Chapter 28

FOOTNOTES:[442]Friedberg, 145;Quirinus, 788.[443]See Protest with signatures.Doc., ii. 400-403.[444]Apologia, p. 327.[445]Quirinus, p. 792. TheActa Sanctæ Sedisdoes not think it worth while to count;—"fifty or thereabouts," "quinquaginta circiter patribus dissentientibus" (vi. p. 31).[446]Le Con. du Vat. et le Mouvement Anti-Infallibiliste, pp. 6-10.[447]Friedrich, p. 405.[448]Quirinus, p. 771.[449]Ibid., p. 772.[450]Ibid., p. 773.[451]Civiltá, VII. xi. 362.Acta Sanctæ Sedishas the same numbers.[452]Friedrich, 406.[453]When, in 1860, writingItaly in Transition, I read, on the recommendation of an Italian gentleman, a book by a well-known writer professing to describe the interior life of the Vatican; but found it too low to allow me even to allude to it, much less to quote it. What was my surprise when, a year or so later, appeared the work of Liverani, to find this very book—which even now I do not care to name—cited with that of About and of others, as a work thesubstantialaccuracy of which the learned Domestic Prelate and Protonotary of the Holy See could not deny.[454]Quirinus, p. 801. This astounding assertion does not rest upon the sole authority of Quirinus. Friedrich, in reporting the sayings of the Archbishop of Munich to the Faculty of Theology in that city on his return, gives the same assertion as repeated by his Grace. It had been a favourite theory with official writers that Quirinus was Friedrich, but as the latter left Rome in May, and Quirinus continued to write to the last, that theory had dropped out of sight. It is a curious coincidence in the present case that nearly all the incidents of this interview, mentioned by Quirinus writing in Rome on July 19, were repeated by Archbishop Scherr in Munich to the Faculty two days later. The substantial agreement of the two accounts is quite as great as that in several other cases which have induced men like Hergenröther to argue that Friedrich and Quirinus were one. The agreement is such as would be found between two practised writers hearing an account from the same eyewitness, or from two or three eyewitnesses, and immediately writing down what they had heard.Friedrich, p. 408 ff.[455]An instance of the effect of perfect knowledge of Rome by personal residence, on the style of expression and description, may be seen in Mr. T.A. Trollope's interesting book,The Papal Conclaves, as compared with the unreal and conventional forms kept up by Englishmen who know neither the language nor the spirit of the people. Some of the latter, ever since the days of theTracts for the Times, provoke smiles, and have gradually been acquiring for our country a reputation very unlike the old reputation of England for strong common sense, love of reality, and contempt for shows and fables.[456]Friedrich, p. 409.[457]Quirinus, p. 803; also the words of Archbishop Scherr, as quoted inTagebuch, p. 409.[458]Related by Archbishop Scherr to the Theological Faculty at Munich.Friedrich, pp. 409, 410.[459]Quirinus, p, 804. See the Draft inDoc. ad Illus., ii. pp. 317, 318,—"Quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes et Romana cum cæteris tenet perseveranter ecclesia."[460]Acta Sanctæ Sedis, p. 33.[461]TheActa Sanctæ Sedisdoes not even profess to count exactly,—"about thirty" (triginta circiter).[462]Quirinus, pp. 806-7.[463]Civiltá, VII. ix. 542-48 and 664-70.

FOOTNOTES:

[442]Friedberg, 145;Quirinus, 788.

[443]See Protest with signatures.Doc., ii. 400-403.

[444]Apologia, p. 327.

[445]Quirinus, p. 792. TheActa Sanctæ Sedisdoes not think it worth while to count;—"fifty or thereabouts," "quinquaginta circiter patribus dissentientibus" (vi. p. 31).

[446]Le Con. du Vat. et le Mouvement Anti-Infallibiliste, pp. 6-10.

[447]Friedrich, p. 405.

[448]Quirinus, p. 771.

[449]Ibid., p. 772.

[450]Ibid., p. 773.

[451]Civiltá, VII. xi. 362.Acta Sanctæ Sedishas the same numbers.

[452]Friedrich, 406.

[453]When, in 1860, writingItaly in Transition, I read, on the recommendation of an Italian gentleman, a book by a well-known writer professing to describe the interior life of the Vatican; but found it too low to allow me even to allude to it, much less to quote it. What was my surprise when, a year or so later, appeared the work of Liverani, to find this very book—which even now I do not care to name—cited with that of About and of others, as a work thesubstantialaccuracy of which the learned Domestic Prelate and Protonotary of the Holy See could not deny.

[454]Quirinus, p. 801. This astounding assertion does not rest upon the sole authority of Quirinus. Friedrich, in reporting the sayings of the Archbishop of Munich to the Faculty of Theology in that city on his return, gives the same assertion as repeated by his Grace. It had been a favourite theory with official writers that Quirinus was Friedrich, but as the latter left Rome in May, and Quirinus continued to write to the last, that theory had dropped out of sight. It is a curious coincidence in the present case that nearly all the incidents of this interview, mentioned by Quirinus writing in Rome on July 19, were repeated by Archbishop Scherr in Munich to the Faculty two days later. The substantial agreement of the two accounts is quite as great as that in several other cases which have induced men like Hergenröther to argue that Friedrich and Quirinus were one. The agreement is such as would be found between two practised writers hearing an account from the same eyewitness, or from two or three eyewitnesses, and immediately writing down what they had heard.Friedrich, p. 408 ff.

[455]An instance of the effect of perfect knowledge of Rome by personal residence, on the style of expression and description, may be seen in Mr. T.A. Trollope's interesting book,The Papal Conclaves, as compared with the unreal and conventional forms kept up by Englishmen who know neither the language nor the spirit of the people. Some of the latter, ever since the days of theTracts for the Times, provoke smiles, and have gradually been acquiring for our country a reputation very unlike the old reputation of England for strong common sense, love of reality, and contempt for shows and fables.

