صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

or greatly modify the sense of the passage, as we at first understood that sense. So we read again and a third time leisurely and carefully. But no: there it was clearly and roundly affirmed, as clearly and roundly as words could affirm it, that a Council not yet in existence had displayed to the world a breaking up of Catholic unity of so stupendous a character that, compared with it, the variations of Protestantism through all its hundred sects shrank into insignificance! We then asked ourselves, Is it possible that this writer expects that even one intelligent Englishman will believe such a statement as this? But we had not long to wait for an answer from ourselves to ourselves. We had been too often and for too many years witnesses to the unbounded gullibility of the great mass of English Protestants in whatever tells against the claims of the Catholic religion. We had too often seen with what capacious, with what perfectly shark-like, voracity that mass swallowed down any kind of antipapal garbage flung to it. Did the writer expect? He knew, as surely as he held the pen in his hand, that thousands and tens of thousands of his countrymen would receive his monstrous lie without hesitation, and believe it more firmly than they believed the Apostles' Creed.

And what, our readers may well ask, are the evidences of this astounding fact? Who are the authors of this tremendous schism? The evidences are the diversities of opinion among Catholics as to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility; whether it be revealed, or, supposing it to be revealed, whether it would be expedient to define it as such. Diversities of opinion, as to the doctrine itself, which had notoriously existed, to some extent since the Council of Constance, but especially since near the end of the seventeenth century-the overwhelming majority of theologians, nay, the all but unanimous consensus of theologians of mark outside France, being on the side that is now affirmed definitively and for ever. If diversities of opinion on the doctrine, a few months before its solemn definition, were evidences of a disruption of unity, they were just as much evidences of that disruption a hundred and ninety years ago, when the Gallican Assembly issued its famous four articles.

* The following sentence from a work of the celebrated Gerson will be interesting to many of our readers. We take it from a small but excellent volume by the Archbishop of Edessa, published in Rome in 1870 :-" Ante celebrationem Sacrosanctæ hujus Constantiensis Synodi, sic occupaverat mentes plurimorum litteratorum quam illiteratorum ista traditio [de infallibilitate R. Pontificis], ut oppositorum dogmatizator fuisset de hæretica pravitate vel notatus vel damnatus." On Gerson's bitterly hostile spirit against the Holy See, vide Beaix, de Parocho, pars 1, s. 1, c. 6, § 4.

VOL. XX.—NO. XXXIX. [New Series.]

M

They were just as much evidences for full one hundred years after the appearance of those articles. Nay, they were, during all that period and for many years after, much stronger evidences: inasmuch as, during all that period and for many years after, Gallicanism completely dominated through all France; whereas, for several years previous to the Vatican Council, it appeared to be completely extinct in France, and in reality was almost extinct. Yet this writer has the incredible hardihood to affirm that "the Council of the Vatican has revealed to the public gaze for the first time, &c. For once the distractions and variations of Protestantism, &c."

And who are the agents and primary witnesses, to whom the highest and most effective position is given in the thin ranks of the upheaving and disuniting opposition? An apostate friar, named Hyacinthe, and a German writer, we believe, a trio of German writers, who have published a catena of "inexorable logic and unanswered history," under the pseudonym of Janus. Of the logic, after assuring our readers that it is thoroughly of the Protestant stamp, we need say nothing more here. But the unanswered history has been answered* in such a style, that, if a Catholic historian had been convicted of one tenth of the falsehoods of which they have been proven guilty, his name would be uttered among us only as a byword of shame and reproach. The writer concludes this section of his essay with the following sentence, one of the most astoundingly audacious utterances we ever met with in prose or rhyme: "The unity of the Roman Church, whatever may be the result of the deliberations commenced this day, is now declared by Roman Catholics themselves to be at an end." What Roman Catholics? Are Hyacinthe and Janus Roman Catholics?

* By Father Keogh, of the Oratory, in his "Few Specimens of Scientific History from Janus," 1870; and by Dr. Hergenrother, in his "Anti-Janus," 1870. Professor Robertson has translated the latter work into English, and has prefixed to his translation a most valuable and interesting historical dissertation on Gallicanism. See also the articles in this Journal for January and April, 1870.

It is a curious fact that, in an article in the "Edinburgh Review" for July, 1871, on the Vatican Council, the main statements of the "Times'" Essay are reproduced, sometimes in the very same words. Thus, in page 134 of the "Review" we have the following, the intermediate sentence, here omitted, being the same in both :-" In the record of facts which no one doubts, the story of the Vatican Council has revealed to the public gaze the internal divisions which rend asunder the unity of the Roman Catholic Church from its summit to its base. . . . For once the distractions and variations of Protestantism shrank into insignificance before the wider chasms which yawned between the contending sections of Roman Catholic Christendom." What an unlimited faith these purveyors must have in the unlimited voracity of their shark!

Was Luther a Roman Catholic, when he wrote his "Babylonian Captivity"; or Calvin, when he wrote his "Institutes "; or La Mennais, when he wrote his "Affaires de Rome"? But enough of this for the present. We now proceed to a brief review of the Council in its real and actual constitution and working.

Of the eighteen General Councils* which preceded that of the Vatican, the four first have been always admitted by the High Church party,† by many of that party the six first, as of unquestionable authority. Now there are two characteristics of the Vatican Council which mark it out in a very striking manner from these four, and indeed from all that succeeded them, not even excepting the greatest of them all, the Council of Trent. The first is in its ecumenicity; the second is in the work it has actually done, to say nothing of that which it had proposed to do, and which, with God's blessing in God's good time, it will do.

