7 Rules To Reset Your Mind And Body For Greater

Wellbeing Hansaji J Yogendra download

https://ebookbell.com/product/7-rules-to-reset-your-mind-and-
body-for-greater-wellbeing-hansaji-j-yogendra-54728822

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Time And How To Spend It The 7 Rules For Richer Happier Days Wallman

https://ebookbell.com/product/time-and-how-to-spend-it-the-7-rules-
for-richer-happier-days-wallman-11916154

7 Money Rules For Life How To Take Control Of Your Financial Future
Pdfdrivecom Hunt

https://ebookbell.com/product/7-money-rules-for-life-how-to-take-
control-of-your-financial-future-pdfdrivecom-hunt-34721036

A Week To Change Your Life Harness The Power Of Your Birthday And The
7day Cycle That Rules Your Health Olivia Audrey

https://ebookbell.com/product/a-week-to-change-your-life-harness-the-
power-of-your-birthday-and-the-7day-cycle-that-rules-your-health-
olivia-audrey-46413566

A Week To Change Your Life Harness The Power Of Your Birthday And The
7day Cycle That Rules Your Health Olivia Audrey

https://ebookbell.com/product/a-week-to-change-your-life-harness-the-
power-of-your-birthday-and-the-7day-cycle-that-rules-your-health-
olivia-audrey-38475104
Dark Rulers 7 Jailer To The Death God Rebecca F Kenney

https://ebookbell.com/product/dark-rulers-7-jailer-to-the-death-god-
rebecca-f-kenney-230418788

Monopolies Suck 7 Ways Big Corporations Rule Your Life And How To Take
Back Control Sally Hubbard

https://ebookbell.com/product/monopolies-suck-7-ways-big-corporations-
rule-your-life-and-how-to-take-back-control-sally-hubbard-12206626

7 Rules Of Building Muscle Joe Warner

https://ebookbell.com/product/7-rules-of-building-muscle-joe-
warner-5135150

7 Rules For Positive Productive Change Micro Shifts Macro Results

Esther Derby

https://ebookbell.com/product/7-rules-for-positive-productive-change-
micro-shifts-macro-results-esther-derby-46890334

7 Rules Of Power Jeffrey Pfeffer

https://ebookbell.com/product/7-rules-of-power-jeffrey-
pfeffer-43838020
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
put forth were unheard of. In language already cited he described
the incredible change of the clergy after 1850, and their present
shortsighted prostration before the idol they had set up. He showed
that in his speech of 1847 there was not a word of the doctrine of
Papal infallibility. He might have indicated also the still more
celebrated speech on the restoration of Pius IX. He quoted that
remarkable letter of Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, in which he depicted
the difference between the old Ultramontanism and the new.
Montalembert then declared that his whole regret was that illness
prevented him from descending into the arena to join Dupanloup
and Gratry, to contend on his own ground, that of history and of
social consequences. "Then should I merit—and it is my sole
remaining ambition—a share in the litanies of insult daily launched
against my illustrious friends by a portion, too numerous, of the
clergy—that poor clergy which is preparing for itself so sad a destiny,
and which formerly I loved, defended, and honoured, as no one in
modern France had done." The Unitá cried, "Better for Montalembert
had he died a year ago; better indeed had he never been born."[346]
While these words were ringing in the ears of all, came a telegram
announcing that Montalembert was no more. That evening the Pope
had one of those audiences in which he delights; a kind of public
meeting, with three hundred persons present. Of course every one
expected that the little member which in the days of Pius IX has
done much to make the Pope an entertainment for Italians, would
not be able to keep off the exciting topic. "A Catholic has just died,"
said his Holiness, "who rendered services to the Church. He wrote a
letter which I have read. I know not what he said at the moment of
death; but I know one thing—that man had a great enemy, pride. He
was a Liberal Catholic—that is to say, a half-Catholic.... Yes, Liberal
Catholics are half-Catholics."[347]
About the time when the Pope was thus speaking of him whose
eloquence had been worth regiments to him, Father Combalot was
crying from the pulpit of Notre Dame Della Valle—
 "Satan has entered into Judas! There are men who were
Christians, and who on the brink of the grave become enemies
of the Pope, and speak of torrents of adulation, and accuse us
of erecting him into an idol. To speak so is Satanic work. There
are three academicians who do it" [Montalembert, Gratry, and
Dupanloup].[348]

Archbishop De Mérode, brother-in-law of Montalembert, and almoner

to the Pope, arranged that a High Mass should be celebrated in the
Aracœli on the height of the Capitoline, that is, the church of the
Roman municipality, in which Montalembert was entitled to the
honour of such a solemnity because of the dignity of Roman citizen
which had been conferred upon him for his distinguished services to
the Church. On the 16th a notice was circulated, announcing the
intended Mass, in publishing which the Univers stated that it was
known that there would be no oration—a record which spoiled
subsequent fables. Late that evening, in the great church of the
French, a preacher dwelt upon the memory of Montalembert,
inviting the audience to the solemn service at the Capitoline the next
morning. At the same time the rooms of Archbishop Darboy were
crowded. French prelates related what remarks they had written on
the proposal for infallibility. Each one beheld in his own a great and
heroic act. Landriot, Archbishop of Rheims, had employed a
quotation from Bessarion against the curial system, and expected to
be called Jansenist, Gallican, Febronian, and such like. Friedrich, we
suspect, was making prelates understand that if once they allowed
themselves to recommence deliberation under the new Rules, all
hope of successful opposition would be idle, and hinting his belief
that under such Rules the Council had no proper œcumenicity.
Suddenly news came from Mérode. Something was wrong. It proved
that the High Mass for Montalembert had been forbidden by the
Pontiff. What! the departed spirit of the foremost Frenchman in the
chivalry of the Church to be insulted on the Capitoline by the Pope in
person! Among all those Frenchmen, many were old enough to
remember the most brilliant of Montalembert's sallies, and all were
old enough to have witnessed the public disgust when a Court
chamberlain turned him out at the election of 1857, half of the
clergy voting against him, and the other half staying at home. But
this beat all. A Cardinal present could not restrain the confession,
"Now I am well ashamed of being a Roman Cardinal."[349]
The announcement was too late to reach all, and when the hour for
the service came, some twenty bishops and many French notables
assembled. Father Beckx, the General of the Jesuits, had come from
the neighbouring Gesù, thinking, doubtless, of the splendid services
to the Order which had been rendered by the confiding genius of the
man for whose soul he was now to pray. Even Louis Veuillot came,
trying to forget the irritations of recent years, perhaps hoping in part
to make reparation for ingratitude and insolence, and unable now to
see the opponent, seeing only as in old days the "son of the
Crusaders," facing, provoking, and dominating a hostile Parliament,
with his head back and his blue eye flashing, till at some turning-
point in his theme the fountains of a great deep broke up, the deep
of his mighty emotions, and then gushed out a flood which carried
all before it. When they reached the steps of the Aracœli, an official,
who was one of the subordinates of Mérode, cried out in a French
phrase which he had learned on purpose, that they must go away,
that the Mass was forbidden. It is evident that they were all
overcome with mortification, not to use stronger language. Even M.
Veuillot pushed by and said, "It can do no harm to repeat some
paternosters for him."[350]
Quirinus says that probably it was De Banneville who represented to
the Pope the serious effects that would be produced in France by
this proceeding. So, on the evening of the 17th, instead of arranging
for the acclamation of infallibility, the Pope was making the small
amends of sending a private message to have a Mass celebrated, on
the following morning, on behalf of a certain deceased Charles, in
the Church of Santa Maria Traspontina. No public notice whatever
was given of this service. The bishops were all shut up in a General
Congregation. The Pope went privately, without any suite, sat hidden
in a latticed "tribune," and then had it announced to the world that
he had personally attended a Mass on behalf of Montalembert.
When the exceedingly painful feeling he had caused began to
appear, an attempt was made to turn the occasion to account by
throwing the blame on Dupanloup. It was declared that it had been
announced that he would deliver an oration, and indeed that the
proposed function had been got up by him as a party demonstration.
This gave Dupanloup the opportunity of writing[351]:—

