Chapter 25

FOOTNOTES:[382]Quirinus, p. 482.[383]Quirinus, p. 253.[384]"What stupefaction to think that perhaps serious men have been engaged in getting these things written about themselves!" (vol. ii. 125).[385]Quirinus, p. 508.[386]Quirinussays by seventy-seven; but we give the numbers as we count them at the foot of the document in theDocumenta ad Illustrandum, ii. p. 392.[387]Doc. ad Ill., i. 178.[388]Serie VII. x. p. 291.[389]Printed inDocumenta ad Ill., i. p. 1-129.[390]Tagebuch, p. 365. Friedrich adds a note to his second edition:—"Bishop Namszanowski had this statement denied in theGermaniaof 1872, No. 132. This is really disgusting. I declare here, as I have done already in theCologne Gazette, that the Bishop himself told me in his own house immediately after the meeting with Martin. I was so struck with the expression that I entered it under the heading, 'Certain Notes touching Rome and the Council.'"[391]Ibid., p. 380;La Liberté du Concile, Doc. i. p. 173.[392]Documenta, ii. p. 391.[393]Pet. Priv., iii. p. 27.[394]Documenta, ii. 212-89.[395]Documenta, ii. 287.[396]Tagebuch, p. 375.[397]Ibid.p. 391.[398]Tagebuch, p. 398. Friedrich in a note says that when he made this statement in Nuremberg the Vicar-General of Archbishop Deinlein published invectives against him, but could only say that such language does not come out of the mouth of the Archbishop—which Friedrich calls ridiculous absurdity.[399]"Noch nicht aus der Haut gefahren sei."—Tagebuch.[400]Ibid., p., 400.[401]Tagebuch, p. 423.

FOOTNOTES:

[382]Quirinus, p. 482.

[383]Quirinus, p. 253.

[384]"What stupefaction to think that perhaps serious men have been engaged in getting these things written about themselves!" (vol. ii. 125).

[385]Quirinus, p. 508.

[386]Quirinussays by seventy-seven; but we give the numbers as we count them at the foot of the document in theDocumenta ad Illustrandum, ii. p. 392.

[387]Doc. ad Ill., i. 178.

[388]Serie VII. x. p. 291.

[389]Printed inDocumenta ad Ill., i. p. 1-129.

[390]Tagebuch, p. 365. Friedrich adds a note to his second edition:—"Bishop Namszanowski had this statement denied in theGermaniaof 1872, No. 132. This is really disgusting. I declare here, as I have done already in theCologne Gazette, that the Bishop himself told me in his own house immediately after the meeting with Martin. I was so struck with the expression that I entered it under the heading, 'Certain Notes touching Rome and the Council.'"

[391]Ibid., p. 380;La Liberté du Concile, Doc. i. p. 173.

[392]Documenta, ii. p. 391.

[393]Pet. Priv., iii. p. 27.

[394]Documenta, ii. 212-89.

[395]Documenta, ii. 287.

[396]Tagebuch, p. 375.

[397]Ibid.p. 391.

[398]Tagebuch, p. 398. Friedrich in a note says that when he made this statement in Nuremberg the Vicar-General of Archbishop Deinlein published invectives against him, but could only say that such language does not come out of the mouth of the Archbishop—which Friedrich calls ridiculous absurdity.

[399]"Noch nicht aus der Haut gefahren sei."—Tagebuch.

[400]Ibid., p., 400.

[401]Tagebuch, p. 423.

CHAPTER V

The Great Debate—Bishop Pie—The Virgin Mary on Infallibility—Cullen claims Ireland and MacHale—Kenrick's Reply, and his Account of the First Introduction of the Doctrine into Maynooth—MacHale speaks—Full Report of Darboy's Speech—The Pope gives Signs of Pleasure at Saldanha's Assault on the King of Portugal—New Date fixed for the Great Definition—Manning's Great Speech—Remarkable Reply of Kenrick—McEvilly ascribes Catholic Emancipation not to the Effect of Oaths, but to that of the Fear of Civil War—Kenrick's Retort—Clifford against Manning—Verot's Scene—Spalding's Attack on Kenrick—Kenrick's Refutation—Speeches of Valerga, Purcell, Conolly, and Maret—Sudden Close of the Debate.

OnMay 13, began the great debate, if anything that took place in the Vatican Council may be called by that name. This conflict was to be the death of real parliamentary debating in all countries. It ranged over the whole Draft of the proposed Decrees. The scope of them is well indicated by M. Veuillot, when he calls the Draft theSchemaof the Pontiff. It treats only of primacy and infallibility. The first chapter treats of the institution of primacy in the person of Peter; the second treats of its descent through the Roman Pontiffs; the third, of its nature and scope; the fourth, of Papal infallibility.

Bishop Pie, of Poitiers, opened this famous field by a discourse much praised and much ridiculed. He argued for infallibility on the ground that Providence permitted St. Paul to be beheaded, and not St. Peter,[402]and on the further ground that Peter was crucified with the head downwards, to show that the body was to be supported by the head; but he who supports is infallible, and not he who is supported.[403]This truly Romish argument evoked, as Vitelleschi intimates, from themajority enthusiasm, and from the Opposition sarcastic smiles. We do not know whether any divine put before Bishop Pie the difficulty thrown in the way of his argument, by the fact that Providence must have permitted Peter to be beheaded after death, seeing that his head was with that of Paul in the Lateran, and only his trunk in St. Peter's.

On the next day, no less a person than the Cardinal Vicar ascended the tribune to plead for the glory of his chief. By a leap from centre to circumference, he was followed by the Archbishop of St. Francisco. The Archbishop of Messina relieved the gravity of the debate by relating how Peter had preached in Sicily; but when he told the people that he was infallible they doubted. They, however, sent an embassy to the Virgin Mary, to ask if she had heard of the infallibility of Peter. The Virgin replied that she certainly remembered being present when her Son conferred this prerogative upon him.[404]This speech has caused some correspondence in the Italian papers, especially touching the letter of the Virgin, which is still in existence, and has an annual feast all to itself. Somehow we are not ourselves clear as to the history of the embassy and of the letter. It is said that the letter was let down from heaven by the Virgin; but if that be so, where did the ambassadors go to with their message? But as the events took place before the age of reconstruction, we shall not digress further.

The discussion proceeded from day to day, a long and increasing list of names promising endless speeches. Three Cardinals spoke on May 18—Schwarzenberg, Rauscher, and Donnet, Vitelleschi reports Schwarzenberg as having said (p. 159), "It is said that you really believe in this dogma; but, if that be true, you cannot insist that I and my companions ought to acknowledge what seems to us absurd; and if you do insist, be sure that schisms will arise, and abjurations will follow within the Church of Rome." On May 19 the pulpit was ascended by Cardinal Cullen, carrying with him the confidence of power in Ireland, and of favour with the Curia.Coming of "a right noble Irish family," as the official history says,[405]and trained after the heart of the Curia, he had well justified their expectations in carrying out the centralizing system, to which he owed his mitre. He addressed himself particularly to the task of refuting Hefele's pamphlet on the heresy of Pope Honorius, contending that it could not be reconciled with what that prelate had written in his history of Councils.[406]But he also attacked Kenrick for his memorandum already spoken of. He charged the latter with impairing the argument for the primacy of the Pope, by asserting that the other apostles were also called foundations as well as Peter. Furthermore, Kenrick had asserted that the words "lambs" and "sheep" in the Vulgate (John xxi. 16, 17) both stood for one and the same Greek word, and hence he had contended that the stock Curialistic argument, that the bishops, "sheep," are placed under the Pope as well as the people, "lambs," had actually not even the show of a foundation in the passage. This was a sore point, for what would the Papal system have done before infallibility was proclaimed without this passage? It was as important as "Obey God rather than man," or as "Teach all nations."It is not true, asserted Cullen, that the two Latin words in those verses represent one and the same Greek word in the original. He quoted Oriental versions.It is not true, he repeated, with emphasis.

