its stead.'"[401]

To understand the line of thought by which calculating men connected the dogma with the prospect of universal dominion over the world, it is necessary to recall the primary elements of Church jurisdiction. As a kingdom appointed to govern the world, which is the ineradicable Papal conception, the Church rules through three tribunals—the internal, the external, and the supreme. Technically they are two, internal and external; the Pope being supreme in both. In theinternal tribunalthe Church cites; the cited are all the faithful. The person appearing is himself accuser and witness; the confessor is judge and jury. This tribunal, popularly called the Confessional, rules the conscience, the board, the bed, the purse, the family life, and the action of the individual in public life. In theexternal tribunalit is the ecclesiastical law which cites. Those cited are persons against whom any one either secretly or publicly complains. The witnesses may be either secret informer or open witness. The judge and jury are the ecclesiastical magistrate. This tribunal, popularly called the Ecclesiastical Court, rules all social questions whatever that have any moral interest or any colourable connexion with religion. Finally, in the supreme tribunal the Curia cites. The parties cited are all against whom any appeal or any information has been laid. The witnesses are those whom the Curia chooses to call, or its informers. The Pope is judge and jury. This tribunal, popularly called the Pope, acting through some Roman congregation or court, settles all points as between confessor and penitent, as between priest and bishop, as between magistratesand parties to a process, as between rulers and subjects, as between State and State, and above all, as between any State with its ruler and the supreme tribunal.

These three tribunals between them give a complete control of the tangled web called the world, excepting only that ill-defined if not invisible selvage of it which consists of affairs not included within the domain of morals. And that web, with its cunning shots and all but invisible devices, is that "large and variegated web," which, when unfolding its program, theCiviltáshowed, would, after lustres had come and gone, appear as the fabric woven with the simple threads of its title,Catholic Civilization; or the Catholic Civil System.

Now, in the chaotic condition of recent times, President Moreno and Queen Isabella were the only two rulers that even seemed to be dutifully disposed to the Church in her tribunals; and poor Queen Isabella had already fallen.

In most countries, one who never entered the internal tribunal, might conduct a business, indeed he might even write a newspaper, or fill a professor's chair, ay, might make laws, or occupy a throne. Hence the crying need of a central authority so strong as to give to the external tribunal control over every bench, and to make the internal bear rule in every home, especially in every home wherein dwelt a ruler.

The proclamation of infallibility would be a complete restoration of the supreme tribunal, not indeed as to all the facts, but complete as to the ideas. This would bring about the restoration of facts in time. It is plain that the great majority of the bishops calculated hew the supreme judge, when once enthroned and acknowledged, would awe wayward kings and politicians; how, waiting for favourable political conjunctures, Nuncios would be able to move the bishops, and the bishops the clergy, and the clergy the people, till the patient power of the Church would bow all to her own laws. The hold already acquired upon schools, especially in France, was the most solid element in the entire calculation. The progress made within the last thirty years held out flattering hopes as to the future. The architects forgot that they had climbed up by a ladderwhich they had now kicked away. The voice to which concessions had been made was that of the Liberal Catholics pleading in the name of liberty, and they and their plea had now been unblushingly disowned.

Back to Index Next