This is an outrage at once upon the Holy Father, Monsignor De

Mérode, the bishops, and myself. This entire tale, Sir, is false
from the first word to the last. I did not appoint the service. I
was not to officiate. I have had nothing whatever to do in
distributing cards of invitation. Whatever may have been my
profound and inviolable affection for M. De Montalembert, it
belonged to the members of his family present in Rome,
Monsignor De Mérode and the Count De Mérode, and not to me,
to arrange the details of this religious ceremony. It is within my
knowledge that in doing so they conformed to all the laws and
formalities usual in Rome in similar cases.

The last statement was made to upset one of the excuses, that
proper leave had not been asked for the service. So those false
stories, at least, were stayed.
As the news spread in succession from place to place, the
imaginations of Liberal Catholics all over Europe would restlessly
wander up and down the Capitoline, seeing on that historical slope
the signal given for their eternal disgrace in the Holy City. It was
given too by an arrow shot from the Pontiff's own bow, and aimed at
the shade of Montalembert. We do not profess to know what injury
the imagination of such men might picture as having been done to
the spirit that was gone, but those Christians who believe in a God
who, not even in this world, much less in the great hereafter, trusts
any child of man, though the least of all the little ones, to a Vicar—
those who believe in a sacrifice which no man can repeat, prohibit,
or buy, when they heard what had occurred, saw the spirit pass into
the true temple, and outfly all the arrows of death. Oh, how benign
is that light of immortality which shows us the spirits of the departed
resting in the hands of their Father, altogether above dependence on
the malice or the compassion, on the liberality or the avarice, on the
devotion or the unbelief of living men; and which, with the same
blessed beam, shows us the living protected from all possible malice,
raised into independence of all possible goodwill of the dead, by a
near and solicitous paternal Watcher. All the traffic of the markets of
Purgatory, a traffic as low and demoralizing as any traffic can be,
scarcely exposes the system which has sprung up around that
invention so much as one broil like that which the traffickers raised
around the soul of Montalembert—no, not around his soul, that was
beyond their reach, only around his memory.

FOOTNOTES:
[338] Unitá Cattolica, March 10.
[339] Friedberg, p. 491.
[340] Tagebuch, p. 221.
[341] Tagebuch, p. 230.
[342] Ibid., p. 231.
[343] Menzel, Jesuitenumtriebe, p. 297.
[344] The following passage in the speech made to the Pope by
Ledochowski on his elevation to the purple, is taken from the
Emancipatore Cattolico, April 22, 1876:—"And as the persecution
was most bitter in that part of Poland which is now under
Prussian occupation ... the honour of this sacred purple falls like a
celestial dew upon my oppressed and agonised country, and
seems silently to say to her, that if forgotten and abandoned of
the world, she is still loved and blessed by God, of whom your
Holiness is the Vicar." The very next paragraph in the same paper
is headed, The Heresy of Love of Country.
[345] Tagebuch, p. 236.
[346] March 11.
 [347] This is the version quoted from the Moniteur Universel in
Ce Qui se Passe au Concile, p. 154. M. Veuillot acknowledged that
the "hard word" was in the speech, and the above version has
not been denied.
[348] Ce Qui se Passe au Concile, p. 155, quoting Gazette de
France, March 20. In the Univers of April 4, quoted on the same
page, Combalot acknowledged the words, and said that he was
preaching at the time "by the grace and the mission of the
infallible Pontiff."
[349] Tagebuch, p. 259.
[350] This trait of kindly feeling is given by Friedrich.
[351] The fullest account of the whole transaction is that in Ce
Qui se Passe au Concile. But Friedrich, Quirinus, Veuillot, and
Fromman have all been consulted, and show that the main
particulars admit of no doubt. Dupanloup's letter is both in Ce Qui
se Passe au Concile, and in German, in Friedberg, p. 110.

CHAPTER II
Threat of American Prelates—Acclamation again fails—New
Protest—Decrees on Dogma—Ingenious connexion of
Creation with the Curia—Serious Allegations of Unfair and
Irregular Proceedings of the Officials—Fears at the Opening
of the New Session—The Three Devotions of Rome—More
Hatred of Constitutions—Noisy Sitting; Strossmayer put
down—The Pope's Comments—He compares the Opposition
to Pilate and to the Freemasons—He is reconciled to
Mérode—The Idea of Charlemagne—Secret Change of a
Formula before the Vote.