As to the word "faith," a word which Rome has, like so many others, killed, disembowelled, and embalmed, Kenrick had asserted that our Lord never employed it as meaning abody of doctrine, and that He employed it not more than once or twice as meaning the act by which we believe in God as revealing Himself; but that He generally employed it as meaning trust or confidence. This, Kenrick had asserted, was the sense of the word in the passage on which the attempt was made to build the infallibility of all dogmas found in the Decrees of the Roman Pontiff. The words are, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." That is, our Lord had prayed that the trust and confidence of Peter should not entirely fail;and Rome argued that He thereby promised that everything in the Decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, affecting doctrine or morals, should be for evermore free from error. Kenrick's exposition of what our Lord really did say made this argument appear not only futile but unfair. Cullen met him by declaring that his views savoured of the Calvinian heresy. The Cardinal proceeded to deny that bishops, as successors of the apostles, possessed that universal jurisdiction in the Church which the apostles themselves had received from Christ. He quoted a work of a deceased brother of Kenrick, formerly Archbishop of Baltimore, on the Primacy of the Apostolic See. Cullen, moreover, claimed Ireland and the Irish for infallibility in the teeth of oaths, catechisms, records, and living memories. In doing so, he was indiscreet enough to name, as on his side, MacHale, the lion of St. Jarlath, who had sat silent under the weight of his nearly fourscore years.

Kenrick, feeling that Cullen had said things which touched his honour,[407]prayed for leave to reply, either at once or at the end of the sitting. This was refused. Archbishops must wait till all the Cardinals who chose to speak had spoken, and Kenrick must wait till all archbishops senior to himself had been heard. He prepared a speech, but the debate was cut short before he had the opportunity of delivering it. Thereupon he resorted to the expedient of printing. To this document we are indebted for some of our most trustworthy information as to the real position taken up by different speakers.[408]

Kenrick said that Cullen had, in very severe language, charged him with impairing the argument for the primacy of the Pontiff, by alleging that the other apostles were called foundations as well as Peter. That, however, was not his language, but must be laid at the door of the "divine" Paul and John. Kenrick admitted primacy, but denied infallibility. He also denied that Christ had made the stability of the Church dependent on Peter as the foundation. He had provided forher stability otherwise, by saying. "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Cullen had further said, and that repeatedly and with much energy of expression, It is false, because Kenrick asserted that one and the same Greek word was translated both "sheep" and "lambs" in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses of John xxi. But, in so doing, replied Kenrick, the Cardinal had betrayed a little infirmity.[409]The fact remained, that in those two verses the Vulgate did translate one and the same Greek word by two Latin ones. Moreover, in the reading adopted by Tischendorf, there was no word in any of the three utterances of our Lord which properly represented the word "sheep"; and the reading adopted by Tischendorf was confirmed by that which they might see inscribed on the arch of the Vatican Church, over the throne of the Pontiff.[410]In answer to the assertion of the Cardinal, that his exposition of the meaning of the word "faith" savoured of the Calvinian heresy, Kenrick said that perhaps his Eminence had not weighed the full significance of such language. He showed that out of twenty-nine places in the Gospels where the word occurred, in all but two it clearly meant confidence, or else the faith that works miracles; and that in only two could it be taken for the theological virtue of believing in God's revelation of Himself. He was still fully persuaded that its real meaning, in the words addressed by our Lord to Peter, was that of trust or confidence.

But Kenrick contended that Cullen had, by his own method of reasoning, taken away all the force usually ascribed by theologians to the words, "Thou art Peter." He had said that the privileges given to the other apostles by our Lord did not descend to their successors. If that was the case with the other apostles, surely it would be also the case with Peter. Kenrick, however, firmly contended that apostolic authority did not emanate from the Pontiff, but was given to the bishopsby Christ Himself, and that the restriction of it to certain localities was merely by appointment of the Church.

After showing that the interpretation of the words "Upon this rock," which was supported by the greatest number of the Fathers, was that which regards the faith declared in the Confession of Peter as the foundation on which the Church was to be built, he pointed out that the word "foundation" has two clearly distinguished and well-defined meanings. First, the natural foundation, or that to which a wise builder clears his way before laying a stone—the living rock. Secondly, the architectural foundation, namely, the first course of stones laid on this rock. He contended that attention to this simple fact made the language of both classes of passages perfectly clear; those in which our Lord alone is called the Foundation, and those in which the apostles are so called. At the same time it cut away all the ground on which an argument in favour of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is built, because he is the foundation of the Church.

As to the testimony of the Church with regard to the proposed dogma, Kenrick states it thus—

The dogma is not contained in the creeds; it is not given in the Catechisms as an article of faith; it is not found as such in any monument of public worship. Therefore the Church has not heretofore taught it as being of the faith; and had it been a doctrine of faith, she ought to have taught it, and to have handed it down.Not only has the Church not taught it in any public standard, but she has permitted it to be impugned, and not in one place alone, but in almost all the world, Italy excepted, and that throughout a great length of time.... To speak of the nations which use the English tongue, in no one standard or catechetical book of theirs is this opinion enumerated among the verities that are of faith. In the United States, as in Ireland, all books of piety and doctrine were drawn from England till the opening of this century, and later. In the greater part of those books, the opposite opinion is contained. In none is this opinion found as being of faith (p. 212).

Not only has the Church not taught it in any public standard, but she has permitted it to be impugned, and not in one place alone, but in almost all the world, Italy excepted, and that throughout a great length of time.... To speak of the nations which use the English tongue, in no one standard or catechetical book of theirs is this opinion enumerated among the verities that are of faith. In the United States, as in Ireland, all books of piety and doctrine were drawn from England till the opening of this century, and later. In the greater part of those books, the opposite opinion is contained. In none is this opinion found as being of faith (p. 212).

He shows that recently a few books had appeared as if toprepare the people for the new dogma. Alluding evidently to the work of the Jesuit Weninger, which the Pope had praised, he calls the author a zealous but unlearned man, and says his work was more calculated to excite ridicule than anger, and that when the author had applied to himself for some commendation, he had incautiously promised him the charity of silence.

As to the use made by Cullen of his brother's work, he said he had felt as if the dead had been commended in order to rebuke the living. As to the faith of the Irish, he remarked that a smile had been raised when Verot, of Augustine, in Florida, said that the Irish believed even their priests to be infallible. But it was true, for believing the Church to be infallible, and the priest to be in harmony with the Church, they believed him to be infallible, and with the difference of his more exalted rank, it was precisely in the same sense that they believed the Pope to be infallible. But as to their understanding the question now agitated, or being able to form an opinion concerning it, that was too ridiculous to need confutation (p. 216). He even doubted if a meeting in Cork, over which the bishop of the see was said to have presided, had understood the question; and indeed it was apparent, from what had passed in that Hall, that there were bishops there who were not clear as to what Papal infallibility meant.

Turning from the populace of Ireland to the prelates and doctors, he was ready to grant that now, influenced by some distinguished names, the preponderating opinion might be in favour of Papal infallibility; on that point, however, he knew nothing more than what he had been able to learn since coming to Rome. But in the beginning it was not so. His proof of this was the almost universal applause with which the writings of Dr. Doyle had been received, and those of the Rev. Arthur O'Leary. Further, he cited answers given to a committee of the British Parliament in 1825 by the Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam, Murray and O'Kelly, as well as by Bishop Doyle. These answers he printed with his speech, both in the original English and in a Latin translation. He further cited a manifesto of all the Irish bishops in the year 1815, addressed directly to the Holy See, which clearly shows that they did not hold the views embodied in the proposed Decrees. He prints this document also.

Next, passing from the Irish prelates to the priests, Kenrick confidently affirms that they in former times did not differ from the prelates. Long after the establishment of Maynooth College, the professors, he declares, came from France, and their treatises were in the hands of the pupils long subsequently to their own death. He calls the Archbishop of Cashel as a witness, while he relates how the change of teaching was first introduced in that college. They were there at the time as fellow-students. Forty years ago, says Kenrick, John O'Hanlon was Tutor in Theology, as he is now Moderator of the higher theological sciences in the college. The text-bookDe Ecclesiaat that time wasDelahogue. It contained nothing, says Kenrick, about Papal infallibility, except a proposition in these or similar words, "It is not of faith that the Pope is infallible" (p. 218).