[456]Friedrich, p. 409.

[457]Quirinus, p. 803; also the words of Archbishop Scherr, as quoted inTagebuch, p. 409.

[458]Related by Archbishop Scherr to the Theological Faculty at Munich.Friedrich, pp. 409, 410.

[459]Quirinus, p, 804. See the Draft inDoc. ad Illus., ii. pp. 317, 318,—"Quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes et Romana cum cæteris tenet perseveranter ecclesia."

[460]Acta Sanctæ Sedis, p. 33.

[461]TheActa Sanctæ Sedisdoes not even profess to count exactly,—"about thirty" (triginta circiter).

[462]Quirinus, pp. 806-7.

[463]Civiltá, VII. ix. 542-48 and 664-70.

CHAPTER VIII

Grief of M. Veuillot—Final Deputation and Protest.

Sunday, July 17, was rather more of a fast than of a feast for M. Veuillot. He says, "War and oppositions are cruel clouds." Bad as were the rumours of war, those of "rebellion" among the bishops were still worse. It had evidently become known that the minority were not to be cowed into gracing the public solemnity with their compulsoryPlacet. It was even rumoured that the bishops would go into the open session and disturb the solemnity by sayingNon placet—ay, M. Veuillot had heard, by shouting it and outrageously repeating it in the face of the Pope.[464]While nothing was more desirable than that, to prove the freedom of the Council, two or three should sayNon placet, any serious number doing so would be detestable. The refusal of the non-contents to vote at all would be only one degree less bad. M. Veuillot, however, discovered that many whose departure, "or rather desertion," had been reported were still really in Rome. But, on the other hand, he saw carriages at the doors of leaders of the "tormenting and tormented" Opposition; at those of the Archbishops of Paris and Lyons, and of Cardinals Rauscher and Matthieu. Even the Via Frattina was visited to note the symptoms at the door of Maret. After night-fall, Veuillot cries, "Many are gone, and many more are going in the morning. They will really absent themselves. I cannot help thinking of a caricature. It represented some seditious fellows in a scare, who said, 'Now is the moment to show ourselves; let us hide!'"

As the noontide of that July Sunday blazed upon the Vatican, a deputation had entered the presence chamber, headed by Darboy and Simor, Primate of Hungary. They came to make one last attempt to procure the prorogation of the Council without the promulgation of the dogma. Their only answer was the oldNon possumus. Then the last of the luckless series of protests was solemnly delivered. They had not heart enough to fight, and had too much conscience to submit. So they took the middle course, and spoiled for ever the pretext of moral unanimity except the dead unanimity of form. Their fears, or their views of unity and reverence would not allow them in public to withstand the Pope. He had justly calculated the effect upon them of throne and tiara, with the fear of possible degradation. They had not, perhaps, sufficiently calculated what might have been the effect on him of honest men standing up one after another in their appointed place, and saying before all the Churches, as a wiser than they had done of a better than he, that he was to be blamed. They would have exposed, it is true, Pope Pius IX to a temporary check, yet they might have saved the Papacy from an irrevocable error. But in proportion as the Papacy had become weak in producing conviction, it had concentrated its strength on the means of producing submission. Its success in that art was now to be its own punishment. No Protestant had expected any effectual resistance from men trained as Romish bishops. Any real tenacity of conscience shown during the Council, was due to nobler influences spread abroad in countries where the ascendancy of Rome is not complete. There is, to our mode of thinking, something not merely incongruous and grotesque, but a great deal worse, in putting forward the paltry plea of personal offence, or personal consideration, when the matter in hand is a dogma that is to mould the religion of millions for ever. The fact that these prelates do put forward such a notion countenances the statements often made about men giving as the reason for their votes that they could not refuse the Holy Father or hurt his feelings. Vitelleschi thinks that the fear of being required to resign their Sees or subscribe thedogma was one of the elements in determining the minority to leave Rome before the definition (p. 212). If so, seeing them escape from that dilemma would be one of the causes of the mortification shown by the majority, as expressed by Veuillot. We give the last of the protests in full[465]:—

Most Blessed Father, in the Congregation held on the 13th of this month we gave our votes upon the proposed Decree of the first dogmatic constitution of the Church of Christ.It is known to your Holiness that there were eighty-eight Fathers, who, pressed by conscience and moved by love of the Holy Church, gave their votes in the wordsNon placet, that sixty-two others voted in the wordsPlacet juxta modum, and that, moreover, about seventy were absent from the Council and abstained from voting. To these are to be added a number who, from infirmity or other serious reasons, have returned to their dioceses.In this manner, our votes have been made known to your Holiness and to the whole world, and it has been made evident by how many bishops our opinion is approved; and thus have we discharged our office and duty.From the time above stated, nothing has occurred to change our judgment; but, on the contrary, several things have been added, and those exceedingly serious, which have strengthened us in our purpose.Confirming, then, by this document our votes, we have determined to abstain from the public session to be held on the 18th. That filial piety and reverence, which lately brought our deputies to the feet of your Holiness do not permit us openly, and in the Father's face, to sayNon placetin a case so closely concerning the person of your Holiness.And, indeed, the votes that would be given in the public session could only repeat those already given in the Congregation.We, therefore, return to our flocks without delay, for after so long an absence we are much needed on account of the rumours of war, and especially on account of the great spiritual necessities. We return grieving that, because of the sad juncture of circumstances, even peace and tranquillity of conscience is disturbed among the faithful.Meanwhile, commending with all our hearts the Church of God, and your Holiness, to the grace and protection of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are of your Holiness the most devoted and most obedient sons.