"THAT took effect," wrote Quirinus, for once, in noting a step of

members of the minority. The step so spoken of was a simple one.
Four American prelates sent in a declaration that if any attempt was
made to carry infallibility by acclamation, as had been suggested,
they would leave the Council, go home, and publish their reasons for
so doing.
Whether this proceeding alone, or this together with other
indications, influenced the majority, certain it is that when the
General Congregations were resumed, on March 18, there was no
acclamation. St. Joseph did not avail more for his day than the
Immaculate had done for hers. All that we hear of any attempt to
provoke an acclamation is the statement of Vitelleschi that one
prelate tried to get infallibility carried "by chance," but received
countenance only from very few. The minority gave in their protest
against the new Rules to the Presiding Cardinals. We need not say
that neither then nor at any later time did they receive an answer.
The business now placed before the Fathers was the Draft of
Decrees on Dogma as revised. The eighteen chapters had, under the
hands of the committee, the sub-committee, and Kleutgen, shrunk
to four. Even as they now stood, the chapters had to undergo
considerable alteration before taking the shape in which they appear
upon the Acta. As they stand there, they are not at first sight
capable of interesting the theologian for their theology, or the
politician for their bearing on politics. At the time, they led many to
wonder why grave men should have spent years in formulating
rudimentary principles, and that not very successfully. The alleged
reason was that everything being wrong in the ideas of the age, the
Church must commence by asserting the existence of a God, and the
fact that He had created the world. An attempt was made to throw
some dignity about this proceeding by quoting a prophecy of some
saint, to the effect that an age would come when a General Council
would have to do this. On the other hand, as Vitelleschi shows,
Roman wit said that really, after sitting four months and a half, the
Vatican Council would vote almost unanimously that God created the
world. Friedrich, however, saw that the Curial system was insinuated
in these Decrees, but it took a theologian to discern it, and one who
was not a mere theologian. Yet when it was pointed out there could
be no doubt of the fact. The simple headings, "God, the Creator of
the World," "Revelation," "Faith," and "Faith and Reason," would to
Protestant eyes seem very unlikely to cover any such purpose.
Nevertheless, they are made to serve the purpose of laying a
foundation for the dominion of the Church, over all science and
knowledge, for the dominion of the Pope, ay, even that of the
Roman Congregations, over the Church, and for the lifting of men
out of civil control into the higher sphere of Christian liberty, or, as
the world would call it, for placing them under the dominion of
ecclesiastical law. The process by which this is done is simple, and
had been clearly indicated in the officious expositions of those
judgments of the Syllabus which condemned "naturalism." First,
God, as a personal Being, exists, has created the world, and rules it.
Secondly, He gives a revelation by which man is raised above natural
knowledge and perfection to a higher knowledge and perfection.
Thirdly, this revelation is a deposit committed to the Church, which
holds in charge the Word of God, written and traditional; and all
things are to be believed which she propounds as divinely revealed,
whether they are propounded by solemn judgment, or by the
ordinary teaching authority. Hence, naturally, all science must be
held subject to this faith, and therefore subject to this Church; and
all things condemned in the Decrees of the Holy See are to be held
as anathema, even though not specified in the present Decrees.
The four chapters containing these principles would not fix the
attention of any student if he took them up in a village of the
Campagna or of Connaught as the work of the priest of the parish.
He would be tempted to doubt whether the worthy man who faced
Atheism and Pantheism with these weapons had ever really met with
them face to face in either their ancient or modern forms. He might
even be tempted to think that the intellectual life of the author had
been passed within walls, and that so far as concerns the books and
the minds which really sway contemporary thought in either of the
directions indicated, he had scarcely ever felt their grip. But when
we look at this document as the work of a great society, on the
preparation of which had been employed the leisure of years by a
few, and then the united counsels of a large yet elect number, it
certainly does not exalt our idea of human gifts. But it is not well to
let the critical contempt which German scholars especially have
displayed for the Drafts while under discussion, and for the Decrees
when ultimately framed, blind us to the practical success of this late
but adroit creed. For the purpose of laying a colourable theological
basis under a municipal arrangement for governing mind and
knowledge, belief and morals, laws and institutions all over the
world, by a college of Augurs called Christian priests, it was not a
mere superfluity of the professors, as many seemed to think.
Sambin, Guérin, and other writers, not to mention prelates in
abundance, struck a note, which is now taken up in colleges,
seminaries, and schools. These compact chapters, being once
exalted to the level of the Word of God, formed a short and easy
method for connecting the Creator and the creation of the world
with the last edict of the Vatican.
One of the startling statements in the secret memorandum, La
Liberté du Concile, touches this Decree. A conclusion to it was
proposed which to many appeared to include infallibility. This was
strongly opposed. The committee withdrew it, saying that it would
be reserved to the end of the final chapter on Faith. This step was
applauded. The next day, or the next but one, however, the reporter
announced that the vote upon it would be taken then and there.
Eighty-three, in voting, demanded modifications; which, according to
the Rules, compelled a consideration by the committee of the
amendments they proposed. The committee finally resolved, with
one dissentient, to substitute a new wording which would satisfy all.
But when the moment came to vote, before the reporter mounted
the pulpit, a communication was put into his hands. This attracted
the attention of the Fathers. He mounted the pulpit, but did not
report what the committee had adopted! He did report what it had
set aside! The vote was instantly called for—no one could speak, the
Rules did not allow it. The majority did its duty; and the wording,
surreptitiously reported, was made "of Faith."[352]
Strong and circumstantial confirmation of this incredible statement is
given in Kenrick's unspoken speech.[353] Incidentally he says, "The
reporter, while we wondered what was the matter, suddenly
recommended this conclusion, which had been first submitted and
then withdrawn." This he says only on his way to tell Archbishop
Manning that if the sense put by him upon this famous conclusion
was the true one, the reporter was either himself deceived or had,
knowingly, deceived the bishops. Deceiver or deceived, his
declaration had won many votes. To get the clause passed, the
reporter said it taught no doctrine, and was only a conclusion to
round off the chapters. But when once passed, Manning cited it as
concluding the question of infallibility, and making it improper for the
bishops to discuss that question any longer.[354] Kenrick confesses
that at the time he feared a trap. The writer of La Liberté du Concile
declares that if the liberty of the Council was doubtful, this incident
proved the liberty of the committees to be more doubtful still.
The sitting was opened with evident anxiety on both sides. The
minority feared the threatened attempt at acclamation; the majority
feared that the minority would formally refuse to enter on
deliberation under the new Rules. When, however, instead of action,
the paper protest was given in, and the reporter for the committee,
Simor, Primate of Hungary, had mounted the pulpit, and things had
resumed their course, the majority were evidently relieved. They
knew that the minority had now committed themselves to the new
Rules; and that, however they might recalcitrate hereafter, they
would no more be able to shake off the meshes of the net than they
had been in the past to shake off those of the old Rules. Five
speakers had inscribed their names. They were supporters of the
committee. It proved that the acoustics of the Hall had really been
improved by a boarded partition which had been substituted for the
curtain. When three had spoken the bell of the President rang, and
the speaker then in possession was stopped. The Pope was
descending to view the sacred relics, and the Fathers had to break
up to form a procession in his train. Not one of them had been called
to swell that train in the morning when he went, not to see and to
be seen, but to the mass for "a certain Charles." At the close of this
anxious sitting Bishop Pie congratulated Cardinal Bilio, "It has gone
off well." So it had; the minority were now fairly enclosed in the net.
M. Veuillot cries, "There are three great devotions in Rome: the Holy
Sacrament, the Holy Virgin, and the Pope. Rome is the city of the
Real Presence, and the city of the Mother of God, and the city of the
Vicar of Jesus Christ."[355] That saying sheds a clear light on the
effect of materializing and localizing the idea of the divine presence
by such notions as that of transubstantiation. The show of
constitutional reforms just then being made in Paris by Napoleon III,
contrasting as it did with what was being done in Rome, naturally
disgusted M. Veuillot. He said that the title of Emperor now seemed
grotesque. It was sad to witness the crown turned into a curiosity of
the museum, or an accessory of the theatre. This was his idea of a
constitutional crown. He consoled himself, however, by the thought
that the tiara remained to us. Happily it was more solid than the
crown. Pius IX., he said, would bequeath it to his successor more
brilliant and more indestructible. Scandal of the world! kingdoms
everywhere and no kings! Here is a king, but no kingdom! Let
Liberals come to the Vatican and attempt to take liberties with the
constitution. Let even universal suffrage attempt it; let it try to make
any change here in which the guardian of the constitution does not
concur.[356]
The noisy sitting of March 22 has had its echoes all over the world.
The contradictions given by inspired writers to the uninspired ones
appear to be even less definite than usual. We may content
ourselves with giving that of Cardinal Manning as the sum of them
all:—

