THE BATTLE IN ROME.
WE are charged on many sides with taking too favourable a view of the policy of the Papal party in Rome. If we 'have done so, it is only because the friends of the opposite party have written with what seems to us such unreasonable violence of all the designs and intentions of that party,—as if they were the mere outcome of worldly ambition and unscrupulous cun- ning,—that we have been driven by the mere effort to keep the balance even, into too partial a delineation of the Ultra- montane view. But this does seem to us absolutely clear, that the Roman Catholic faith, as held by all good Catholics for -centuries past, ascribes so very high an authority to Papal decisions on doctrine as to make the language used by such .writers as those of "Janus" sound to heretical ears far less in keeping with ordinary Roman Catholic sentiment, than the language used by the writers in the Tablet or Dublin Review. And if this be so it is surely utterly unfair even for the Protestant correspondents of Protestant papers to speak of 'those who are promoting the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as if they were a pack of designing intriguers or ignorant fools, who are either accomplices in a criminal plot or else its dupes. No doubt the difficulty to Protestants of understanding how anyone can ex animo believe in the -infallibility of the Pope is enormous, but then so is the diffi- culty of understanding how anyone can ex animo accept the sum -of Roman Catholic dogma, and realize the picture constantly presented before the heart and mind of a true Roman Catholic. We are not sure that the one is very much more difficult than the other. We are quite sure that many of those who both reject and accept the separate infallibility of the Pope are :profoundly sincere and enthusiastic in their view. And who are we, with our irreconcilable Articles and Prayer-Book, that we should say of the combatants in any Church controversy so far beyond the ordinary range of our sympathies as this at Rome,—' These are the true men, who are fighting for real 'convictions,—those are the false men, who are cunningly -cloaking all sorts of sacerdotal ambitions and political craft under the disguise of seeming piety and unctuous super- stitions ' ? For our parts, we believe Monseigneur Dupanloup .and Archbishop Manning, Pere Gratry and Dr. Ward to be, -as far as we know, equally sincere and earnest in their *Catholicism. But we should find it far more difficult to say the same of the authors of "Janus," who are, in all probability, very genuine believers in something or other which they call the Catholicism of the first few centuries,
• but are no more Roman Catholics in any sense which the 'existing body of Roman Catholic believers would for a moment admit, than Dr. Temple or the present writer.
Now, we maintain that the two very important documents which have been this week received from Rome absolutely 'confirm our view. One of them is the remonstrance of certain, chiefly German and Hungarian, Bishops against the ,despotic interpretation given to the second head of the Pope's Apostolic letter, laying down the order to be observed during -the session of the (Ecumenical Council,—and the other is the remonstrance against any discussion in the Council of the -question of the doctrinal Infallibility of the Holy See, at all.
Both these documents are said to have the authority of at least one Cardinal,—the former of Cardinal Schwarzenberg, who has certainly headed the signatures, the latter of Cardinal Rauscher. Both indicate the existence of a really substantial 'Opposition to the claims of the Papacy, but both confirm in their own way the only assertion we have ever ventured to
make in the matter, namely, that all orthodox Roman Bishops attribute so much doctrinal authority to the utterances
of the head of the Church, that a mere Protestant 'sees but little distinction, except in connection with anti-
quarian controversies, between the Infallibilist and the Anti- Infallibilist party. Take first the remonstrance against the despotic interpretation of the Pope's letter imposing the order of proceedings. The Pope had said, "Although the right to introduce the subjects which are to be discussed during this holy (Ecumenical Council, and to ask the opinions of the Fathers concerning them, belongs exclusively to Us and to this Apos- tolic See, we not only desire, but even urge, if any of the Fathers have any proposal to bring forward which, in their opinion, may tend to the public good, that they will do so freely." This language, seeming to make episcopal pro- posals not sanctioned by Rome a matter of favour, gave offence, as might be expected ; but what are the form and language of the remonstrance ? It does not impugn, but in the strongest way asserts the authority involved in the Primacy of the Pope. "It is the firm persuasion of all of us," it says, " that the strength of the whole body of the Church depends entirely on the strength and firmness of its head, and that it is necessary that the divine rights of the Primacy should be, above all things, secured and defended, in order that all may proceed in its right and proper course in the Council. But, &c." Of course this is more or less matter of form. Of course the object of the remonstrance is to extract from the Pope an ad- mission that the Bishops have rights in the Council entirely independent of his authority. But it is precisely on the devotion a.1 manner evidently essential to remonstrants, what- ever their real feeling may be, that we wish to insist. Would the words we have quoted, and the form of conclusion, "Pros- trate at the feet of your Holiness, we are your Holiness's most obedient Sons" (' Ad pedes Sanctitatis vestra3 prostrati, sumus Sanctitatis vestrae obedientissimi filii '), be conceivable from a body of remonstrant malcontents who did not recognize the Pope's authority as something at least ineffably sacred in the mind of the Church, whatever might be the dispute as to its exact limits ?