Most Blessed Father, in the Congregation held on the 13th of this month we gave our votes upon the proposed Decree of the first dogmatic constitution of the Church of Christ.

It is known to your Holiness that there were eighty-eight Fathers, who, pressed by conscience and moved by love of the Holy Church, gave their votes in the wordsNon placet, that sixty-two others voted in the wordsPlacet juxta modum, and that, moreover, about seventy were absent from the Council and abstained from voting. To these are to be added a number who, from infirmity or other serious reasons, have returned to their dioceses.

In this manner, our votes have been made known to your Holiness and to the whole world, and it has been made evident by how many bishops our opinion is approved; and thus have we discharged our office and duty.

From the time above stated, nothing has occurred to change our judgment; but, on the contrary, several things have been added, and those exceedingly serious, which have strengthened us in our purpose.

Confirming, then, by this document our votes, we have determined to abstain from the public session to be held on the 18th. That filial piety and reverence, which lately brought our deputies to the feet of your Holiness do not permit us openly, and in the Father's face, to sayNon placetin a case so closely concerning the person of your Holiness.

And, indeed, the votes that would be given in the public session could only repeat those already given in the Congregation.

We, therefore, return to our flocks without delay, for after so long an absence we are much needed on account of the rumours of war, and especially on account of the great spiritual necessities. We return grieving that, because of the sad juncture of circumstances, even peace and tranquillity of conscience is disturbed among the faithful.

Meanwhile, commending with all our hearts the Church of God, and your Holiness, to the grace and protection of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are of your Holiness the most devoted and most obedient sons.

Leaving, then, in the hands of the Pope this solemn confirmation of a belief registered by a formidable array of bishops, that he ought not to be proclaimed as the infallible representative of God, they turned their backs on the palace which had witnessed their many humiliations. Their allusion to the things which had been added since the 13th as being "exceedingly serious," is another of the many witnesses out of their own mouths against their subsequent statements. Their clear statement that did they vote in the session it could only be to repeat their former vote, seals with the seal of deliberate misrepresentation many solemn assertions since that day made under mitres.

It was a grief to the soul of M. Veuillot to learn that the Ambassador of France had graced with his presence the departure of Darboy. De Banneville had accompanied the Archbishop to the station, escorted by Mérode, with Monsignor Vecchiotti, and Father Trullet. The recalcitrant Archbishop was even placed in "a kind of carriage of honour"; a fact which reminded the Argus of theUniversthat a certain bishop had said, We go away conquerors, but we leave some wounded on the field. "This fine carriage seemed to me an ambulance."[466]Thus, poor Darboy took his way towards the storm-cloud, blackening behind the hills, in the after clap of which he alone of all the host was to find a bloody grave.

The Monday morning dawned heavily over Rome. As the eyes of the last portion of the fleeing minority were sadly tracing the outlines of the hills on the upper course of the Tiber, while those of the first portion were tracing the forms of the outlying Alps and a few were watching morn as it spread over the waves of the Mediterranean, a Pope for the first time rose in Rome with the consciousness that ere sunset he would be infallible, not only in fact, but also in law. His less happy prececessors had claimed that crown, but never had received it. Now he was about, with the consent of the Church, to put on the power to be infallible for ever,"without the consent of the Church." Had ever diplomacy won such a victory? had ever an oligarchy so completely signed itself away? Tell him that the temporal power was of no spiritual value! But could all that have been accomplished except within the walls of a strong city? As Pius IX looked from the Papal apartments across the Tiber, the Pincian was gloomy, and the Sabine Hills were hid in clouds under a threatening sun. But he would remember the day of his taking possession, and how gloom had turned to rainbow; the day of the return from Gaeta, and how the sun had opened from the west at the right moment; above all, the day of "The Immaculate," and how the sun had seemed glad of the sight. True, the dutiful luminary had failed on the opening day of the Council, but the Jesuit Fathers had written that the solemnity would be brilliant at its close, and that the city would blaze with triumph, as Ephesus had done in the year 431. And was not the throne so placed in the Council Hall, that, all being propitious, the beams would fall as they had done on the day of the Immaculate; and surely the Virgin would not fail to send them. At all events, it was certain that he would lie down that night not only the Pope of the Immaculate, but the Pope of the Infallible—the first human being in the records of the world to whom a number of the creatures of God had deliberately given the right of telling to them and to their succeeding generations what they were to believe for ever and ever. The deifying of an emperor, either in the plains of Babylon or in the temples of Rome, was a little thing as compared with the apotheosis now about to be performed. The dogmas of the emperor were not to be eternal on earth, though he might cause himself to be decreed immortal in heaven. The word "apotheosis" was perfectly natural to the pen of Vitelleschi, or of any other Liberal Catholic who dared to speak what he thought. But it is nevertheless true that deification among the heathen, whether ancient or modern, involved little exaltation compared with that now to be given to the Bishop of Rome. A Theseus or a Rama, an Antinous or an Augustus, had a lowly part inruling eternal destinies compared with that to be now assigned to the Count and Priest Mastai-Ferretti.

The monasteries and nunneries sent forth a contingent, as on the opening day; but where were the proud vehicles and the pressing throngs? Vitelleschi says that two or three houses in the city were decorated. How dead was the indifference denoted by such language on an occasion absolutely unprecedented, cannot be conveyed to the minds of those who do not know what the people of a southern city can do when they really mean to decorate. As the places for spectators in the Hall filled up, it was whispered from one to another, "No crowned heads." An Infanta of Portugal was the lone flower of royalty

"Where once a garden smiled."