Having from my earliest remembrance been a witness of public

assemblies of all kinds, and especially of those among
ourselves, which for gravity and dignity are supposed to exceed
all others, I am able and bound to say that I have never seen
such calmness, self-respect, mutual forbearance, courtesy, and
self-control, as in the eighty-nine sessions of the Vatican
 Council. In a period of nine months the Cardinal President was
compelled to recall the speakers to order perhaps twelve or
fourteen times. In any other assembly they would have been
inexorably recalled to the question sevenfold oftener and
sooner. Nothing could exceed the consideration and respect with
which this duty was discharged. Occasionally murmurs of
dissent were audible; now and then a comment may have been
made aloud. In a very few instances, and those happily of an
exceptional kind, expressions of strong disapproval and of
exhausted patience at length escaped. But the descriptions of
violence, outcries, menace, denunciation, and even of personal
collisions, with which certain newspapers deceived the world, I
can affirm to be calumnious falsehoods, fabricated to bring the
Council into odium and contempt.[357]

La Liberté du Concile confirms that portion of this statement which

says that the speakers were often allowed to deliver irrelevant
matter, when, in other assemblies, they would have been called back
to the question. It says that no bishop of the majority could be
named who was ever interrupted, although some of them strayed
from the question so far that, in the first stages of the proceedings,
they rushed into the question of infallibility.[358]
The first speaker in the celebrated sitting of March 22, was
Schwarzenberg. He was not favourable to the Curia, their
proceedings, or their plans. He had not felt an impression in the
Congregations as if a Council was being held. At last the terrible bell
was heard. It was faint, but it was certainly sounding. What! a
Cardinal rung down?—and Schwarzenberg, with his princely rank, his
historical name, his age, and his majestic presence! Even among the
Cardinals, it is said, there was a slight murmur—a greater one
among the bishops. But Schwarzenberg himself heard bravos for the
President.[359] But the stately old man held his own.[360] After two
other prelates had succeeded to the precarious honour in which the
Prince Cardinal had been challenged, Strossmayer mounted the
pulpit.
He attacked the statement contained in the Draft Decrees, that
Protestantism was the source of the several forms of unbelief
specified in that Draft. Strossmayer showed that the worst
revolutions and the worst outbursts of infidelity had not been in
Protestant countries, and that Catholics had not produced better
refutations of atheism, pantheism, and materialism than had
Protestants, while all were indebted to such men as Leibnitz and
Guizot. The Senior President, Cardinal De Angelis, cried, "This is not
a place to praise the Protestants"; and having got so far in Latin, he
declined into some other tongue.[361] No, says Quirinus, it was not
the place, being within some few hundred paces of the Inquisition.
The excitement had now become great. Strossmayer proceeded,
amid partial clapping of hands and general murmurs of disapproval,
to demand how they meant to apply the principles embodied in the
new Rules, of making a dogma by a majority. When he cried "That
alone can be imposed on the faithful which has in its favour a moral
unanimity of bishops," up rose Cardinal Capalti, rang the bell, and, in
a voice anything but courteous, as Vitelleschi says, ordered the
speaker to stop. Strossmayer replied that he was tired of being
called to order, and of being thwarted at every point; that such
proceedings were incompatible with freedom of debate, and that he
protested.[362] Then burst out an uproar that alarmed all who were
outside in the church. Strossmayer stood, lifted up his hands, and
thrice cried solemnly, "I protest! I protest! I protest!" Some one
shouted, "You protest against us, and we protest against you." As
the Archbishops of Rheims afterwards related, one of the majority
stood up and shouted to Strossmayer, "We all condemn thee!"
Bishop Place, of Marseilles, cried, "I do not condemn thee." Some
one called Strossmayer a cursed heretic. Some shook their fists,
some crowded round the pulpit, some cried "Pius IX. for ever!" some
cried, "The Cardinal Legates for ever!" and others, as Vitelleschi
adds, made noises equally serious and serene. La Liberté du Concile
speaks of the unheard of violence, of the cries which rang through
the basilica outside, and of the menaces of a large number who
rushed to the tribunal and surrounded it.[363] Friedrich speaks of
clenched fists, and of fears lest the prelates should tear one
another's hair.
The people in the church interpreted the commotion each man
according to his own mind. Some—and that wild interpretation is laid
to the door of the English—thought the Garibaldians had attacked
the Fathers; some, that the long looked for dogma had at last
sprung, full armed, out of the head of the assembly, and that all the
uproar was caused by alarm at the portent. These raised cries of
"Long live the Infallible Pope!" The crowd pressed round the door of
the Hall, and there was danger of a tumult in the church. The
servants of the bishops tried to enter the Council Chamber, fearing
that their masters were being harmed in the disturbance. But the
gendarme, whom Vitelleschi calls the most effective instrument of
every sort of infallibility, cleared off the throng, resisted only by the
servants, who clung to the door in the hope of rescuing their
masters.
An American bishop said, with some patriotic pride, "Now I know of
an assembly rougher than our own Congress."[364] Archbishop
Landriot, of Rheims, said he was quite in despair.[365] Even Ketteler
said, "It is too bad, the way they handle us here. I do not know how
we shall go back to our dioceses and exist there."[366]
Namszanowski, the Prussian military bishop, said to Friedrich that he
had told an Italian prelate, "Things are more respectably done with
us in a meeting of shoemakers, than here in the Council." Going on
to express his impression that the only hope for the Church was in
the fall of the temporal power, and the assumption of control over
patronage and Church affairs by a temporal government, which
would get rid of the excessive number of clergy, he continued, "The
most humiliating thing for us German bishops is, that here we are
forced to learn that it is the Freemason and Liberal papers that are
correct, and that our Catholic ones, if we must call them Catholic,
lie, lie."
The Pontiff soon made his voice heard as to the scene of this loud
resounding Tuesday. On the following Friday he had the missionary
bishops, numbering a hundred, assembled in the Sala Regia. There
the pictures of St. Bartholomew, of Barbarossa, and of the League
against the Turks, had time to suggest hopes of future triumph
before the Pontiff made his appearance. No sooner had he done so,
than all fell on their knees. He had gathered them for a practical
purpose. The Dorcases of the Church had been making, not coats
and aprons for the widows, but raiment rich and rare for the
prelates, and costly attire for altars and images. It was to distribute
these goodly garments that his Holiness had now convoked them,
but, of course, the great thing was the speech. Pointing clearly to
the Opposition, he said, "We are surrounded by great difficulties, for
some, like Pilate when terrified by the Jews, are afraid to do right.
They fear the revolution. Though knowing the truth, they sacrifice all
to Cæsar, even the rights of the Holy See, and their attachment to
the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Wretches! what a fault they commit! The
warfare of bishops," he went on to say, "is to defend the truth with
the Vicar of Christ. My children, do not forsake me. Attach
yourselves to me. Be with me. Unite yourselves to the Vicar of Jesus
Christ."
We follow the version of M. Veuillot (vol. i. p. 372). Vitelleschi
reports one of the Pope's expressions as "Be united to me, and not
with the revolution" (p. 129), and asks, Who could have imagined
that the good bishops who had been all their lives fighting the
revolution should now be accused of revolution? He adds, "Rulers
who endeavour to degrade Strossmayer to the level of a Rochefort,
not unfrequently reverse the intended result, and raise a Rochefort
to the height of a Strossmayer" (p. 130).
"And you, my dear Orientals," said the Pope, "I have ornaments also
for you, but not enough of them. I give you what I have." Then he
tried to calm their fears, excited by recent collisions. He concluded
by the supreme disclosure, "We have in the Council the organs of
the Liberal party, whose word of command is to gain time by
opposing everything, and to wear out the patience of the majority."
The allusion of the Pope was understood. Bitter, indeed, was it for
the bishops of the minority to find themselves thus stigmatized
before all men by the sovereign. But the effect was practical. The
day following, ten Orientals announced their adhesion to the
denunciation of Gratry by the Archbishop of Strasburg. Presently,
forty-three missionary bishops published their concurrence in the
profound discovery of Bonjean, of Ceylon, that the dogma of
infallibility would conduce to the conversion of Buddhists, Brahmans,
Protestants, and other difficult religionists of the East.[367]
As the Pope went to St. Cross of Jerusalem for the Agnus Dei, M.
Veuillot heard cries of "The Infallible Pope for ever!" and said that
this was a reply to the objections raised about the heresy of Pope
Honorius. Hefele had unpleasantly brought this heresy into notice in
a Latin pamphlet, which he had been obliged to print at Naples. Of
inopportune things, few had been more inopportune of late than the
appearance in Paris of a new edition of the Liber Diurnus, by
Rozière. This ancient monument, with its simple formula? and
infallible evidence, enabled every one to lay his finger on the fact
that for centuries Popes had on oath abjured the heresy of Pope
Honorius. But M. Veuillot heard an answer to all this in the cries of
"The Infallible Pope for ever!"
But of all that the Pope passed on his route to Holy Cross, that
which most excited the imagination of M. Veuillot was the Holy Stair
and the triclinium, where Charlemagne received the sword kneeling.
Charlemagne, he says, ruled only long enough to indicate the place
and form which he wished to give to his throne; but now, after a
thousand years, his conception is one of the victorious apparitions.