In the year 1831, O'Hanlon gave his pupils, as a theme, the following proposition: "The Pope, speakingex cathedrâ, is infallible." O'Hanlon did not indicate any opinion of his own, and did not urge the pupils in discussing the thesis to take either one side or the other, but left them to argue for the negative or affirmative at their discretion. Kenrick was one of those who took the affirmative; but he adds, Languageso new, and hitherto unheardof, did not please all the professors. One of them, who subsequently became President of the college, strongly expressed his dissatisfaction to my fellow-student, now the Bishop of Clonfert, from whom I had the statement. Kenrick then makes a confident appeal to MacHale, to whom Cullen had made a presumptuous one—

There sits here a venerable man, who many years ere I entered that college expounded theology within its walls, who is by good right looked upon as the Nestor of the Irish bishops, for he has lived with almost three generations of men; one who with eminent theological learning combined a glory of classic lore, and also hadintimate acquaintance with the prelates whom I have cited, and with other men of learning whose bright and venerable names are inscribed on the hearts of the Irish, and among their glories.... He, with rare moderation, had not given expression to his views on the matter now under discussion. So that his Eminence of Dublin did not hesitate to speak for him, and to claim him as being upon his own side. Those who feel with me, and who had known him, desiring to see him contending by our side, were grieved to behold him sitting apart like another Achilles. I was filled, therefore, with an unlooked-for joy when I heard him say that in judgments on matters of faith the head ought to be conjoined with the body; not, as his Grace of Westminster would have it, that the head of itself, communicating infallibility to itself, should draw the body along with it, but that head and body, conjointly bearing witness to the faith delivered to the saints, should declare it with one mind. As the Archbishop of Tuam descended from this pulpit, I congratulated him in these words: 'You have vindicated Ireland—Vindicasti Hiberniam.' If witnesses of the faith of the Irish are to be, as they ought to be, weighed and not counted, the Archbishop of Tuam, at least in the capacity of a witness, will easily surpass the other Irish bishops, not even excepting his Eminence of Dublin (p. 218).

The above important statement of Archbishop Kenrick shows that the new dogma, according to which the BullUnam Sanctambecomes of divine authority in doctrine, was not kept out of Maynooth very long after the oaths and denials of preceding years had served their purpose. It was introduced as early as 1831.

The day following the speech of Cardinal Cullen—for our light on which we are indebted to Kenrick's important contribution—the Primate of Hungary appeared in the pulpit. His position as a member of the Committee on Faith, his doubtful bearing, and, above all, rumours of a hat, had made an impression that he had gone over to the side of the Infallibilists. On the contrary, he now spoke with decision and force against them. It was after the courage of the minority had been for a moment revived by this speech, that one ascended the desk, who to most present was only a feeble old man, but to Irish prelates, and to some of Irish origin, he represented one who,in the thundering days of the Liberator, was spoken of, at every wake and "patron," as a mighty son of hail and storm. It was he to whom Cullen had appealed, on the previous day, as a witness to the ancient faith of the Irish in Papal infallibility. But Kenrick has already shown us that John MacHale stood as a hoary monument of departed principles; and it was when he came down that Kenrick cried, "Thou hast vindicated Ireland." Leahy, Archbishop of Cashel, was the next called up; but after the speech of MacHale he declined to speak.[411]

The archbishops were still on the roll, so the same day the Archbishop of Paris had his turn. Here again we get an indisputable glimpse into the arcana. Like Kenrick's speech, that of Darboy is printed; but unlike Kenrick's, it was actually delivered.[412]We shall, therefore, give the principal portions of it, wishing that we were in a position to do so with a speech from the other side—