Even ambassadors failed. France, the eldest daughter, was not there. Spain, the Catholic, was not there. Portugal, the faithful, was not there. Austria, the apostolic, was not there. Bavaria was not there. Poland was dead. Italy was alive again, but her heart and hope were elsewhere. Belgium and Holland had each sent a consul, the one to welcome infallibility, with its constitution condemned by the Church, the other with its heresy. Vitelleschi mentions a representative of the Principality of Monaco. TheGiornale di Romais not so worldly minded as to specify any state, but says that members of the diplomatic corps were present.[467]

About nine o'clock the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and Generals, all in red, began to stream in. Five hundred and thirty-five seats were soon occupied. It thus appeared that there were some two hundred less than at the opening. About twenty had died.[468]Several were ill. Some, in Rome, were absent from disclination to attend.[469]Of the minority only two now changed sides. Of these,one was a demonstrative Oppositionist—Landriot, of Rheims. This conspicuous absence of the minority was a disappointment and a humiliation, though it was nothing more. Even theActa Sanctæ Sedissays that its effect was traceable on the countenances of the Fathers. They grieved for the obstinacy of their brethren. Indeed, in the Congregation where the vote was taken, some, with clasped hands, had implored their friends to give up their false opinion at last. Still the conqueror had his triumph, though he had not the satisfaction of seeing the captives follow in his train. It was Cæsar without Vercingetorix. It would have been a proud moment for the resident Cardinals had Rauscher and Schwarzenberg made Vienna and Prague bow down to Rome. Had the sturdy Darboy done homage for Paris, it would have been a sign to the Curia that the new world of the Jesuit seers was at last actually above the horizon. The readers of M. Veuillot can well imagine into what ecstasies he would have fallen, and with what dithyrambs his pages would have detonated, had his ears been permitted to hear Dupanloup pronounce hisPlacet. This was not to be. Those bishops were not the men to stand up in their places and contend; yet were they not so thoroughly beaten as ostentatiously to submit. Their paper confirmation of their legislative vote came like an impertinent parley to tease the conquerors. What ought to have been either a combat or afête?was neither. It was a ceremonial of which even theCiviltáquotes its description from theGiornale di Roma, while M. Veuillot himself is too much affected to write more than a few lines—as if silence was the vestment which his strong emotions were wont to put on. In his after touches he often speaks of the glory of the dogma, but we do not remember that he ever alludes to the glory of that day. The ProtestantFromman, whom we have not been accustomed to quote, though very glad to consult, called the ceremony tedious; but that was unpardonable.

The Pope did not enter on this occasion, as on former ones, between Antonelli and Mertel, but between Grassellini and Mertel. Had Antonelli, because of having failed to give hisvote in the Congregation, lost his wonted place on the day when the fruit was to be plucked? The hall and city, according to Vitelleschi, "wore a cold and severe aspect." December 8 seemed to have dropped its mantle on July 18. Perhaps, however, ere the moment of promulgation arrived, the Roman azure would be in the ascendant, and hearts would be gladdened at the right time. Indeed, theActa Sanctæ Sedis, in contradiction to all profane authors, states that just before the Pope uttered his sentence the gloom somewhat cleared up. It does not attempt to say that the sun shone.

After the preparatory ceremonies, Fessler and Valenziani approached the throne. The Secretary handed the constitutionPastor Eternusto the Pontiff, with its chapters and its canons making a new Church, if ever a new constitution made a new corps, and making, as Pius IX hoped, the commencement of a new era for the kingdoms of this world, all of which, with the glory of them, had been by some one promised to him after this day. That constitution professed to give to him, or rather to recognize as inhering in him, authority over all territories on earth, and over all those actions of man that possessed any moral character. Over the entire sphere of human accountability henceforth and for ever it was for him to reign as should seem to him right. Valenziani ascended the desk, and read out the title of the Decree. He then sat down, and while the sky grew blacker, the house darker, and the hearts of men more heavy with an impression of something terrible, he read chapter after chapter, until at last he reached the close, and the house echoed back his cadence, with the word of the Pope's self-written doom,Irreformable,—"The definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by consent of the Church,irreformable."

After a moment's pause came the sealing Canon, "If any shall presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."

The reader ceased. The storm alone was speaking. For a moment no human tone disturbed the air. But memory wasrepeating two terrific words, and imagination kept saying that the winds were whispering.

Irreformable! Anathema!

Valenziani rose, and sending his voice athwart the gloom, said, "Most Reverend Fathers, are the Decrees and Canons contained in this Constitution agreed to?"

Upon this he left the desk, and Jacobini, the Sub-Secretary, ascending it, called out the name of Cardinal Mattei, who was absent from old age. He then called "Constantine, Bishop of Porto"; and Cardinal Patrizi, rising, and taking off his mitre, said,Placet. The voice near the throne made the darkening hall to echoPlacet, and the voice near the door repeated the echo,Placet. Then the scrutineers recorded the vote. Cardinal Amat was next called, and hisPlacetand some five or six others sounded harmoniously in the deepening gloom. Jacobini then called Frederick Joseph, Archbishop of Prague. The princely priest who from the age of thirty-three had worn the purple, and who was to represent the house of Schwarzenberg and the Church of Bohemia,—that Church imposed by burnings and by blood,—responded not. There was a moment's pause and a sense of a want.Absent, cried the voice near the throne.Absent, replied the voice near the door; and the influences from without were seconded by a damping influence from within. The next name was that of Cardinal Corsi, a man of repute for piety, who was well known to be averse to the definition. According to Vitelleschi, he and the other dissentient Cardinals drew their scarlet hats over their eyes and remained silent. But they wore mitres, not hats. Of the rest, Quirinus asserts that, besides the Cardinal Vicar, Patrizi, only two put into theirPlacetspirit enough to stand up, and they were Bonaparte and Panebianco. Fourth after Corsi came the name of the senior French Cardinal. "James, Archbishop of Besançon," cried Jacobini; but Cardinal Mathieu did not respond.Absent, cried the official voice.Absent, echoed the fellow official. Even France seemed failing. Thrice had the tranquillizingPlacetcheered the still deepening shadows, when Jacobini came to the notable nameof "Joseph Othmar, Archbishop of Vienna." But Rauscher was far away, and once more did the thunderous air thrill with the depressing sound,Absent. Now followed a successive roll of more than twelvePlacets, and then came the name of Philip, Archbishop of Bologna. All watched Cardinal Guidi, who pronounced aPlacet. The Pope closely eyed him, and when the creature delivered his judgment before earth and heaven in favour of the dogma which just one month previously he had, in the same place, solemnly proposed to lay under an anathema, his royal master said, "Poor man!" or, as others report it, "Good man!" but Vitelleschi remarks that in Italian they might both mean the same thing. To Guidi succeeded two staunchPlacets, from Bonnechose and Cullen, but next was called Gustavus of Santa Maria Traspontina. Eyes looked for another prince-priest who represented the house of Hohenlohe and the feelings of Bavaria, but there was no response. Hohenlohe, like Rauscher and Schwarzenberg, wasabsent.