When the world merits to re-enter on the path of unity, God will
raise up a man, or a people, which will be Charlemagne. This
Charlemagne, man or nation, will be seen here, at the Lateran,
kneeling before the Pope, returned from dungeons or from
exile; and the Pope will take the sceptre of the world off the
altar, and put it into his hands.[368]

M. Veuillot knows better than he here seems to know.

Charlemagne's conception was that of Constantine over again—a
State Church; and over a State Church Charlemagne reigned. The
conception of Hildebrand, now to be acted out, was that of a Church
State, for which any Charlemagne might conquer, but over which no
second head should reign. Unity, as M. Veuillot well knew, was now
to comprehend not only one fold, but also one shepherd. No more
dualism! no more two-headed monsters! We had come to the
dispensation of the spiritual David, Shepherd and King in one. It is,
however, clear that the vision revealed to M. Veuillot, as in 1867, still
disclosed a struggle to come before the victory; for his Pope, on
taking his place as disposing of the sceptre of the world, comes back
from dungeons or from exile. Moreover, Veuillot still smothers the
poor kings in ambiguity. The new and final Charlemagne is to be a
man or a nation.
The sittings which followed the stormy one were remarkably still;
and it is said that Haynald and Whelan from Wheeling were allowed
to say very strong things without interruption. It might be supposed
that a short chapter on God the Creator of the World, could hardly
give rise to a discussion on the Curial system; but when Rome set
out to speak about the Creator, she first of all made mention of
herself. The opening words of the chapter were, "The Holy Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church." To this form exception was taken. One
proposed that the word "Roman" should be omitted, which was, of
course, offensive to the Curia, the municipal spirit always forcing into
view the shibboleth, quite unconscious that it marred the show of
universality. Indeed, it is asserted by many that the extreme
Curialists wanted the words "Roman Church" alone, without Catholic.
Others proposed that the word "Catholic" should stand before
"Roman," or at least that a comma should be inserted between the
two. It is a singular fact that a vote of the Council was actually taken
on this question of the comma. On this great question of the comma
the committee for once did not tell the majority how to vote. La
Liberté du Concile thinks that the majority voted for the comma. The
numbers, however, were not reported in that sitting; and when the
next one was opened, and all waited to hear on which side was the
majority, lo! the reporter gets up, and, contrary to all rule, usage,
and decency, quietly sets aside the vote as if it had never taken
place; does not, indeed, mention it! He simply says that the
committee has rejected the comma! Now the majority, knowing how
it ought to vote, did its duty faithfully. So even about a tittle, in the
literal sense, the writer of La Liberté du Concile was highly incensed,
contending that the rights of deliberation were ridden over
roughshod. Finally, the phrase came out as "The Holy Catholic
Apostolic Roman Church." Friedrich thinks that this phraseology
compromises the claim to represent the Universal Church, and must
be taken as only professing to represent the Roman Patriarchate.
Meantime the minority held anxious deliberations. They doubted
whether they should not require a positive promise that no Decree
touching faith should be carried by a majority, and whether if this
was denied they should not refuse to take part in voting. They finally
resolved that they would reserve their opposition, as completely as
possible, for the all-important question of infallibility. They hoped by
this means to secure the double end of showing a conciliatory
disposition in everything in which they could give way with a good
conscience, and of preventing a precedent from being established
for carrying articles of faith by majorities. The last piece of strategy
seemed specious. It, however, obviously laboured under the infirmity
that they were all the time giving strength to the Rules which
established the principle of majorities.
The preamble to the revised Draft of Decrees on Dogma contained
not only the passage about Protestantism which Strossmayer had
criticized, but also a clause suggested by the Bishop of Moulins,
which virtually contained the doctrine of infallibility. This was
strongly resisted by the minority, but all attempts to get it withdrawn
had proved vain. In the sitting of the 26th, the order and method of
voting, which was now for the first time to be put in practice, was
fully read out. But before the vote was taken, a paper was sent in to
the Presiding Cardinals, said to proceed from Bishop Clifford of
Clifton. The Presidents left the Hall, and on their return to the
surprise of all, the preamble, instead of being put to the vote, was
withdrawn. When it reappeared, the objectionable passage about
infallibility was removed, and the phrase as to Protestantism was
moderated; and so the impending collision was averted. But the way
of doing this showed that majority and minority were equally far
from possessing the guarantees of legislative freedom. What would a
powerful majority in our Parliament say if, after the clauses in a Bill
had been settled in Committee, the Ministers should retire and
decide on altering them, and without a word present them in a new
form to the House for the final vote when no one could speak?
 FOOTNOTES:
[352] Doc., i. 176.
[353] Ibid. i. 225.
[354] Kenrick's words are: Dixit verbis clarioribus, per illud nullam
omnino doctrinam edoceri; sed eam quatuor capitibus ex quibus
istud decretum compositum est imponi tanquam cis coronidem
convenientem; eamque disciplinarem magis quam doctrinalem
charactererem habere. Aut deceptus est ipse, si vera dixit
Westmonasteriensis; aut nos sciens in errorem induxit, quod de
viro tam ingenuo minime supponere licet. Utcumque fuerit ejus
declarationi fidentes, plures suffragia sua isti decreto haud
deneganda censuerunt ob istam clausulam; aliis, inter quos
egomet, dolos parari metuentibus et aliorum voluntati hac in re
ægre cedentibus.
[355] Vol. i. 389.
[356] Vol. i. p. 398 ff.
[357] Pet. Priv., iii. 27, 28.
[358] Doc., i. p. 172.
[359] Tagebuch, 277.
[360] Lib. du Con., Doc. i., p. 172.
[361] Tagebuch, 278.
[362] Vitelleschi, 128.
[363] Doc., i. p. 172.
[364] Quirinus, 388.
[365] Tagebuch, 278.
[366] Ibid. 278.
[367] Ce Qui se Passe au Concile, 163.
[368] Vol. i. p. 443.
 CHAPTER III
Important Secret Petition of Rauscher and others—Clear
Statement of Political Bearings of the Question—A Formal
Demand that the Question whether Power over Kings and
Nations was given to Peter shall be argued—Complaints of
Manning—Dr. Newman's Letter—The Civiltá exorcises
Newman—Veuillot's Gibes at him—Conflicts with the
Orientals—Armenians in Rome attacked by the Police—
Priests arrested—Broil in the Streets—Convent placed under
Interdict—Third Session—Forms—Decrees unanimously
adopted—Their Extensive Practical Effects.

