ART. VII.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. HISTORY OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL OF THE NEW DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. Our account of the Vatican Council in the last number of the "Methodist Quarterly Review" closed with the adoption of the schema de fide on the 26th of April. On the 29th of April the Council took a fresh start, the general congregation of that day be. ginning to discuss the reformed schema on the Little Catechism. The discussion was closed in the general congregation of April 30, and on May 11 the vote was taken, which resulted in its adoption. The total number of votes given was 591. In the general congregation of the 13th of May the oral discussion on the important question of Papal Infallibility commenced. The schema was comprised in a preamble and four chapters, and was known to form the first part of the dogmatic constitution de Ecclesia Christi. Before being submitted to discussion the text of the schema had been distributed to the fathers, who in due course of time transmitted their observations upon it to the deputation de fide. These observations were then maturely examined by the members of the deputation, and a printed report of their views on them was sent to the residence of each Bishop. The debate itself is known to have been long and animated, many Bishops entering a very earnest protest against the promulgation of such an innovation. Authentic reports of the speeches have not yet been published; all correspondents from Rome designate Bishop Strossmayer, of Bosnia and Illyricum in Croatia; Bishop Dupanloup, of Orleans in France; Archbishop Darboy, of Paris; Bishop Hefele, of Rottenburg in Würtemberg; Cardinal Archbishop Remscher, of Vienna; Cardinal Archbishop Prince Schwatzfenberg, of Prague, as those Bishops which spoke with the greatest effect against the proposed doctrine. The Roman correspondent of the Catholic World, of New York, Father Hecker, who gives the most interesting account of the Council which we have yet met in any Roman Catholic paper, thus classifies the Bishops who showed an opposition to the doctrine of Infallibility. and in influence were the Gallicans, propFirst in conviction, in determination, erly so called, who held and taught the very opposite of the proposed dogma. They were mostly men who had been bred in this teaching, and who deeply reverenced the memories of those who held and taught it in past times. This class was not very numerous, though it by the accession of those whose examination of the question convinced them of grew larger in the course of the Council the claim of Gallicanism to their adher ence. believing the doctrine themselves, or, at garded the definition as possible, but A third class, the most numerous, repractically fraught with peril to the Church, as impeding conversions, as exasperating to governments. For the sake of peace, and for the good of souls, they would not see it proclaimed as of faith. it lawful for ten prelates to petition for The regulations of the Council made the closing of a discussion; the proposal being then put to the vote of all the fathers, and the majority deciding. When fifty-five speeches had been made on the schema in general, one hundred and fifty Bishops sent a petition for closing the general discussion, which was accordingly done, to the great dissatisfaction of the opponents of Infallibility, a number of whom addressed to the Pope a protest against the closing of the general discussion, as it had deprived the Council of the opportunity to hear all the arguments against the new doctrine. all the members of the council has not Several works from inaccuracies, it was hardly denied by any adherent of Rome that every important fact connected with the Council had found its way to the public prints. Special irritation was produced in Rome by a work published in Paris under the title, Ce qui se passe du Concile, because the minuteness of its statements was in itself conclusive proof that they were derived from members of the Council. These works specially impugned the freedom of the Council on three grounds: 1. The appointment of the congregation, the members of which were named by the sovereign pontiff, and who received or rejected the postulaca, or propositions, to be presented to the Council for discussion. 2. The dogmatic deputation having been composed of those in favor of the definition, and the members having been put on it by management; moreover, this deputation exercised a controlling influence in the Council. 3. The interruption of those who were giving expression to their opinions in the exercise of their right to speak. These charges have, however, not been brought only by the above pamphlets, but a number of Bishops have publicly expressed the same accusations, and in particular with regard to the third point a protest signed by a large number of Bishops was presented to the Pope. there were not a few of the fathers who thought otherwise than the majority in a matter about to be made binding on the heighten the external manifestations of conscience of all, was not calculated to cheerfulness, whatever feelings of thankfulness to Providence for the event was in the heart. At nine o'clock Cardinal Barili began a low mass without chant. At the end of it the small throne for the Gospels was The following is a faithful translation The discussion of the schema as regards the whole and the several parts having been completed, a vote was taken according to the regulations in a general congregation on the 13th of July, on the whole schema by name, with placet, or placet juxta modum or non-placet. The result was as follows: 451 placets, 62 placets juxta modum, and 88 non-placets. Some of the placets juxta modum recommended the insertion