Most eminent, most reverend Fathers,—I approach the consideration of the First Dogmatic Constitution,De Ecclesia, submitted to your examination,—a task which would be ungrateful did not love of the truth and affection and reverence towards the brethren render it easy and not unwelcome. I will treat the proposed Decree with a mind, as I trust, free from all party spirit, wishing not to offend any one, and fervently hoping that you will ingenuously receive what I am about to say, as I shall ingenuously present it.It seems to me that there are three things to be looked at: first, the origin of this proposed Decree; secondly, its scope and nature; thirdly, its practical consequences.As to the origin of this proposed Decree, and its introduction at the present time into the Council, I shall state a few self-evident propositions without discussing them, or rather shall recall to mind a few facts, from which the reverend Fathers will be able to judge whether the whole matter has been conducted according to order, and whether the dignity of an assembly so venerable has been sufficiently consulted:—1. It is certain that the pivot on which our proposed Decreealtogether turns is the fourth chapter—that which treats of the infallibility of the Pontiff.2. It is certain that this question of infallibility has been the principal object of the Vatican Council—so much so indeed that it has been indiscreetly said by many that, in a certain sense, it was the sole object of it.3. It is certain that this principal question of infallibility was not intimated in the Bull of Convocation, nor in the documents relating to the convocation of the Council.4. It is certain that this question has been urged forward from without, that is, by writers lay and clerical, in a way contrary to ecclesiastical and traditional methods, adopted against all rules of subordination and decorum; an agitation got up by means of demagogues, so to speak, in order that the consciences of the bishops sitting here might be placed under pressure, and that they might be subjected to fear that, if they resisted they should not be able to return to their dioceses and govern them without difficulty.5. It is certain that thus the matter has been brought to such a pass that the Vatican Fathers, albeit piously and generously following their own conscience, have been said, nevertheless, to have conceded more than was meet to these violent manifestations, and to factitious opinions, when they petitioned for the introduction of the question of infallibility; and because of this tumult, which has been raised at the doors of the Council Hall, the liberty and the dignity of us all have evidently been somewhat lowered. This is unbecoming, and opens the way to grave inconvenience; indeed, it is not to be tolerated without injury and opprobrium to this venerable assembly, which ought to act from its own impulse, and ought to be not only free, but manifestly free.6. It is certain that the question, as this day proposed, comes on out of the natural and logical order; and thus occasions some prejudice which will damage the cause itself.7. It is certain that the premature introduction of the question, especially with the present inversion of proper order, is of little service to the Holy See—nay, is detrimental to its honour; for since, according to the Rules of Procedure, contained inMultiplices Inter, petitions are remitted to a Special Congregation, which reports upon them to the Pontiff, and since the Pontiff can freely accept or reject the conclusions of that Congregation, it follows that the promoters of the petition for introducing the question of infallibility, and for placing it first in order, publicly led the Holy Father into the position of enacting and deciding in his own case, and for his personal privilege; in doing which—certainly without intentionon their part—they have ill consulted his high dignity, if they may not be said to have even detracted from it.If these seven positions be true—and they seem to be most true—we cannot approach and determine this question of infallibility, raised under such circumstances, and introduced in such a manner, without preparing the way for the cavils of the impious, and for objections lowering to the moral authority of this Council. This is the more to be guarded against, because already writings and documents are in circulation which aim at shaking its strength and title; so that, far from calming the minds of the people, and securing the things which make for peace, it would seem, on the contrary, to be sowing the seeds of new disputations and discords among Christians.If, therefore, I may give a practical conclusion to this portion of my speech, I would say: (1) They did well who held this question to be inopportune; (2) They will do well who shall judge it opportune to abstain from a definition.Now, as to the second portion of my speech,—the scope and nature of this proposed Decree,—I shall indicate a few points, but not develop them.1. The object of the proposed Decree is not to frame a doctrine on infallibility, for all know and with Catholic faith believe in the infallibility of the Church, which has held that tenet for nearly twenty centuries. Its object is to define, and to propound as an article of faith, that the chief Pontiff is infallible by himself alone, and that indeed this privilege of inerrancy extends as widely as the infallibility of the Church itself. It is to be noted that the proposed Decree does not treat of the former kind of infallibility, admitted by all, according to which the invincible and irrefragable force of Decrees or dogmatic decisions commanding the faith of all the faithful, as of all pastors, lies solely in the common consent of the bishops conjoined with the Pontiff. But this proposed Decree treats of the separate and absolute personal infallibility of the Pontiff, though it is not openly called so.2. The proposed Decree does not treat of personal infallibility as a mere opinion, or as recommending a point of doctrine, but as declaring a dogma of the faith. Heretofore, indeed, there was some discussion as to the opportuneness and expediency of introducing this question in the present Council; but that discussion was closed from the time that the chief Pontiff decreed that the subject could no longer be passed over in silence. But now the other part of the question has come to be discussed, namely, whether or not the personal infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff can opportunely andexpediently now be declared an article of the faith, and ought to be so declared? This is precisely the matter and object of the present discussion.3. Further, in order that the object may be rightly carried through, and may have a successful issue, these three things are necessary: (1) A formula, or definition of the doctrine; (2) Proofs of it, both solid and excluding all doubt; (3) Its acceptance by all with moral unanimity.The first necessity:—It is necessary to compose a formula or definition of the doctrine. That this is most difficult is apparent from the case of those who first drafted the proposed Decree, as well as of those who revised it. Terms are used which are vague, and fitted to give rise to endless discussion. What is meant by exercising the office of supreme teacher of all Christians? What are the complete external conditions which mark the exercise of this office? When will it be known that the Holy Pontiff has spoken in such a character? The promoters of the proposed Decree say that this will be obvious, as for instance the meaning of the term "œcumenical" is obvious; but they inflict a wound on themselves. For a Council is not held to be œcumenical by the faithful dispersed throughout the world, unless it is received as such by them perhaps with what amounts to moral unanimity. Hence if the nature, character, and force of Decrees emanating from the Pontiff are to be declared and known by the same method, the promoters of the Decree have accomplished nothing, since the ultimate reason for admitting infallibility will be the universal consent of the bishops. Do they or do they not regard the consent of the bishops as unnecessary in laying down definitions of the faith? If they do regard it as unnecessary, they do a thing that is new, unheard of, and intolerable. If they do not regard it as unnecessary, they say a thing that is old, and received by all, and draw up their battle array against a foe that is not in the field. In either case they neither can nor ought to be silent as to the necessity or inutility of the concurrence of the bishops. Silence on their part in such a matter, and in such circumstances, would drive the faithful to new doubts, and would prepare the way for new difficulties. They do not define the matters to which infallibility extends, otherwise than by saying that it extends to those to which the infallibility of the Church extends; but such an indication is altogether insufficient till the holy Council shall have defined the matters to which the infallibility of the Church does extend. Hence, again appears the logical vice from which this proposed Decree on the primacy suffers through being brought forward before the Decree on the Church in general. Moreover, when dealing with the Church, we know that her infallibility is always exercised within the limits of matters to which it extends, both because we are advised that it is so by the common consent of the bishops, and also because the Church is holy and cannot sin. But, on the contrary, when dealing with the Holy Pontiff, the promoters of the proposed Decree, whatever they may say, exclude on the one hand the consent of the bishops, and on the other hand they have not yet attempted to prove that every Pontiff is holy and impeccable. So far for what relates to the discovery of a formula.The second necessity:—A formula of definition having been found, it is necessary to prove it by solid arguments, excluding all doubt. Let it then be proved:—(1) That this doctrine of personal infallibility is contained in Holy Scripture interpreted always in one sense, as well as in the tradition of all ages;—(2) That it has always been received by consent of the Fathers, the doctors, the bishops, and theologians; not only by some of them, but by so many as amounts to a moral whole;—(3) That it perfectly accords with all the Decrees and authoritative acts of Œcumenical Councils, or even with the Decrees passed in the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance. Even were the œcumenicity of those sessions to be denied—which I do not admit—they still show what was the common opinion of theologians and bishops;—(4) That this doctrine is not gravely impugned by historical facts, and that other acts of the Holy Pontiffs are not in conflict with it;—(5) And, finally, that this is one of those truths which can be defined by General Councils in union with the Pontiff, as being demonstrably one of those which had been received by all, everywhere, and always as revealed truth.The proposed Decree does not supply such arguments, and the Fathers, as you well know, have not had time to weigh it; therefore we ought to refrain from defining it. In a matter of this kind, which involves the laying of an irrevocable burden on the conscience of the faithful, there is grave peril if you act prematurely, without absolute certainty. But there is no risk to be run in deciding it to be a matter that requires to be more fully discussed, and then afterwards determining it with all safety of conscience.The third necessity:—It is necessary that this doctrine of personal and independent infallibility, clearly stated, as we have said, and solidly proved, should be received by the Fathers with moral unanimity; else it is to be feared that this declaration of doctrine will seem to many to be a pontifical Constitution indeed but not a Decree of a Council. To impose a truth upon all Christians, to be held as an article of faith, is a duty and a right so grave that a bishop must not exercise it without great circumspection.Hence, as you well know, the Tridentine Fathers, whatever sophists may say to the contrary, did not arrive at their decisions in matters of dogma by majority, but with moral unanimity.As to the practical consequences of the proposed Decree, I would particularly note two points; for this personal infallibility is not required and proposed as a matter of faith, except in order that unity in the Church may become closer and that the central authority may be stronger, and that thus a remedy may be more effectually applied to every evil. As to unity and central authority, they ought to exist and to be maintained, not as we may fancy them, or as our reason may persuade us, but just as our Lord Jesus Christ instituted them, and as our Fathers hitherto have held them. For it is not for us to constitute the Church arbitrarily, and to change the conditions of a divine work. The necessary unity, that namely of faith and communion under the paternal rule of a central authority, exists and always has existed among Catholics; and that unity of doctrine and communion, and that central authority of the Holy Pontiffs, which flourished without a dogmatic definition of infallibility, abides unimpaired.Let it not be said that this unity would become stricter after the central authority had been rendered stronger, for the consequence does not follow. It is not enough to be one, but we must also have that kind and that degree of unity which are required by the nature and character of the case, and by the law and necessity of life. Nay, it may be that a thing shall wretchedly perish, precisely for the reason that it has been reduced to an overstrained unity; for in that condition its internal forces cannot exercise themselves and discharge their vital functions, being broken and crushed by the bond of an overstrained and exaggerated unity. So in respect of moral force, the unity of men, when acting freely and with vigour under law, is looser yet more comely than is the unity of bondsmen sluggishly existing under tyranny.Therefore, let us not separate the bishops from the Holy Pontiff, nor the Pontiff from the bishops. Let us faithfully hold the ancient rule of faith and the things ordained of the Fathers, and that all the more because the proposed definition will give rise to many and serious inconveniences.It can scarcely be doubted that this remedy will be powerless for healing the evils of the day; and indeed it is to be feared that to very many it will be injurious. The matter must be looked at not merely in a theological point of view, but also in its aspectstowards civil society; for surely we do not sit here as so many head-sacristans, or superiors of little Congregations, but as men received into a share of his solicitude by the chief Pontiff, who holds the care of the entire Church. Let us, therefore, prudently survey the condition of the world.Will personal and independent infallibility raise again from the grave the extinct Churches on the African shores? or will it awake out of sleep that East which once bloomed with so many talents and virtues? Will it be easier for our brethren, the Vicars Apostolic, to bring back Pagans, Mohammedans, and Schismatics, to the Catholic faith, if they teach them that the Pope is infallible by himself? Will the definition encourage and animate Protestants, and other heretics, to draw near to the Roman Church, laying aside all their prejudices and animosities? So far for distant regions.But what of Europe? I say it with grief—the Church is banished from everything. She is banished from those Congresses in which peace and war between nations is determined, and in which, in former times, the authority of the Holy See prevailed; whereas now decisions affecting that See itself are taken, and it may not give its opinion. The Church is banished from the legislative bodies in several kingdoms of the Church; and if here and there some prelates or priests are found in them, it seems a wonder. She is banished from the schools where grave errors stalk with impunity; from the laws which profess to be secular in their nature, and hence are irreligious; from the family where civil marriage taints morals. Almost all those who are at the head of human affairs in Europe either shun us or keep us at a distance.Again, in these straits of the Church, what remedy is offered to the world in travail? The promoters of the proposed Decree wish us to lay a new and, therefore, heavy and odious load on those who are already shaking from their indocile shoulders burdens imposed of old time and rendered venerable by usage of our Fathers. They almost crush all who are of weak faith, with a new and inopportune dogma, a dogma never heretofore defined, and to some extent damaged by wounds received in this discussion, and one to be pronounced by a Council, of which many assert and declare that its liberty is less evident than it should have been. It is hoped by this definition of a personal and separate infallibility to be able to heal everything, to strengthen faith in all, and to improve morals. But in vain is it hoped. The world is sick or dying, not for want of knowing the truth, or the teachers of it, but because it shuns the truth and will not submit to it. If, therefore, the world rejects thetruth, when it is preached by the whole body of the Teaching Church—that is, by eight hundred bishops scattered all over the world and infallible in connexion with the Holy Pontiff—how much more will it reject that truth when it is preached by one Infallible Teacher, and that teacher recently declared to be such! But again: in order that authority may prevail and effectually operate, it is not enough that it be affirmed; it must also be accepted. It does not suffice, therefore, to declare the Pope infallible, personally and separately from the bishops, but he must be received as such by all, if he is not to exercise his office in vain. For instance, what avails an anathema when the authority of him who excommunicates is disregarded? And, most reverend Fathers, pray permit one instance more. The Syllabus went all through Europe, and what evil has it healed, even in those places where it was received as an infallible oracle? At that time two kingdoms remained wherein religion still flourished, ascendant not only in fact, but also by law; I mean Austria and Spain. Yet in those two kingdoms this Catholic order has fallen to the ground, although commended by infallible authority,—ay, perhaps, at least in Austria, exactly for the reason that it was commended by it.Let us, therefore, look at matters as they stand. The separate and independent infallibility of the most Holy Pontiff, so far from removing the objections and prejudices which turn many away from the faith, is increasing and aggravating them. Very many even of those who are not hostile to the Catholic religion are now meditating what they call separation of the Church from civil society. Not a few of those who lead public affairs lean in this direction, and they will gladly seize the opportunity, given by the proposed definition, to carry this separation into effect. Besides, what will be done in France will soon be imitated more or less throughout Europe, certainly not without serious loss to the Church and the clergy. Whether they mean it or not, the promoters of the proposed Decree are, by their definition, instituting a new order of things full of risks, and that all the more if they do not more exactly determine the matters to which personal infallibility extends; and [if they do not determine] whether it will be possible to assert that the Pope, when defining in matters pertaining to morals, does by that act pronounce as to the civil and political conduct of kings and nations, and as to the laws and rights which are now reputed to belong to the public authority. No one skilled in politics can fail to see what seeds of contention our proposed Decree contains, and to what perils the temporal power of the Holy See itself is exposed.But to enter into this fully would be tedious, perhaps indiscreet; for certainly I could not adduce here all the arguments which come to my hand, without touching upon several things which prudence counsels me to avoid. I have relieved my conscience as far as possible. Accept my words for the worth which your judgment may award to them. I know, indeed, that disadvantages are attached to any course, and that we are not always to abstain from acting because disasters may follow; but I do not ask the venerable Fathers to fall suddenly into my views, but rather ask that they may maturely consider and balance the arguments in favour of the one view and the other. I also know that we are not to make puerile concessions to public opinion, but no more are we pertinaciously to thwart it. It is wiser and more adroit to adjust many things with it, and in any case to take it into account. And, finally, I know that the Church does not need the temporal arm, but neither does she repel the assent and aid of civil society; and, as I take it, she did not, in the days of Constantine, weakly sigh for a renewal of the days of Nero.