THE dangers opening in the future defined themselves more and

more clearly to the eyes of the bishops as the import of the
constitutional changes now in progress was more fully apprehended.
Reflection, conversation, and reading had done much since they
came to Rome to clear their views. Even if they read as little of
Church history, or of the current Curial literature, as is intimated in
the oft-repeated laments of Friedrich, and in the less frequent but
equally strong hints of Quirinus and others, they must surely have
read something of the Unitá if not of the Civiltá, or at least of the
sprightly Univers. Any one of the three, in spite of that pious style of
mystery which Vitelleschi speaks of, would soon have made a very
dull bishop indeed conscious that the world was going to be
transformed.
The sagacious Rauscher put the forecast of the time into the form of
a petition, dated April 10, which states the case of the future
position of Roman Catholic citizens more strongly than some
statements of it in our country, which have been treated as the
invention either of Mr. Gladstone, or at best of Lord Acton, or of
some other Liberal Catholic.[369] The petition is headed as being
from several prelates of France, Austria, Hungary, Italy, England,
Ireland, and America. The editor of the Documenta says that
Germany should have been added. Among the prelates from that
country who signed it he specifies the Archbishops of Munich and
Bamberg, the Bishops of Augsburg, Trêves, Ermland, Breslau,
Rottenburg, Maintz, Osnabrück, and the Prussian Military Bishop.
According to this statement, the name of Ketteler was to this
document. When the German bishops met again at Fulda, after the
Council, they put forth the very interpretation of the Bull Unam
Sanctam which is here solemnly treated as both false and absurd. Of
course they were confronted with their own words. Friedrich says, in
a note (p. 349), that Ketteler in the Reichstag, and in the well-known
Germania No. 146, for 1872, asserted that no German bishop had
signed the petition, and that, therefore, the word "Germany" was
not found in the superscription:—

But all this is vain lying and cheating, such as we are well
accustomed to in the Ultramontane press and its episcopal
inspirers. In No. 242 of the Germania Ketteler himself owns that
two German bishops, not Prussian, signed it. In reference to
this, a theologian, deeply initiated in the secrets of the minority,
writes to me under date June 20, 1871, that there are many
Germans among the signatories.