A Council, as we shall see by and by, may be really general for all practical purposes, and yet not perfectly so. To constitute a Council perfectly and in every way general, there are certain conditions necessary, on which all Catholic theologians are agreed. These conditions are arranged under three heads-the summoning or convocation of the Council (convocatio); the constitution of the Council actually assembled, and its mode of proceeding in forming the decrees, whether of faith or discipline (celebratio); the final issue of the Council, in which it receives its supreme binding force (exitus).

Under the first head, the Council must be ecumenical in him who calls it, and in those who are called to it. In other words, it must be convoked by the ecumenical pastor, or with his consent, express or implied; and all Bishops exercising ordinary episcopal jurisdiction, and such other ecclesiastical personages, as by right or privilege are entitled to sit in General Councils, should be invited to it. Of the ecumenicity of the Vatican Council in reference to this first head, no doubt can be raised.

Under the second head, the conditions are-1st, that the Council be presided over by the Pope in person, or by one or more representing him; 2nd, that the number of Bishops present should be such as fairly to represent the majority of the ecclesiastical provinces; 3rd, that the questions to be

* Some writers draw a distinction between General and Ecumenical; but the words are, in common use, perfectly synonymous.

"The four first General Councils are so entirely admitted by us, that they, together with the plain words of Scripture, are made the rule and measure of judging heresies amongst us."-Jeremy Taylor, "Dissuasive," c. i. s. i. For several other authorities (Calvin among them), see "Palmer ori the Church," p. 4, c. ix.

settled should be previously submitted to a deliberation suited to their gravity and difficulty; 4th, that the Council should be free, both in its deliberations and decisions.

On the first of these conditions, as verified in the Vatican Council, nothing need be said: on the second, not many words, but these of weighty import. At the first General Council, Nice (A.D. 325), there were present 318 Bishops, all Eastern, except the Papal Legates; at the second, Constantinople (A.D. 381), 150 Bishops, all Eastern; at the third, Ephesus (A.D. 431), upwards of 200 Bishops, all Eastern, except the Papal Legates; at the fourth, Chalcedon (A.D. 451), 630 Bishops, all Eastern, except the Papal Legates. At the definition of the first dogmatic constitution of the Vatican Council (session third), there were present 664 Bishops, who all voted for that constitution. At the definition of the second dogmatic constitution (session fourth), there were present 535 Bishops, who all voted for that constitution, with the exception of two, who, immediately after the Papal confirmation, publicly gave in their adhesion. With the sole exception of the second Lateran, none of the Councils after that of Chalcedon comprised as many Bishops as were at either of the above-named Vatican sessions; while the number present at these two sessions was, we believe, in proportion to the whole existing episcopate, much larger than at any of the preceding eighteen Couucils; as unquestionably the number of provinces represented was far more numerous and far more widely scattered over the face of the whole world.†

The length of time that elapsed, and the number of private sessions held, between the opening and suspension of the Council, are sufficient evidences of the amount of deliberation gone through previous to the solemn publication of each of the two dogmatic constitutions. But these deliberations were not free, and the votings at them and in the two public sessions were not free. This is the great charge, the main grievance, the head and front of all offence. In faint, foreboding wail, it is heard in Janus, who wrote several months before the opening

*This Council was not strictly and in all things general; but it has been always and by all reckoned among the General Councils, after its dogmatic definition, the Creed of Nice amplified, had been confirmed by the Pope.

+ It appears, from a synoptical table given in "the Vatican Council from its opening to its prorogation" ("Tablet" office, London), that about threefourths of the bishops of the whole Church were present; and that every country, where a Catholic episcopate exists, was represented, with the exception of two-Russia, in which there are twelve Catholic bishops (prevented from going by the stringent prohibition of the Imperial Bear), and Norway and Sweden. in which there is but one.

of the Council, before a single bishop had set out on his journey to Rome. The letters of Quirinus from Rome, commence immediately after the opening of the Council: the wail of Janus is taken up in the very first paragraph of the first letter, and soon sharpens into a scream, that goes on, with its dismal monotony, splitting our ears to the very last page. These scientific historians chose their ground well-for their own purpose. Pretending to be Catholics and writing under a Catholic mask (thus might they have communed among themselves), we cannot deny that the Council was legitimately assembled, summoned by the proper authority and in the proper way. This is too evident to all. Equally evident is the fact that the bishops have come in abundant force and from all quarters. To deny this fact or to throw even a doubt upon it, would be simply to ruin our cause by betraying our real design: so, to make a show of impartiality and the better to conceal that design, we may as well announce the fact at once, and say, "The synod is unquestionably the most numerous ever held; never in the early or Medieval Church have 767 persons entitled to vote by their episcopal rank been assembled. It is also the most various in its national representation. Men look with wonder at the number of missionary bishops from Asia, Africa, and Australia."* The private or semi-private meetings of bishops, loose conversations, flying reports of things said or done or contemplated to be said or done, these, as not being patent to the eyes of the public at large, furnish materials which may be worked to account. Here there is ample room for exaggeration and distortion of every kind, even for pure invention. But this latter weapon we must use cautiously, and only where the success of our line of attack demands it. The lie which carries farthest and tells surest is that which has an element of truth in it.

We have read Quirinus from cover to cover, upwards of 800 pages; and in doing so we carefully marked every passage in which the freedom of the Council was called in question. Sarcasms, sneers, words of bitter hatred and scorn are thickly strewn over those long, dreary pages: but not a single authentic fact is produced to show that any undue influence was used, that any influence whatever was used, the pressure of which

These are the words of Quirinus in his second letter, page 82. The paragraph which commences with these words ends with the following on the same page :-' "The more the new dogma is combated, the more necessary is the consensus of five quarters of the world-of Negroes, Malays, Chinese, and Hottentots, as well as Italians and Spaniards." Was there a single Negro, Malay, Chinese, or Hottentot among the Bishops of the Council? Not one. Is this a specimen of scientific history.

« السابقةمتابعة »