It seems to me that there are three things to be looked at: first, the origin of this proposed Decree; secondly, its scope and nature; thirdly, its practical consequences.

As to the origin of this proposed Decree, and its introduction at the present time into the Council, I shall state a few self-evident propositions without discussing them, or rather shall recall to mind a few facts, from which the reverend Fathers will be able to judge whether the whole matter has been conducted according to order, and whether the dignity of an assembly so venerable has been sufficiently consulted:—

1. It is certain that the pivot on which our proposed Decreealtogether turns is the fourth chapter—that which treats of the infallibility of the Pontiff.

2. It is certain that this question of infallibility has been the principal object of the Vatican Council—so much so indeed that it has been indiscreetly said by many that, in a certain sense, it was the sole object of it.

3. It is certain that this principal question of infallibility was not intimated in the Bull of Convocation, nor in the documents relating to the convocation of the Council.

4. It is certain that this question has been urged forward from without, that is, by writers lay and clerical, in a way contrary to ecclesiastical and traditional methods, adopted against all rules of subordination and decorum; an agitation got up by means of demagogues, so to speak, in order that the consciences of the bishops sitting here might be placed under pressure, and that they might be subjected to fear that, if they resisted they should not be able to return to their dioceses and govern them without difficulty.

5. It is certain that thus the matter has been brought to such a pass that the Vatican Fathers, albeit piously and generously following their own conscience, have been said, nevertheless, to have conceded more than was meet to these violent manifestations, and to factitious opinions, when they petitioned for the introduction of the question of infallibility; and because of this tumult, which has been raised at the doors of the Council Hall, the liberty and the dignity of us all have evidently been somewhat lowered. This is unbecoming, and opens the way to grave inconvenience; indeed, it is not to be tolerated without injury and opprobrium to this venerable assembly, which ought to act from its own impulse, and ought to be not only free, but manifestly free.

6. It is certain that the question, as this day proposed, comes on out of the natural and logical order; and thus occasions some prejudice which will damage the cause itself.

7. It is certain that the premature introduction of the question, especially with the present inversion of proper order, is of little service to the Holy See—nay, is detrimental to its honour; for since, according to the Rules of Procedure, contained inMultiplices Inter, petitions are remitted to a Special Congregation, which reports upon them to the Pontiff, and since the Pontiff can freely accept or reject the conclusions of that Congregation, it follows that the promoters of the petition for introducing the question of infallibility, and for placing it first in order, publicly led the Holy Father into the position of enacting and deciding in his own case, and for his personal privilege; in doing which—certainly without intentionon their part—they have ill consulted his high dignity, if they may not be said to have even detracted from it.

If these seven positions be true—and they seem to be most true—we cannot approach and determine this question of infallibility, raised under such circumstances, and introduced in such a manner, without preparing the way for the cavils of the impious, and for objections lowering to the moral authority of this Council. This is the more to be guarded against, because already writings and documents are in circulation which aim at shaking its strength and title; so that, far from calming the minds of the people, and securing the things which make for peace, it would seem, on the contrary, to be sowing the seeds of new disputations and discords among Christians.

If, therefore, I may give a practical conclusion to this portion of my speech, I would say: (1) They did well who held this question to be inopportune; (2) They will do well who shall judge it opportune to abstain from a definition.

Now, as to the second portion of my speech,—the scope and nature of this proposed Decree,—I shall indicate a few points, but not develop them.

1. The object of the proposed Decree is not to frame a doctrine on infallibility, for all know and with Catholic faith believe in the infallibility of the Church, which has held that tenet for nearly twenty centuries. Its object is to define, and to propound as an article of faith, that the chief Pontiff is infallible by himself alone, and that indeed this privilege of inerrancy extends as widely as the infallibility of the Church itself. It is to be noted that the proposed Decree does not treat of the former kind of infallibility, admitted by all, according to which the invincible and irrefragable force of Decrees or dogmatic decisions commanding the faith of all the faithful, as of all pastors, lies solely in the common consent of the bishops conjoined with the Pontiff. But this proposed Decree treats of the separate and absolute personal infallibility of the Pontiff, though it is not openly called so.

2. The proposed Decree does not treat of personal infallibility as a mere opinion, or as recommending a point of doctrine, but as declaring a dogma of the faith. Heretofore, indeed, there was some discussion as to the opportuneness and expediency of introducing this question in the present Council; but that discussion was closed from the time that the chief Pontiff decreed that the subject could no longer be passed over in silence. But now the other part of the question has come to be discussed, namely, whether or not the personal infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff can opportunely andexpediently now be declared an article of the faith, and ought to be so declared? This is precisely the matter and object of the present discussion.

3. Further, in order that the object may be rightly carried through, and may have a successful issue, these three things are necessary: (1) A formula, or definition of the doctrine; (2) Proofs of it, both solid and excluding all doubt; (3) Its acceptance by all with moral unanimity.

The first necessity:—It is necessary to compose a formula or definition of the doctrine. That this is most difficult is apparent from the case of those who first drafted the proposed Decree, as well as of those who revised it. Terms are used which are vague, and fitted to give rise to endless discussion. What is meant by exercising the office of supreme teacher of all Christians? What are the complete external conditions which mark the exercise of this office? When will it be known that the Holy Pontiff has spoken in such a character? The promoters of the proposed Decree say that this will be obvious, as for instance the meaning of the term "œcumenical" is obvious; but they inflict a wound on themselves. For a Council is not held to be œcumenical by the faithful dispersed throughout the world, unless it is received as such by them perhaps with what amounts to moral unanimity. Hence if the nature, character, and force of Decrees emanating from the Pontiff are to be declared and known by the same method, the promoters of the Decree have accomplished nothing, since the ultimate reason for admitting infallibility will be the universal consent of the bishops. Do they or do they not regard the consent of the bishops as unnecessary in laying down definitions of the faith? If they do regard it as unnecessary, they do a thing that is new, unheard of, and intolerable. If they do not regard it as unnecessary, they say a thing that is old, and received by all, and draw up their battle array against a foe that is not in the field. In either case they neither can nor ought to be silent as to the necessity or inutility of the concurrence of the bishops. Silence on their part in such a matter, and in such circumstances, would drive the faithful to new doubts, and would prepare the way for new difficulties. They do not define the matters to which infallibility extends, otherwise than by saying that it extends to those to which the infallibility of the Church extends; but such an indication is altogether insufficient till the holy Council shall have defined the matters to which the infallibility of the Church does extend. Hence, again appears the logical vice from which this proposed Decree on the primacy suffers through being brought forward before the Decree on the Church in general. Moreover, when dealing with the Church, we know that her infallibility is always exercised within the limits of matters to which it extends, both because we are advised that it is so by the common consent of the bishops, and also because the Church is holy and cannot sin. But, on the contrary, when dealing with the Holy Pontiff, the promoters of the proposed Decree, whatever they may say, exclude on the one hand the consent of the bishops, and on the other hand they have not yet attempted to prove that every Pontiff is holy and impeccable. So far for what relates to the discovery of a formula.