After the list of Cardinals was exhausted, the patriarchal Sees were called. Two Sees were especially connected with the tradition of Peter. After men of genuine Italian name, Antici-Mattei and Ballerini, had, for Constantinople and for Alexandria, answeredPlacet, was called the name of Antioch. Its Patriarch was named Jusseff, and the call evoked no response; so Antioch, the See of Peter, andabsent, the sign of disapprobation, were set in men's minds together. Of course the Roman Valerga saidPlacetfor Jerusalem. Then came the other city connected with the life of Peter, and when Audu, whose secret experience after his first audacity in venturing to differ from Pius IX was known to all, was called to answer for Babylon, all expected that he would have been overcome like Guidi. But no. Oriental servility did not equal Rome, and so the reply made for Babylon wasAbsent.La Dernière Heure du Concileasserts that as Audu had been sent for by the Pope, so had Jusseff been sent for by the authorities of the Propaganda, "to know by what right he dared to bear testimony to the belief of the East withouthaving previously submitted his speech to revision" (p. 4). Next came the primatial Sees. Where was the Primate of France? Where the Primate of Hungary? They, too, among theabsent. And of the Archbishops, where were those of Paris, of Milan, and of Munich? Where the Nestor of the English-speaking group, John of Tuam? These were painful deficiencies. Still, in numbers if not in influence the roll ofPlacetsfrom among the Archbishops presented a very large majority. Among the bishops, the first name called was that of the very aged Losanna, of Biella, one of the staunchest opponents. So the first reply, though for an Italian bishop, wasAbsent. Then a flow ofPlacets, frequently chequered by anAbsent. In all, says Vitelleschi, nearly one hundred and fifty bishops were absent, many of them men who held the most illustrious Sees.[470]TheActa Sanctæ Sedisconfesses to one hundred and twelve absentees from among those called; which number did not, of course, include men who had already obtained leave of absence. The number who were present was five hundred and thirty-five. In this whole list the uniform responses were eitherPlacetorAbsenttill the name of the Bishop of Caizzo, a Neapolitan, was called. The official reported his vote asPlacet. Caizzo raised his voice and loudly utteredNon placet. Then, again, to the end,PlacetfollowedPlacet, alternating with the voice of the rolling thunder. Finally was called Fitzgerald of little Rock in America. Thinking that he alone of the Fallibilists was present, he had begged not to be brought forward; but now that another bishop had given a negative vote he responded,Non placet.[471]This set tongues agoing. It was roundly asserted that the appearance of the Neapolitan and the American had been arranged for, in order to give an air of freedom. Vitelleschi naturally thinks that it is needless to search so far for motives. Yet, theCiviltámakes a display of these two votes, saying that without them it would have been alleged that the Fathers were not free. It tells of a correspondent of some of the "bad" papers who on hearing the firstNonplacetwas evidently annoyed, and being asked by a friend the cause of that annoyance said, "This negative vote spoils all for us."[472]TheCiviltáquotes a description of how Riccio, the Neapolitan, after the definition, went down on his knees and said,Credo, I believe; and how Fitzgerald pressed his episcopal cross to his breast and said, "Now I believe. Now do I also firmly believe."[473]When all the votes had been delivered, the scrutineers and notaries brought to the Secretary of the Council a statement of the result. The Secretary, followed by the scrutineers and notaries, advanced to the steps of the throne. There they all knelt down. The Secretary ascended the steps and read, "Blessed Father, the Decrees and Canons are agreed to by all the Fathers, two excepted."

All this time the gloom was deep. "The voice of the Lord" again and again pealed over the city. Thunderbolts more than once struck close to the Cathedral. Some glass in the windows of the apse just behind the throne was broken. Some, according to Jesuit writers, said, Providence is proclaiming the downfall of Gallicanism. Some, according to theActa Sanctæ Sedis, said, The demon is disturbed, the storm shows that this does not please him. This interpretation would seem to have been that of the learned editor, for he adds, "The thunderbolts which Jupiter of the Pagans forged did the city no harm." Many said, God is installing the new Moses upon the new Sinai. This, at least with those who wrote, was evidently the prevailing interpretation.

The moment had come. Now was to be spoken the word so oft invoked in apostrophe, apologue, and prayer,—the word for which many had pictured a universe in chaos as waiting in blind but agonizing throes,—the word which so-called Christian journals and Christian ministers had, times unnumbered, described as the voice of God pronouncing the creative fiat, Let there be light. But where was the sun? According to many promises and to careful arrangements, he was at this moment to pour down upon the Lawgiver while announcingto all people, nations, and languages, the new law that changeth not, a radiance which would be as if angels were unfolding their wings above him and around. But the sun would not! The priest, in his conflict with chaos, was, at the supreme moment, left to the light of his own beloved wax candles. That light which his taste tells him adorns the house of God in the eye of day, and teaches celestial truths to immortal men, became at last of real use.