And the case of the second petition—against the discussion of the dogma of Infallibility—is still stronger. The prelates who sign it, instead of rejecting the Council of Florence as non-coeumenical with Dr. Dollinger, instead of counting the Pope's doctrinal authority as very little better than that of any other bishop with "Janus," quote the decree of the Council of Florence as an authority not for a moment to be questioned, and which may one day become of the first im- portance to the schismatic Greeks, and speak of the doctrinal authority of the Pope as of the highest conceivable order, though they call attention to the difficulties which stand in the way of proclaiming it infallible. "The times are gone by," say the petitioners, "when it has chanced for the laws of the Apostolic See to be called in question ('in dubium vocari') by Catholics. There is no one who is ignorant that as the body without the head is maimed (' mutilum '), so neither can a Council representing the whole Church be held without the successor of St. Peter ; and all obey the commands of the Holy See with the most ready mind (‘promptissimo animo')." This, again, is, no doubt, in some measure form. The sub- scribers do not conceal their opinion, not only that the pro- posed definition is inopportune, but that there are substantial difficulties to be overcome with regard to its accuracy,—though their language is carefully mild, and conformed to the view that these difficulties may not be insuperable. Still it is on the form we wish to insist. Let any impartial critic examine this document, and say whether the subscribers to it are
nearer to the view that the doctrinal authority of the Papacy is final, or the view that it is of but little more weight than
that of any other bishop, and has repeatedly and in all ages been given to unquestionable errors. He could not doubt for a moment that it is indefinitely nearer to the former view. In other words, even the boldest of the Opposition are so affected by the atmosphere of the Roman Church that they are far more near to Ultramontanism than to the views of "Janus," or even of Dollinger,—views which our Protestant correspondents habitually attribute to them. From this language, and from the vast preponderance of the numbers
of the Papal party, we still augur the victory of the friends of the Definition, even though its result should be as the Times is sanguine enough to hope, the utter break- up of the Roman Church ;—for national Roman Churches, branch Churches in short, would be just as much and just as
little Roman Catholic as our Anglican Church is now. But whether this be so or not, we are persuaded that we are right in maintaining that there is just as much earnest
Roman Catholic conviction (and a far greater body of it), on the Papal side, as on the Gallican side. Nor can we see the
slightest pretence for attributing all the moral integrity and logical force to the combatants on either side. If it be true, as the most carefully moderate view seems to confirm,—and the correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette attributes a much larger support to the dogma,—that about 500 bishops in all are fairly committed to the Ultramontane view, and about 150 to the Galilean, while of the remainder of the Council much the larger number of the remainder will ultimately vote for the former, it may be taken for granted that it will be carried by at least a majority of three to one. Nor can we easily conceive that the advocates of the dogma can finally draw back, now that the discussion has been formally raised, and doubt not only of the opportuneness, but of the truth of the dogma, expressed by many bishops. To draw back now would be for the Fathers virtually to achieve that difficult feat which Lord Castlereagh called " turning their backs upon themselves." An infallible Church,— and this all admit it to be, from the Bishop of Orleans to Cardinal Cullen,—can hardly refuse to exercise its infallible powers when disputes of such vast moment to believers are formally laid before it. If it shrinks from saying either " no " or "yes" to the momentous question which has been stirred, who will in future believe in its infallibility ?
But as we have said something once and again for the well- abused Ultramontane party in the (Ecumenical Council, let us express our hope that a statement telegraphed to Paris on Thursday,—to the effect that the Pope had refused Monseigneur Dupanloup permission to publish in Rome his reply to the Archbishop of Malines, and that the Bishop of Orleans had himself communicated this fact to a correspondent in Paris,—is false. If it is true, the Pope has been guilty of a very conspicuous moral injustice. Whether it could be regarded as an e.t. cathedra decision on a question of morals we do not know. But we do know that nothing could ever persuade us that such an act was the expression of even the ordinary share of moral discrimination. Here is a question as yet perfectly open, and on which every member of the (Ecumenical Council needs all the light he can get from any quarter whatever. Two of the most distinguished members of that Council have it in their power to contribute most important arguments to its consideration. One of those arguments has been laid publicly before the world. The reply is ready, but permission to lay it in like manner before the Council is said to be denied. It may be argued that the Bishop of Orleans is at perfect liberty to deliver his arguments in Congregation when the question comes up. Of course he is. But that will not afford him anything approaching to the advantage which Monseigneur Dechamps has already had. It is quite one thing to catch the drift of a long Latin argument, and quite another to study at your leisure a careful pamphlet. The prohibition, if it has been given, which we hope it has not, could only mean one thing,—an anticipation of the decision to be given by the Council, an assumption by the Pope of the theological and moral infallibility which has not been as yet attributed to him by the infallible Church. Nobody can say that is fair play. We are far from assuming that Pio Nono has done what is attributed to him. But if he has, he has proved his own moral fallibility, in order to get his moral infallibility decreed.
Previous page