The second necessity:—A formula of definition having been found, it is necessary to prove it by solid arguments, excluding all doubt. Let it then be proved:—(1) That this doctrine of personal infallibility is contained in Holy Scripture interpreted always in one sense, as well as in the tradition of all ages;—(2) That it has always been received by consent of the Fathers, the doctors, the bishops, and theologians; not only by some of them, but by so many as amounts to a moral whole;—(3) That it perfectly accords with all the Decrees and authoritative acts of Œcumenical Councils, or even with the Decrees passed in the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance. Even were the œcumenicity of those sessions to be denied—which I do not admit—they still show what was the common opinion of theologians and bishops;—(4) That this doctrine is not gravely impugned by historical facts, and that other acts of the Holy Pontiffs are not in conflict with it;—(5) And, finally, that this is one of those truths which can be defined by General Councils in union with the Pontiff, as being demonstrably one of those which had been received by all, everywhere, and always as revealed truth.

The proposed Decree does not supply such arguments, and the Fathers, as you well know, have not had time to weigh it; therefore we ought to refrain from defining it. In a matter of this kind, which involves the laying of an irrevocable burden on the conscience of the faithful, there is grave peril if you act prematurely, without absolute certainty. But there is no risk to be run in deciding it to be a matter that requires to be more fully discussed, and then afterwards determining it with all safety of conscience.

The third necessity:—It is necessary that this doctrine of personal and independent infallibility, clearly stated, as we have said, and solidly proved, should be received by the Fathers with moral unanimity; else it is to be feared that this declaration of doctrine will seem to many to be a pontifical Constitution indeed but not a Decree of a Council. To impose a truth upon all Christians, to be held as an article of faith, is a duty and a right so grave that a bishop must not exercise it without great circumspection.

Hence, as you well know, the Tridentine Fathers, whatever sophists may say to the contrary, did not arrive at their decisions in matters of dogma by majority, but with moral unanimity.

As to the practical consequences of the proposed Decree, I would particularly note two points; for this personal infallibility is not required and proposed as a matter of faith, except in order that unity in the Church may become closer and that the central authority may be stronger, and that thus a remedy may be more effectually applied to every evil. As to unity and central authority, they ought to exist and to be maintained, not as we may fancy them, or as our reason may persuade us, but just as our Lord Jesus Christ instituted them, and as our Fathers hitherto have held them. For it is not for us to constitute the Church arbitrarily, and to change the conditions of a divine work. The necessary unity, that namely of faith and communion under the paternal rule of a central authority, exists and always has existed among Catholics; and that unity of doctrine and communion, and that central authority of the Holy Pontiffs, which flourished without a dogmatic definition of infallibility, abides unimpaired.

Let it not be said that this unity would become stricter after the central authority had been rendered stronger, for the consequence does not follow. It is not enough to be one, but we must also have that kind and that degree of unity which are required by the nature and character of the case, and by the law and necessity of life. Nay, it may be that a thing shall wretchedly perish, precisely for the reason that it has been reduced to an overstrained unity; for in that condition its internal forces cannot exercise themselves and discharge their vital functions, being broken and crushed by the bond of an overstrained and exaggerated unity. So in respect of moral force, the unity of men, when acting freely and with vigour under law, is looser yet more comely than is the unity of bondsmen sluggishly existing under tyranny.

Therefore, let us not separate the bishops from the Holy Pontiff, nor the Pontiff from the bishops. Let us faithfully hold the ancient rule of faith and the things ordained of the Fathers, and that all the more because the proposed definition will give rise to many and serious inconveniences.

It can scarcely be doubted that this remedy will be powerless for healing the evils of the day; and indeed it is to be feared that to very many it will be injurious. The matter must be looked at not merely in a theological point of view, but also in its aspectstowards civil society; for surely we do not sit here as so many head-sacristans, or superiors of little Congregations, but as men received into a share of his solicitude by the chief Pontiff, who holds the care of the entire Church. Let us, therefore, prudently survey the condition of the world.

Will personal and independent infallibility raise again from the grave the extinct Churches on the African shores? or will it awake out of sleep that East which once bloomed with so many talents and virtues? Will it be easier for our brethren, the Vicars Apostolic, to bring back Pagans, Mohammedans, and Schismatics, to the Catholic faith, if they teach them that the Pope is infallible by himself? Will the definition encourage and animate Protestants, and other heretics, to draw near to the Roman Church, laying aside all their prejudices and animosities? So far for distant regions.

But what of Europe? I say it with grief—the Church is banished from everything. She is banished from those Congresses in which peace and war between nations is determined, and in which, in former times, the authority of the Holy See prevailed; whereas now decisions affecting that See itself are taken, and it may not give its opinion. The Church is banished from the legislative bodies in several kingdoms of the Church; and if here and there some prelates or priests are found in them, it seems a wonder. She is banished from the schools where grave errors stalk with impunity; from the laws which profess to be secular in their nature, and hence are irreligious; from the family where civil marriage taints morals. Almost all those who are at the head of human affairs in Europe either shun us or keep us at a distance.

Again, in these straits of the Church, what remedy is offered to the world in travail? The promoters of the proposed Decree wish us to lay a new and, therefore, heavy and odious load on those who are already shaking from their indocile shoulders burdens imposed of old time and rendered venerable by usage of our Fathers. They almost crush all who are of weak faith, with a new and inopportune dogma, a dogma never heretofore defined, and to some extent damaged by wounds received in this discussion, and one to be pronounced by a Council, of which many assert and declare that its liberty is less evident than it should have been. It is hoped by this definition of a personal and separate infallibility to be able to heal everything, to strengthen faith in all, and to improve morals. But in vain is it hoped. The world is sick or dying, not for want of knowing the truth, or the teachers of it, but because it shuns the truth and will not submit to it. If, therefore, the world rejects thetruth, when it is preached by the whole body of the Teaching Church—that is, by eight hundred bishops scattered all over the world and infallible in connexion with the Holy Pontiff—how much more will it reject that truth when it is preached by one Infallible Teacher, and that teacher recently declared to be such! But again: in order that authority may prevail and effectually operate, it is not enough that it be affirmed; it must also be accepted. It does not suffice, therefore, to declare the Pope infallible, personally and separately from the bishops, but he must be received as such by all, if he is not to exercise his office in vain. For instance, what avails an anathema when the authority of him who excommunicates is disregarded? And, most reverend Fathers, pray permit one instance more. The Syllabus went all through Europe, and what evil has it healed, even in those places where it was received as an infallible oracle? At that time two kingdoms remained wherein religion still flourished, ascendant not only in fact, but also by law; I mean Austria and Spain. Yet in those two kingdoms this Catholic order has fallen to the ground, although commended by infallible authority,—ay, perhaps, at least in Austria, exactly for the reason that it was commended by it.

Let us, therefore, look at matters as they stand. The separate and independent infallibility of the most Holy Pontiff, so far from removing the objections and prejudices which turn many away from the faith, is increasing and aggravating them. Very many even of those who are not hostile to the Catholic religion are now meditating what they call separation of the Church from civil society. Not a few of those who lead public affairs lean in this direction, and they will gladly seize the opportunity, given by the proposed definition, to carry this separation into effect. Besides, what will be done in France will soon be imitated more or less throughout Europe, certainly not without serious loss to the Church and the clergy. Whether they mean it or not, the promoters of the proposed Decree are, by their definition, instituting a new order of things full of risks, and that all the more if they do not more exactly determine the matters to which personal infallibility extends; and [if they do not determine] whether it will be possible to assert that the Pope, when defining in matters pertaining to morals, does by that act pronounce as to the civil and political conduct of kings and nations, and as to the laws and rights which are now reputed to belong to the public authority. No one skilled in politics can fail to see what seeds of contention our proposed Decree contains, and to what perils the temporal power of the Holy See itself is exposed.But to enter into this fully would be tedious, perhaps indiscreet; for certainly I could not adduce here all the arguments which come to my hand, without touching upon several things which prudence counsels me to avoid. I have relieved my conscience as far as possible. Accept my words for the worth which your judgment may award to them. I know, indeed, that disadvantages are attached to any course, and that we are not always to abstain from acting because disasters may follow; but I do not ask the venerable Fathers to fall suddenly into my views, but rather ask that they may maturely consider and balance the arguments in favour of the one view and the other. I also know that we are not to make puerile concessions to public opinion, but no more are we pertinaciously to thwart it. It is wiser and more adroit to adjust many things with it, and in any case to take it into account. And, finally, I know that the Church does not need the temporal arm, but neither does she repel the assent and aid of civil society; and, as I take it, she did not, in the days of Constantine, weakly sigh for a renewal of the days of Nero.