The High Priest arose from his throne. All hearts stood still. He thought, and they thought, that he was about to proclaim himself unerring. But had not the wine been spirited away between the cup and the lip? The faults incident to composing in a committee, and those incident to amending in a hurry, were both embedded in the Decree. All it said of the infallibility of the Pope was derived and comparative; he is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals. History had conquered dogma here as it had done in the chapter on authority. The declaration was not that the Church was as infallible as the Pope, which would have been the order had the historical consciousness traced the infallibility of the Church as derived from that of the Pope. The declaration was that the Pope was as infallible as the Church,—a proof that his infallibility was derived from hers, and that historical consciousness dictated that order. This comparative infallibility was all that was ascribed to the Pope in this artful but unskilful composition. But to what, according to the same article, did the infallibility of the Church amount? This was rendered by the wording the point all essential, and the standard beyond which infallibility could not extend. The Church was in the same article, and in words the most positive, dealt with as a body the consent of which was not to be taken into account. All, therefore, which the great Word had brought forth, was a declaration that the Pope was as infallible as a body whose consent was not to be taken into account. The world may be well content. The crafty were caught in theirown gin when they renounced the consent of the Church. When men have long and successfully argued in a circle, it is a delicate thing all at once, in the heat of a July day, to break one half of the circle, and then to declare that the other half is perfectly round, quite as round as the whole. Historically, the infallibility of the Church was first of all made the base and measure of that of the Pope. Then, diplomatically, the infallibility of the Church was reduced to a nullity. This nullity, by inexorable logic, falls back on all the infallibilities grown out of it, or measured by it. So the Decree is chaos in spite of all the candles. But on one point it speaks not comparatively but positively. Without comparison with anything on earth or above the earth, the Decrees of the Pope are pronounced irreformable. That is the one and the only indisputable result.

The aspirant after infallibility stood, about, as he imagined, to pronounce the word. He opened his lips, and by the candlelight read: "The Decrees and Canons contained in the constitution just read are agreed to by all the Fathers, two excepted. We, therefore, with the approval of the Sacred Council, confirm these and those as now read, and define them by apostolic authority."

The anathema attached to the definition of infallibility strikes below the feet of Protestants. It only anathematizes those who contradict the definition. Protestants do not stoop to do so. They may freely admit that the Pope is as infallible as the Church which made him irreformable, and for once they may believe more than the Pope, by admitting that the Church is as infallible as he. They certainly are not tempted to deny that the Pope, whether in his Decrees or out of them, is irreformable. Here, again, they believe more than the Pope.

TheCiviltástates that now burst out a loud acclamation among the Fathers, accompanied with salvos of artillery. The small crowd of priests and nuns, and such like, as Vitelleschi says, about the door of the Hall raised a shout. Quirinus says that the nuns cried "Papa mio"—My Pope. Accordingto theActa Sanctæ Sedis, St. Peter's was very full of people, who broke forth in such applause that you would scarcely have believed that you were in the temple of the Prince of the Apostles, hearing it echo again and again with these unwonted sounds.

The Irreformable then addressed his Bishops in the following allocution. In order to do so, according to theStimmen, he had to make several vain attempts, owing to the repeated applause of the Fathers; an applause which recalls a sad word of Vitelleschi, that some are never so jubilant as when they have placed a new yoke on their necks. At length the thunders of applause were still, and the waiting world was ready to hear the first utterance of the first human being ever set up on a throne in a temple, by hundreds of men of full age and of sound reason, to utter to all the earth words never to be questioned or amended, much less recalled. Hush!The Infalliblegives forth the first oracle in his now acknowledged plenitude of power. Does it sound like "the word of God," at whose potent spell a disordered world will rise to new order and repose, or like that of an old man chiding the absent bishops who had not adorned the triumph of the day?

This exalted authority of the Roman Pontiff, venerable brethren, does not oppress, but assists; does not destroy, but builds up and often confirms in dignity, unites in affection, and strengthens and protects the rights of brethren—that is, of the bishops. Let those who now judge in the earthquake know that the Lord is not in the earthquake. Let them remember that, a few years ago, holding different views, they copiously expressed themselves as of our own opinion, and that of the majority of this great assembly; but they then judged in the calm. In judging of the same case, can we have two opposing consciences? God forbid! May God, therefore, enlighten their minds and their hearts; and as He alone works great marvels, may He illuminate their minds and hearts, so that all may come to the breast of their Father, that of the unworthy Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, who loves them, who esteems them, and who longs to be one with them. And so, bound together in the bond of charity, may we be able to fight the battle of the Lord, so that our enemies may not deride us, but may rather fear us, and may in time lay down the weapons of wickedness before thetruth; and may we all be enabled to say with St. Augustine, "Thou hast called me into Thy wonderful light, and lo, I see!"[474]