Rauscher, and those who signed with him, alleged that the point
about to be decided bore directly on the instruction to be given to
the people, and on the relations of civil society to Catholic teaching.
Disclaiming any thought of accusing the Popes of the middle ages of
ambition, or of having disturbed civil society, and asserting their
belief that what the Pontiffs then did was done by virtue of an
existing state of international law, they go on to say that those
Popes held that our Lord had committed two swords to the
successors of Peter; one, spiritual, which they themselves wielded;
the other material, which princes and soldiers ought to wield at their
command. Then dealing with the attempt to represent this Bull as
requiring only that all shall acknowledge the Pope as the head of the
Church, they declare that gloss to be irreconcilable with love of the
truth on the part of any one who is acquainted with the
circumstances as between Boniface VIII and Philip le Bel; and that,
moreover, it is a mode of treating the subject which puts weapons
into the hands of the enemies of the Church to calumniate her. They
add, "Popes, down to the seventeenth century, taught that power
over temporal things was committed to them by God, and they
condemn the opposite opinion." Mark, they do not say temporal
authority, but power over temporal things. With them temporal
authority is authority of temporal origin.
Now follows a historical statement of great importance. "We, with
nearly all the bishops of the Catholic world, propound another
doctrine to the Christian people as to the relation of the
ecclesiastical power to the civil." They then make the stock
comparison of the heavens and the earth, as indicating the relative
dignity of the spiritual and temporal power, and say that each is
supreme in its own sphere. The ambiguous phrase "supreme in its
own sphere," means, in Ultramontane language, as we have seen,
only that the temporal prince is not subject to any other temporal
power. But these bishops evidently meant at the time to be clear of
ambiguities. They added an explanation of immense significance
—"Neither power in its office is dependent upon the other." This is a
formal and total denial of what the Civiltá had long been preaching,
of what Phillips and Tarquini and all the accredited modern writers
taught. The utmost they ever admit is, that in its nature, and in its
origin, temporal power is, or may be, independent of the spiritual.
But in office all impersonated authorities must be dependent on the
impersonated authority of the Vicar of God. The next stroke of the
petitioners was still bolder. Admitting that princes, as members of
the Church, are subordinate to her discipline, they affirm that she
does not in any way hold a power of deposing them, or of releasing
their subjects from their allegiance. Still more incisive was the stroke
that followed, for it was aimed at the whole principle of Papal
authority over the State. They declared that the power of judging
things, which the Popes of the middle ages had exercised, came to
them by a certain state of public law; and that, as the public
institutions and even the private circumstances which then existed
had changed, the power itself has with the foundation of it passed
away. This was the language which might be used before the Bull
Unam Sanctam had received the stamp of infallibility. It was
language in which the claims founded on the text "Teach all
nations," or "I have set thee this day over the nations, and over the
kingdoms," are met with a downright denial. The fact that the Popes
had at one time acted as supreme judges was accounted for by a
state of political relations, not by a divine right, just, we may say, as
the fact would have been accounted for that the kings of Persia were
appealed to as arbiters by Greeks. Still further, the change which had
taken place was not only admitted, but it was held to have annulled
the former relation between the power of the Papacy and civil
society. A careful consideration of the positions thus stated, and a
comparison of them with matter in the Curial writings of the present
pontificate with which we are already familiar, afford some measure
of the distance separating the Ultramontanes north of the Alps, of
the old type, like Rauscher among the clergy and Montalembert
among the laity, from the new school formed by the development of
the Jesuits into what had now become the Catholic party. We do not
say that the old Ultramontanes did not give the Pope authority
irreconcilable with Holy Scripture, and power dangerous to civil
society. All we can say is that the authority and power which they
did give to him was bounded by a frontier tolerably defined, and
therefore capable of being defended.
The remark of the Pope, carried away from the Vatican by numbers
of bishops and not a few laymen, and repeated in every form of
gossip printed or spoken, to the effect that the bishops of the
Opposition were only time-servers and Court ecclesiastics, is, in
Rauscher's petition, repelled with dignity and force. Their opinions,
as just stated, they declare are not new but ancient. They were
those of all the Fathers, and of all the Pontiffs down to Gregory VII.
They believed them to be the true doctrines of the Catholic Church;
for God forbid that, under stress of the times, they should adulterate
revealed truth. But they must point out the dangers which would
arise to the Church from a Decree irreconcilable with the doctrines
that they have hitherto taught. No one, they affirm, can help seeing
that it is impossible to reform (they do not say reconstruct) society
according to the rule laid down in the Bull Unam Sanctam. But any
right which God has indeed given, and any obligation corresponding
to such right, is incapable of being destroyed by the vicissitudes of
human institutions and opinions. If then the Roman Pontiff had
received the power of the two swords, as it is asserted in the Bull Ex
Apostolatus Officio, he would, by divine right, hold plenary power
over nations and kings; and it would not be allowable for the Church
to conceal this from the faithful. But if this was the real form of
Christianity as an institution, little would it avail for Catholics to
assert that, as to the power of the Holy See over temporal things,
that power would be restrained within the bounds of theory, and
that it was of no importance in relation to actual affairs and events,
seeing that Pius IX was far from thinking of deposing civil rulers.
This last statement was directly aimed at Antonelli's habitual mode
of putting the case in conversation with diplomatists, and also as we
have seen in his despatches. But our prelates contend that, in reply
to such assertions,

"opponents would scornfully say, We do not fear the sentences

of the Pontiffs; but after many and various dissimulations, it has
become evident at last that"—(the italics are our own)—"every
Catholic, whose actions are ruled by the faith he professes, is a
born enemy of the State, since he finds himself bound in
conscience to contribute, as far as in him lies, to the subjection
of all nations and kings to the Roman Pontiff".

On these solemn grounds they formally demand that the question

whether our Lord did or did not commit power over kings and
nations to Peter and to his successors shall be directly proposed to
the Council and examined in every aspect. In order that the Fathers
may not be called without adequate preparation to decide a question
the consequences of which must profoundly affect the relations of
the Church and civil society, they demand further that this point shall
be brought on for discussion before that infallibility. Their petition
was not addressed to the Pontiff in person, but to the Presiding
Cardinals.
No efforts made since, or which may be made hereafter, can erase
this record of the views of the bishops at the time in question. Their
conduct since the Council proves that for themselves, as individuals,
conviction is lost in submission. For the dogma has conquered
history. With the German bishops submission passed beyond silence,
and proceeded as far as deliberately certifying to the public as
ancient views and sincere ones the very views which they had
secretly shown to be innovations and pretences, alien to ancient
teaching and to their own belief. God's two priceless jewels,
conscience and conviction, are here sent to the bottom of the
stagnant pool of submission to a human king. It is by contemplating
such a course of conduct in men with a position to hold in the eye of
the sun, that we learn the force of such words as those of
Vitelleschi, when he says that the frequent collision in Catholic
countries between a man's civil conscience and his ecclesiastical one
is the reason why so often there is no conscience at all. And men
such as these German bishops are the moral guides of millions! and
out of millions so guided States have to be built up, and men have
to be fitted for the judgment of Him who requireth truth in the
inward parts! And Vitelleschi evidently thinks that, in a moral point of
view, the German bishops were the best!
Gossip in Rome spoke of Dr. Manning as burning with impatience at
the delays which had been interposed in the way of the forthcoming
dogma. Baron Arnim told Freidrich how it was said that the
Archbishop prophesied that the governments would be annihilated
for their resistance to it.[370] Quirinus speaks of the Archbishop as
expecting a wonderful dispensation of the Holy Ghost to follow the
promulgation of the dogma, and to smooth the way of the Church in
her regeneration of the nations. Whatever may have been the
amount of correctness in these details, the fact remains that at that
moment a mind which had attracted notice to itself as urging
Englishmen to Rome for unity, was bitterly complained of by Liberal
Catholics as being the very genius of contraction and division, urging
their Church either to beat them down or to cast them out—to make
herself too narrow for them, and to tell them that they should be
endured only on new conditions.
At the same time a cry came from our own shores. It was the voice
of one who had made himself conspicuous by alluring Englishmen
towards Rome for certainty, and on whose spirit the shadow of a
new and dark uncertainty was now settling down—uncertainty as to
the future source of doctrinal truth; uncertainty as to the doctrinal
authority of existing documents; uncertainty, in fine, as to what had
been, and as to what was to be, the oracle; uncertainty as to the
future work of God. At the same moment when Dr. Manning was
accused by Roman Catholics of violating the old terms of unity, Dr.
Newman was turned into a warning to Protestants as a victim of
uncertainty. When describing how he and his party fared when first,
after shifting from the rock of Holy Scripture, they settled on another
foundation, which they called Anglicanism or the Via Media, Dr.
Newman had said:—

There they found a haven of rest; thence they looked out on the
troubled surge of human opinion and upon the crazy vessels
which were labouring without chart or compass upon it. Judge,
then, of their dismay when, according to the Arabian tale, on
their striking their anchor into the supposed soil, lighting their
fires on it, and fixing in it the poles of their tents, suddenly the
island began to move, to heave, to splash, to frisk to and fro, to
dive, and at the last to swim away, spouting out inhospitable
jets of water upon the credulous mariners who had made it
their home.[371]