Quirinus says that a suppressed murmur running through the ranks of the majority as Darboy spoke, seemed to herald coming storms (p. 553).

On May 23, Ketteler is said to have made a real impression—indeed, Vitelleschi intimates that he made converts (p. 162)—by a strong representation of the effect of the proposed Decrees on what remained of episcopal jurisdiction. On the same day Ginoulhiac, who had been Bishop of Grenoble, but had just been made Archbishop of Lyons, did what was looked upon as a deed of high courage by opposing the definition.

At the same time an incident occurred which caused all Rome to talk of the Pope's personal energy in pushing his policy, and to whisper as to the mysterious connexion of political movements in different countries with the silent will of Rome. Though Portugal no longer occupied, in the eye of the world, the place she once held, her importance to the Papacy was still great. News arrived that the Duke of Saldanha had, by a militarypronunciamento, assailed the King in his palace, and compelled him to accept a new Ministry, with himself for its head. He was of the clerical party, and immediately found a pretext for quarrelling with the minister representing Italy.The tidings of these events no sooner reached Rome than the Pope visited the national church of the Portuguese in the city. His organ, theOsservatore Romano, in announcing the fact, said that his Holiness had wished to inspect the restoration of the Church made by the Duke of Saldanha when ambassador in Rome. The impression made was that the Pope wished, before all the bishops and princes, to give the Duke the only mark of approbation in his power. Vitelleschi observes that apronunciamentois the worst form of revolution, because it disturbs the highest expression of order and violates the faith which holds soldiers to their flag (p. 165). What, however, is revolution when directed against the supernatural order, is restoration and reconstruction when it favours the sacred cause.

The time for the definition was now rather peremptorily fixed by the authoritative organs. The day of Mary, the day of Joseph, the Epiphany, and the Ascension, and other very good days, had all in turn failed; but it was to be on St. Peter's Day, and was not that the fittest day of all?

The Archbishop of Westminster, in the name of the committee, spoke, on May 25, for nearly two hours. Indeed, morning by morning the committee availed itself of the right of reply granted to its members exclusively, by setting up one of them to refute the objections advanced in the previous sitting. Kenrick says that he knew not which to admire most—Manning's diction, his delivery, his power, of command and frankness, or his ardour in urging and almost commanding the new definition.[413]

"I thought," says Kenrick, "of what used to be said of Englishmen living in Ireland, that they were more Irish than the Irish themselves. The Archbishop is certainly more Catholic than all the Catholics I have known hitherto. He himself feels no doubt as to pontifical infallibility, personal, separate, and absolute; and he will not permit others to feel any. He asserts that the doctrine is of faith, and as such he hardly asks the Council to define it, but rather predicts that it will do so—perhaps after the manner of those prophets who strive to bring events to pass by foretelling them.So far as concerns myself—as one whom sixty years that have passed over me since I began to learn the rudiments of the faith, have perhaps left as well instructed on the point in question as one who joined the Church about twenty years ago—I dare to assert that the opinion, as it is found in the proposed Decree, is not a doctrine of faith, and that it cannot become such by any definition whatsoever, even that of a Council. We are custodians of the deposit of faith, not lords of it. We are teachers indeed of the faithful committed to our care, in so far as we are witnesses."

Manning resented,graviter illud tulit, the attempt which had been made to raise a case of conscience in the mind of the bishops by asserting that any bishop would incur the guilt of a mortal sin who gave a vote in favour of infallibility without having duly investigated the question for himself; because his act would contribute to impose a new yoke on the faithful. This Manning held to be injurious to the dignity and the honour of the bishops; as if, says Kenrick, he denied that bishops could sin, or denied that they would be guilty of mortal sin if through negligence or idleness they failed rightly to inform their judgments.

Manning contended that infallibility was a supernatural grace—charisma—and, therefore, that it properly attached to a person. He would not hear of conditions being connected with the exercise of infallibility. He asserted that he who had bestowed this supernatural grace would also give the means for its due exercise.[414]Moreover, he took the ground that the Council had already, in the conclusion of the Decree which had been passed, committed itself to the doctrine of infallibility, and that it could not now recede. Kenrick replied that the assertion of Manning was one of several things which he had heard with stupefaction. They had been assured, he stated, as we have already seen, in the clearest terms by the reporter of the committee, that the clause referred to contained no doctrine, and that it was only a fitting conclusion to the four chapters of the Decree. Then follows the statement that the reporter had either himself been deceived or had knowingly deceived the minority.

In the sitting of May 25, MacEvilly, Bishop of Galway, also referred to Kenrick's argument, drawn from the fact that the Catholics of England and Ireland had been admitted to equal civil rights on the faith of repeated declarations, and even of oaths, to the effect that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was not binding on Catholics, and that consequently such edicts of Pontiffs as the BullUnam Sanctamhad not doctrinal authority. To this MacEvilly replied that the Catholics in England had been admitted to equal civil rights, not because of their declarations, but because the English government feared a civil war. The reply of Kenrick to this straightforward utterance is worthy of being given word for word—

The doctrine of Papal infallibility was always odious to the English government, and had it been really a doctrine of the faith, Protestants would have understood Papal doctrine better than English and Irish Catholics; for they knew that Roman Pontiffs had claimed the highest power in temporal things for themselves, and had attempted to drive several English kings from the throne by absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance.Catholics, by public oath repeatedly made, denied that such power belonged to the Roman Pontiff in the realm of England, and had they not done so, they never would have been or ought to have been admitted to equal civil rights.[415]How the faith thus pledged to the British government is to be reconciled with the definition of Papal infallibility may be looked to by those of the Irish prelate who have taken that oath as I myself did I cannot solve the difficulty as yet. I am Davus, not Ædipus. Nevertheless those civil rights were conceded to Catholics by men who through a long life had strongly opposed that course. They did indeed apprehend civil war; but they did not dread it in this sense, that a war of that kind could not be otherwise hurtful to the power of the government than by causing a disturbance of the peace for a certain time.They feared the occurrence of a war, not the result of it, as to which no sensible man could have been uncertain. Those great men preferred to yield rather than to conquer by the slaughter of a brilliant nation, and of a people worthy of a better fate, even in what seemed to them its errors. Oh that here the same spirit ofmoderation which they exhibited may be displayed by the majority of the bishops who are listening to these words, and that by a prevision of the calamities which may arise to us from this hapless controversy, they may, in circumstances calling for consummate moderation, ward off from us, who are fewer, but who represent a greater number of Catholics than those who are opposed to us, evils which it is not possible to anticipate without horror, and which it would be impossible to repair by a late repentance.

Catholics, by public oath repeatedly made, denied that such power belonged to the Roman Pontiff in the realm of England, and had they not done so, they never would have been or ought to have been admitted to equal civil rights.[415]How the faith thus pledged to the British government is to be reconciled with the definition of Papal infallibility may be looked to by those of the Irish prelate who have taken that oath as I myself did I cannot solve the difficulty as yet. I am Davus, not Ædipus. Nevertheless those civil rights were conceded to Catholics by men who through a long life had strongly opposed that course. They did indeed apprehend civil war; but they did not dread it in this sense, that a war of that kind could not be otherwise hurtful to the power of the government than by causing a disturbance of the peace for a certain time.

They feared the occurrence of a war, not the result of it, as to which no sensible man could have been uncertain. Those great men preferred to yield rather than to conquer by the slaughter of a brilliant nation, and of a people worthy of a better fate, even in what seemed to them its errors. Oh that here the same spirit ofmoderation which they exhibited may be displayed by the majority of the bishops who are listening to these words, and that by a prevision of the calamities which may arise to us from this hapless controversy, they may, in circumstances calling for consummate moderation, ward off from us, who are fewer, but who represent a greater number of Catholics than those who are opposed to us, evils which it is not possible to anticipate without horror, and which it would be impossible to repair by a late repentance.