The bishops applauded, and the journals found the allocution divine. The Liberal Catholics, however, felt that when the Pope said, "I desire to be one with them," he meant, "I desire to see them submit to me." The grave point was, that this being the first utterance from the chair after he had been solemnly declared to be as infallible as the Church, an utterance made—if ever one could be made—in the exercise of his office as pastor of the universal Church, it contained a misstatement of fact and a misconception of doctrine. The Pope, occupied with the absentees, ventured roundly to assert that they who now opposed had been a few years ago fully of his opinion and of that of the majority. If ever a public misstatement deserved to be called by a strong short name, this one did. Had the language of the Decree, now lifted to the level of the law that changeth not, been put by a Protestant, as the doctrine of their Church, before Schwarzenberg and Rauscher, before Darboy and Dupanloup, before Strossmayer, Kenrick, Clifford, and MacHale, any day previous to the year 1870, they would have railed at the Protestant as a slanderer, and perhaps would not have let him escape without an episcopal curse. Would not Spalding have sneered at D'Aubigné as a fool and a false witness had he said that the Pope could make a dogma without either the counsel of bishops or the consent of the Church? No, the ears of the Pope were full of words of witness; the bureaux of the Council contained document after document in evidence that the statement which he now dared to make when none dared to contradict, was not true, and was known not to be true. Those bishops, in order to please the Pope, had unwisely, as they now felt, stretched the doctrine of primacy, which they did hold, till it looked to unpractised eyes very like Papal infallibility. True, they had done this in what seemed rather to be addresses of ceremony than formularies of doctrine; for whenever infallibility itself had been nakedly presented to them, even without the adjunct of ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese, and without any repudiation of the consent of the Church, they had mustered the manhood to oppose it. The Pope neither stated the facts nor discriminated between opinion and opinion. He did state as fact what was not fact, and confounded opinions that differed. Friedrich, with the acute author of theEpistolæ Obscurorum Virorum, and not a few others, thinks that he is personally incapable of understanding theological distinctions, and that he could not explain what the doctrine of Papal infallibility means. This seems to be impossible, and yet there is very much to prevent one from pronouncing it ridiculous. But whether he is capable of distinguishing in such a case or not is a very slight matter. The fact that remains for us is, that his first utterance from the acknowledged seat of infallibility was wholly occupied with the absent bishops, that he insinuated that they had a double conscience, and that the grounds on which he made that insinuation were incorrect in fact and inaccurate in thought. Had the question whether the Papacy was a divine organ of truth, or merely a contrivance of clever old men, liable to be overseen, like other mortals, in their words and deeds, been designedly subjected to a fair test, we can with difficulty conceive of one fairer or more conclusive, than that first utterance from the recognized seat of inerrancy. There is nothing divine in it, and the human elements do not rise above a very ordinary level.

The city was silent and chill. We can form but a faint idea of how much, in such a case, mere external impressions sway a community trained like the one of which we speak. It was as if the salvos from St. Angelo, the feeble voice of the Irreformable, had been swallowed up in the salvos of the skies, the voice of the Sole Infallible. TheGiornale di Romaand theCiviltá, theUniversand theUnitá, would have spared no epithets in denouncing the man who three months before should have said that, on the night when the creative word, the fiat, Let there be light, should be uttered; on the night when thepatient voice of the people and of the priests should be hushed under "the voice of God" proclaiming infallibility, a noble Roman would pen what Vitelleschi that night quietly wrote down: "The government offices, the religious establishments, and a few private houses, were illuminated; but the rest of the city remained in perfect silence and profound darkness."

The concluding words of the Roman writer, in narrating the triumph of the day, are not wholly indifferent to us in England (p. 221)—

History is bound to award to the author and originator of every work the praise or blame which is due to him. All must remember the part taken by the Fathers of theCiviltá Cattolica, and Monsignor Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, in promoting the dogma of the personal infallibility of the Pope, and all know that it was their mind and their will that carried it. On the day of the promulgation of the dogma, Monsignor Manning received as a gift from the Society of the Jesuits, a portrait of Bellarmine, with the following inscription—Henrico Edwardo Manning,Archiep. Westmonast.Sodales Soc. Jesu;Collegii Civilitatis Catholicæ,Sessionis IV Concilii VaticaniMnemosynon.

Henrico Edwardo Manning,Archiep. Westmonast.Sodales Soc. Jesu;Collegii Civilitatis Catholicæ,Sessionis IV Concilii VaticaniMnemosynon.

It is said that the portrait was really that of St. Charles Borromeo.

One other note was often made as to this memorable day. It was the same day on which was done the deed that irrevocably sealed the fall of the Second Empire, and consequently the fall of its pendant andprotégé, the Papal throne. The declaration of war was delivered in Berlin on the day following, and must have left Paris that day!

The reader having already had several specimens, and fair ones, ofCe Qui se Passe au Concile, is in a position, so far as relates to it, to form his own opinion of its "stinking calumnies," to adopt the characteristic language of the Most Eminent, Most Reverend, and Right Reverend Fathers of the Council. But as toLa Dernière Heure du Concile(The last hour of theCouncil), we may at this point fitly give a few examples. It speaks of "Rules imposed in violation of the most manifest rights of the Council, of Commission chosen beforehand, of illusory votes, of an oppressive tutelage, of discussions without order and without aim, of modifications of the Rules as arbitrary as they were multiplied." It asserts that as to the minority public calumnies were not spared them; that their speakers were more than once forced to leave the desk without being able to explain, much less to defend their views; while the majority from the beginning took the reasons of the minority for insults, and rendered back insults for reasons; and that the petitions of the minority were not only left without effect, but without answer. It pictures the Jesuits as meeting the bishops after three centuries of feigned truce on the ground where their General Laynez, defeated at Trent, had left them; but as now coming perfectly prepared for the battle, while the bishops had not foreseen anything—

To-day it is not the episcopate that refuses to hear Father Laynez, but it is Father Laynez who, master of the field, does not even deign to listen to the episcopate, and announces to it that the question has been long decided.... The day that Pius IX said, There shall be a Council, the Company of Jesus said, I shall be the Council. We have seen three of its doctors absorb both the doctrinal power of the august assembly, and its right of initiative. The bishops have been called to sanction what the Jesuits have written, and there is the whole history of the Council.