We can hardly doubt that some English parson who in his youth had
for a moment felt attracted by the notion of unity and certainty, by
the charm of vestments, processions, and banners, thanked God on
the morning after he had read the following letter, when he looked
at the family Bible, that he had not left the solid ground and set up a
tent on what Dr. Newman and his Anglicans told people was solid
ground, but which proved to be the sporting and frisking monster
that he himself described. Ay, and perhaps some Cornish miner, as
he went down into his darkness, happy in his Saviour—a Saviour
who seemed to come nearer to him as day and man, as home and
the fair sky, went farther away—so happy that he hummed—
In darkest shades, if Thou appear,
My dawning is begun:
Thou art my soul's bright morning star,
And Thou my rising sun—
perhaps this miner put up a prayer for the poor gentleman in
Birmingham who was in such uncertainty about what might be his
creed by next Christmas, and yet knew no better than to beg of
Augustine and Ambrose to prevail upon the Almighty not to let His
Church tell out all the truth about the Vicar whom the gentleman
fancied that He had set over her, but to cause her to practise
reserve, or to speak in non-natural senses.
To avoid contamination by impure authorities we shall follow only
the Civiltá in its narrative of the Newman incident.[372] The Standard
stated that Dr. Newman, in a letter to his bishop, then absent in
Rome, had called the promoters of infallibility an insolent and
aggressive faction, and had prayed to God to avert from His Church
the threatening danger. The Weekly Register declared itself
authorized by a personal friend of Dr. Newman to give the most
absolute denial to this deliberate fiction. Dr. Newman himself wrote
to the Standard to deny that he had written to his bishop and called
the promoters of infallibility an insolent and aggressive faction. Yet,
after Dr. Newman's method, there were words and words about it.
Soon appeared in the Standard a second letter from him, confessing
that he had been informed from London that several copies of his
letter existed in that city, containing the affirmation which he had
denied. He now said that, before sending his contradiction, he had
looked at the notes of the letter to his bishop, and had not found the
words "insolent and aggressive faction." But he confessed that since
learning that several people in London had those words in their
possession, he had looked again and found them. He added that by
the faction he did not mean that large number of bishops who had
declared in favour of infallibility, nor yet the Jesuits. He meant a
collection of persons of different countries, ranks, and conditions in
the Church.
The Civiltá was careful to remark that Dr. Newman had not
withdrawn his offensive words. Others no less remarked that he had
never confessed to a single point in his own statement till compelled
to do so. He had published a contradiction which to ordinary
Englishmen would seem to carry an almost complete denial of the
whole allegation. But the Standard on April 7 published the following
letter, showing that not only the substance of the allegation was
correct, but also its details:—

Rome ought to be a name to lighten the heart at all times, and

a Council's proper office is, when some great heresy or other
evil impends, to inspire hope and confidence in the faithful; but
now we have the greatest meeting which ever has been, and
that at Rome, infusing into us by the accredited organs of Rome
and of its partisans (such as the Civiltá, [the Armonia], the
Univers, and the Tablet) little else than fear and dismay. When
we are all at rest, and have no doubts, and—at least practically,
not to say doctrinally—hold the Holy Father to be infallible,
suddenly there is thunder in the clearest sky, and we are told to
prepare for something, we know not what, to try our faith, we
know not how. No impending danger is to be averted, but a
great difficulty is to be created. Is this the proper work of an
Œumenical Council?
As to myself personally, please God, I do not expect any trial at
all; but I cannot help suffering with the many souls who are
suffering, and I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to
defend decisions which may not be difficult to my own private
judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the
face of historical facts.
What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were
treated before? When has a definition de fide been a luxury of
devotion and not a stern, painful necessity? Why should an
aggressive, insolent faction be allowed to "make the heart of
the just sad, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful"? Why
cannot we be let alone when we have pursued peace and
thought no evil?
I assure you, my lord, some of the truest minds are driven one
way and another, and do not know where to rest their feet—one
day determining "to give up all theology as a bad job," and
recklessly to believe henceforth almost that the Pope is
impeccable, at another tempted to "believe all the worst which a
book like Janus says," others doubting about "the capacity
possessed by bishops drawn from all corners of the earth to
judge what is fitting for European society," and then, again,
angry with the Holy See for listening to "the flattery of a clique
of Jesuits, Redemptorists, and converts."
Then, again, think of the store of pontifical scandals in the
history of eighteen centuries, which have partly been poured
forth and partly are still to come. What Murphy inflicted upon us
in one way M. Veuillot is indirectly bringing on us in another.
And then again the blight which is falling upon the multitude of
Anglican Ritualists, etc., who themselves perhaps—at least their
leaders—may never become Catholics, but who are leavening
the various English denominations and parties (far beyond their
own range) with principles and sentiments tending towards their
ultimate absorption into the Catholic Church.
With these thoughts ever before me, I am continually asking
myself whether I ought not to make my feelings public; but all I
do is to pray those early doctors of the Church, whose
intercession would decide the matter (Augustine, Ambrose, and
Jerome, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Basil), to avert this great
calamity.
 If it is God's will that the Pope's infallibility be defined, then is it
God's will to throw back "the times and moments" of that
triumph which He has destined for His kingdom, and I shall feel
I have but to bow my head to His adorable, inscrutable
providence.
You have not touched upon the subject yourself, but I think you
will allow me to express to you feelings which, for the most
part, I keep to myself....

This letter could not, because of Dr. Newman's reputation, be passed

over in silence. The Civiltá well knew how to utilize that reputation,
yet it indicates by its mode of dealing with him that it does not set
Dr. Newman so high, either intellectually or morally, as his own
countrymen do. It treated the whole affair as a temptation of one of
a pious imagination but a sickly judgment. The temptation was one
peculiar to Englishmen—it was low spirits. An Englishman labouring
under that temptation would read the Civiltá, the Armonia, the
Univers, etc., with sombre-coloured spectacles. It was a disease in
the eyes. Those affected by it looked upon the definition of a verity
as a scourge of God, an affliction not merited! Still, as Dr. Newman
did not for himself fear it, he would be able to explain it to others.
But the definition of a truth was to prove a blight for the poor
Anglican Ritualists:—

Do you not perceive that it is only temptation that makes you

see everything black?... If the holy doctors whom you invoke,
Ambrose, Jerome, etc., do not decide the controversy in your
way, it is not, as the Protestant Pall Mall Gazette fancies,
because they will not or cannot interpose, but because they
agree with St. Peter and with the petition of the majority....
Would you have us make processions in sackcloth and ashes to
avert this scourge of the definition of a verity? And if it is
defined, when the Fathers chant Te Deum will some of you
intone the Miserere? On the contrary, you too will applaud it....
Dupanloup will not merely be resigned, he will be a champion of
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com