On the one hand, we cannot but regret that these words, fitly written, were not actually spoken in the deaf ears of the resolved majority. On the other hand, we remember that had they been spoken, they would have sunk into the Vatican archives, and would never have been heard of more till those graves give up their dead. They now belong to history, and furnish a living link in a chain of memorable professions and performances. The denationalizing influence of the Papacy had still left something of the citizen alive in the soul of Kenrick. During his stay in Rome, when witnessing the paltry tyrannies that flounced about under the dependent banner of the Pope, all of the citizen that was left in him must have turned with fresh respect to the two flags of the free under which he had spent his days—the flags of England and America. And yet there were those sitting there, each with all the rights of a free man in his hands, planning to reconstruct the society of England and America on the degraded and fettered model of the States of the Roman Bishop. There is a crime which no code has defined—the crime, not of breaking one specific law of one's country, but of contriving, with a foreign pretender, how to overturn everything vital in a venerable and generous legislation.

It was not merely by a pupil of Maynooth that the eager ex-Anglican was considered extreme in his views. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, spoke on the same day, refuting the notions of Manning about the favourable effects to be produced by his beloved dogma in England, and appealing to him as a witness that an eminent statesman had represented the influence of the recent course of the Curia upon public opinion in Englandas being much to the disadvantage of their own cause, and greatly to the encouragement of extreme Protestants.[416]

In the next Congregation, on the 28th, it was Senestrey who took the post occupied on the last morning by Manning, that of official respondent against attacks. On that day, a scene was raised by Verot, of Florida. He declared that they were making innovations in the Church, and that such an innovation as the personal infallibility of the Pope was sacrilege. That horrid word applied in the sacred place to an object so dear to the Pope, touched indeed the apple of the eye. Sacrilege! The Cardinals de Angelis and Capalti, says Vitelleschi, quite lost their temper; and a scene ensued which for anger and excitement is said to have fallen but little short of Strossmayer's scene in March.[417]The odious, and to well-tuned Curialistic ears the inconceivable, task of hearing the infallibility of the Pope denied, and of seeing his pleasure daily thwarted under the roof of St. Peter's, was not to be endured any longer. The word passed that the power given by the new Rules to close the debate must be called into requisition.

A trusty American was set up in the next meeting, by the committee, to repair the mischief done by Verot—Spalding, of Baltimore. Here, again, we are indebted for light to Kenrick's unspoken speech. Referring to the moral question which had been raised by Kenrick, to which we have already seen allusions, Spalding said that it called for as much investigation to justify one in giving a negative as in giving an affirmative vote on the question of Papal infallibility, and that in withholding an affirmative vote one would confirm the celebrated Gallican articles.

On May 31, Valerga, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, made a vigorous attack on the minority, speaking cleverly, and hitting hard. Spirited,piquant, and insolent, is the description of Quirinus. Soon afterwards, another American was in the desk, Purcell, of Cincinnati. Quirinus says that he affirmed that the Americans abhorred every doctrine opposed to civil and spiritual freedom; and that the American sons of theChurch loved her, because she was the freest society in the world. He also took the position that, as kings existed for the good of the people, so the Pope existed for the good of the Church. On the same day spoke Conolly, Archbishop of Halifax. He seems to be the only one in the Council who really related a theological experience, declaring that he had formerly believed in the personal infallibility of the Pope, and had come to Rome believing that theAugsburg Gazettehad circulated a calumny in representing the dogmatizing of this opinion as the real object of the Council. He went on to say that, on finding what was expected of him, he determined to sift the arguments of the Roman theologians and the proofs by which they supported them. He now bore witness to the result upon his own views. All antiquity, he declared, explained the passages harped upon by those theologians, in a sense different from theirs. All antiquity bore witness against the notion that the Pope alone, and separate from the bishops, was infallible. He further took the ground that to found a dogma on the rejection of the traditional interpretation of Scripture was pure Protestantism. I will have nothing, he said, turned into dogma but the indubitable Word of God. Ten thousand theologians do not suffice for me, and on the present subject no theologian should be quoted who lived subsequent to the Isidorean forgeries. To define the dogma would be to bring the Vatican Council into contradiction with the three General Councils which had condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic, to narrow the gates of heaven, to repel the East, and to proclaim, not peace, but war. In reply to Manning, he protested that no one was justified in calling an opinion proximate heresy when it had not been condemned as such by the Church.[418]

On June 3, Gilooly, Bishop of Elphin, replying to some observation of Purcell as to the oaths and declarations, said[419]that Catholics had not denied that they held the infallibility of the Pope as a doctrine of the faith, but as a dogma of the faith; that is as a dogma defined by a General Council. Tothis, Kenrick's unspoken speech replies, "If that is what was meant, which I do not believe, we might be reproached, and that rightfully and deservedly, with not shrinking, in a very grave matter, from the concealment of our meaning by scholastic distinctions."[420]According to Quirinus (p. 661), Cardinal Bonnechose prevailed upon Cardinal de Angelis to ask the Pope, directly, if he would not consent to a prorogation of the Council on account of the heat, now intolerable to all but Romans, or men from the southward of Rome. The reply was stern and, according to many, savage. Whatever were the terms of it, the substance was indubitable—no adjournment was to be allowed till the Decree of Infallibility was passed. It is said that when Bishop Domenec, of Pittsburg, in America, began his discourse, he was greeted with laughter by the majority, and when he made the very plain and simple statement—one which he might have picked up from any intelligent or travelled Italian any day in the year—that American Catholics were not merely nominal ones, as the Italians were, Cardinal Capalti imperiously commanded silence.[421]Strossmayer had spoken at length on June 2, and with such moderation as to escape even a call to order, yet, it is said, with very great force. On the 3rd, Moriarty, of Kerry, took the side of Purcell, Kenrick, and MacHale, but we have no particulars of his speech.[422]That day Maret was in the desk speaking in the loud and labouring tone of a deaf man, arguing, not only against the convictions and feelings of the majority, but against their personal detestation of himself. He made a point that either the Council was to give infallibility to the Pontiff, in which case the Council must be a higher authority than he, or else the Pontiff was to give to himself an infallibility which he had not previously possessed, in which case he would change the constitution of the Church by his own power alone. Then Cardinal Bilio interrupted, and cried, "The Council does not give anything, nor can it give anything. It gives its suffrage, and the Holy Fatherdecides what he pleases."[423]The representative of all that was left of the once courageous Gallican liberties asked if he might be allowed to proceed, and did so. The minority had a long list of speakers still inscribed. Kenrick was waiting for his turn, and so were Haynald, Dupanloup, and many others; but a fresh surprise was at this point sprung upon them. The Presidents produced a requisition for the close of the general debate, signed by above one hundred and fifty bishops.[424]De Angelis at once called on those who were for the closing of the debate to stand up. He then declared, "A large majority have stood up, and by the power conferred upon us by Our Most Holy Lord (the capitals are official), we close the debate on the general question." TheActa Sanctæ Sedissay that about fifty remained sitting. No wonder that, after hearing sixty-five speakers, the Fathers were weary. Yet, no wonder, on the other hand, that the minority should allege that, while it was perfectly reasonable to close a debate in this manner when the object was that of making temporal laws liable to be unmade, or re-made, a year later, it was neither reasonable nor fair, and above all, it was not agreeable to any precedent, to past professions, or to any ecclesiastical principle, to close a debate upon a dogma while yet there were prelates wanting to bear witness to the tradition of their respective Churches. According to all their theologians, dogma was not to be made by mere opinion, but by evidence of the fact that the opinion in question had been believed from the beginning. Protestants would naturally say that it was time to bury this pretence under any heap; but men whose life had been spent under the illusion of the pretence naturally felt otherwise. They had not seen that when the Church adopted the principle of tradition instead of that of Scripture, the Spouse, while professing only to supplement the word of her Lord, really entered on a course which must lead to setting it aside in favour of her own word, and that when she had adopted the principle ofgeneral consent, instead of that of clear apostolical tradition, she had set aside the principle of antiquity for that of a majority amounting to a moral whole, and that now she was only proceeding a step further in substituting the principle of a numerical majority for that of moral unanimity. But one step more remained, and that was not far off. The Spouse who had put aside the authority of her Lord to exalt her own, was to find, not only her authority, but even her consent, formally repudiated before all men by the master whom she had, in the house of her Lord, set up in His place. In that house the talk was evermore of her authority, her wisdom, her infallibility, her glory, her stores of merit and her streams of blessing, and but rarely was her Lord heard of, except as having conferred the regency on her. Now drew nigh the day when the self-asserting Spouse was, before all men whom her loud vauntings had aroused, to receive on her brow such a stigma from her self-chosen Master as has seldom in set terms been affixed to a society by its head. Meantime the blow which had just been dealt seemed fatal to all the hopes of the minority. So once more they dragged their robes down the marble way of St. Peter's with defeat behind them, but this time with annihilation close before, though not till after further strange experiences.

Back to Index Next