Speaking of the Propaganda, the writer declares that it holds in its hands all the Vicars Apostolic, and most of the Oriental bishops. Taking advantage of its annual grants, it gives week by week to the prelates who are supported by them that special impulse which shapes the Council. In winter it set watch before the doors of the poor Oriental bishops and obliged them to shut their cells against brethren who came to visit them. Thus it comes to pass

that the word of two hundred Fathers of the œcumenical assembly always remains the word of the Pope alone. In fact, hithertoit is a thing unheard of that a single one of these prelates, sons of the Propaganda, should have the courage to speak before the Council or to vote otherwise than it would have them do. This single proof is of incomparable and demonstrative force, as against the reality of their freedom; for while all the other Churches, without exception, have had some independent voices, the Church which I shall call that of the Propaganda has not hitherto produced one.

Proceeding to the most tender point of all, the writer says—

Above thissurveillanceof an institution the Jesuits have contrived another, which is shown more rarely, and is reserved for great events. This reaches the heads that are loftiest, even when they are held up, and it makes those who might feel a movement of independence tremble in spite of themselves. I mean the authority of Pius IX. Too long it has been sought to keep his action in the background, in the private history of the Council, by casting into the shade a figure which is entitled to stand in a strong light. Hitherto the writers of history have, at each new incident in the Council, been content to say, It is the work of the Roman Court. Well, the Roman Court is Pius IX, and history, when the hour comes, rending the covering of mystery, must let every one bear the responsibility which belongs to him. It will have to say that it is Pius IX who would have the Council in spite of the Cardinals, and who now will have, in spite of them, his personal infallibility. It is he who required for the Council this hall where one cannot hear; it is he who became irritated with Audu and tore from him the abdication of his rights; it is he who refused to receive the petition of the minority requesting that unhappy debates should be averted; it is he who violated all rule in bringing on the burning question; it is he who suddenly smothered discussion when it became menacing for his pretensions; it is he who from the clergy of Rome required an address which they had at first refused; it is he who dismissed Theiner to reward Cardoni; it is he who by a classification to be much regretted distressed the prelates who on the anniversary day of his election came to congratulate him; it is he who called Guidi after his speech to subdue his independent spirit; is it he who from the Council demands either his personal infallibility or else the courage to die from the heat of the sun and of the fever; it is he who will be everything, both the universal faith and tradition—La tradizione son io!Never was absolutism seen so near at hand, in an institution which Jesus Christ had founded free and independent in spite of its monarchical and indivisible unity.

The aspect of the case which most distressed the writer seemed to be that studied humiliation of the bishops which marked the whole procedure of the Pope, and especially that raising against them of their own subordinates which bishops probably thought was a measure reserved only for employment against civil rulers, not against "Venerable Brethren." Contrasting the present excesses with those of the Popes of the middle ages the writer proceeds—

At present we stand in presence of the Papacy struggling, not against princes, but against the episcopacy; as if Pius IX could find on the ruin of his brethren a more elevated throne, or in their annihilation a more impregnable fortress. O misfortune of the times and abuse of the most holy institutions! They want to have only a single real bishop in the world—the Pope; a single infallible and authorized doctor—the Pope! Let every voice be silent unless to say what he has said; let no action be performed but under his episcopal jurisdiction—universal, immediate; let those who have been appointed by God to govern, renounce their imprescriptible rights; let them tear the pages of the gospel on which those rights are graven; we do not any longer want more than one mouth, one hand, an absolute monarch; then, say they, only then, shall we have universal order.... At present the Caesars disappear everywhere and visibly; in vain do I look for a Louis XIV or a Joseph II; governments are essentially transformed and are confounded with the country which at least has no courtiers. There now remains in reality but one Caesar, who is himself everything both in spiritual matters and in temporal, dispensing his favours to those who defend him, and making those who contradict him feel his wrath; and this Caesar is not called either Francis Joseph or Napoleon III.And while this time all temporal powers have scrupulously respected the liberty of the Council, a single one has hampered it in every way, has dreaded and destroyed it. I need not name the one. Thus the Church which had furnished to modern civil societies the model of a monarchy, in which the aristocratic and popular elements effectually tempered the excess of the supreme power, the Church which had first of all given to the modern world the example of its great assemblies, discussing in freedom the rights of truth and justice—this Church presents to us to-day the spectacle of a Council without liberty and the menace of an absolutism without control.

And while this time all temporal powers have scrupulously respected the liberty of the Council, a single one has hampered it in every way, has dreaded and destroyed it. I need not name the one. Thus the Church which had furnished to modern civil societies the model of a monarchy, in which the aristocratic and popular elements effectually tempered the excess of the supreme power, the Church which had first of all given to the modern world the example of its great assemblies, discussing in freedom the rights of truth and justice—this Church presents to us to-day the spectacle of a Council without liberty and the menace of an absolutism without control.

This will suffice to account for the displeasure of the Pope and the Jesuits; but whether it sufficed to warrant the action of the Council and its language, posterity will judge. In our climate the allusion to the cruelty of keeping the old men in Rome in what is there called "the severest season," would seem overstrained. But the danger of attending a conclave in that season will be found described by Mr. T.A. Trollope as greater than that of a soldier on the field of battle. And his details of a conclave held in July to elect the Barberini Pope, gives frightful corroboration of that serious statement.[475]As M. Veuillot, looking from the point of view of the initiated, had at once leaped to the conclusion of the Pope only; and as Vitelleschi, reasoning from the data furnished by the Canons presented to the Council, inferred that all that would remain of earthly authority would be the Pope only; so this writer, starting from the episcopal point of view, and with difficulty rising above it, at last stands face to face with the sole figure of authority left, the Pope only; and he finds that while the spirit of Christianity has been changing Caesars into mild and patriotic princes, another spirit has changed the Bishop of Rome into a Caesar, claiming all supremacy in things temporal and spiritual.

Back to Index Next