of words that would make the decree clearer and stronger. The schema was accordingly altered and the amendments were reThis holy see hath ever held-the untained in the general congregation, held broken custom of the Church doth prove Saturday, July 16th. On Sunday morn--and the Ecumenical Councils, those ing was distributed a monitum, by which the fathers were notified that the fourth public session would be held on Monday, July 18th, at nine o'clock. The 18th of July will henceforth be a memorable day in the history of the Church. The feeling among the Bishops appears not to have been a very joyous one. Even Father Hecker writes in his report: The thought that, although a great and most beneficial act was to be done, still ROMAN PONTIFF IN TEACHING. especially in which the East joined with the West in union of faith and of charity, have declared that in this apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff holds over Peter the prince of the Apostles, there is the universal Church, as successor of also contained the supreme power of authoritative teaching. Thus the Fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, put forth this solemn profes sion: "The first law of salvation is to keep the rule of true faith. And whereas the words of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, (Matt. xvi, 18,) these words, which he spake, art proved true by facts; for in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has ever been preserved unspotted and the holy doctrine has been announced. Therefore, wishing never to be separated from the faith and teaching of this see, we hope to be worthy to abide in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, in which is the full and true firmness of the Christian religion." [Formula of St. Hormisdas, Pope, as proposed by Hadrian II. to the Fathers of the Eighth General Council, (Constantinop. IV.,) and subscribed by them.] So too, the Greeks, with the approval of the second Councli of Lyons, professed that the holy Roman Church holds over the universal Catholic Church a supreme and full primacy and headship, which she truthfully and humbly acknowledges that she received, with fullness of power, from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince or head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor; and as she, beyond the others, is bound to defend the truth of the faith, so, if any questions arise concerning faith, they should be decided by her judgment. And, finally, the Council of Florence defined that the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him, in the blessed Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ full power of feeding and ruling and governing the universal Church, (John xxi, 15-17.) In order to fulfill this pastoral charge our predecessors have ever labored unweariedly to spread the saving doctrine of Christ among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care have watched to preserve it pure and unchanged where it had been received. Wherefore the Bishops of the whole world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in synods, following the long established custom of the Churches, (S. Cyril, Alex. and S. Cœlest. Pap.,) and the form of ancient rule, (St. Innocent I. to Councils of Carthage and Milevi,) referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters of faith, in order that injuries to faith might best be healed there where the faith could never fail. (St. Bernard ep. 190.) And the Roman Pontiffs, weighing the condition of times and circumstances, sometimes calling together general councils, or asking the judgment of the Church scattered through the world, sometimes consulting particular synods, sometimes using such other aids as Divine providence supplied, defined that those doctrines should be held, which, by the aid of God, they knew to be conformable to the holy Scriptures and the apostolic traditions. For the Holy Ghost is not promised to the successors of Peter, that they may make known new doctrine revealed by him, but that, through his assistance, they may sacredly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation delivered by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith. And this their apostolic teaching all the venerable fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have revered and followed, knowing most certainly that this see of St. Peter ever remains free from all error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour made to the prince of the Apostles: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Conf. St. Agatho, Ep. ad Imp. a Conc. Ecum. VI. approbat.) Therefore, this gift of truth, and of faith which fails not, was divinely bestowed on Peter and his successors in this chair, that they should exercise their high office for the salvation of all, that through them the universal flock of Christ should be turned away from the poisonous food of error and should be nourished with the food of heavenly doctrine, and that, the occasion of schism being removed, the entire Church should be preserved one, and, planted on her foundation, should stand firm against the gates of hell. Nevertheless, since in this present age, when the saving efficacy of the apostolic office is exceedingly needed, there are not a few who carp at its authority, we judge it altogether necessary to solemnly declare the prerogative which the only begotten Son of God has designed to unite to the supreme pastoral office. Wherefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition handed down from the commencement of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred council, we teach and define it to be a doctrine divinely revealed, that, when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office of Pastor and teacher of all Christians, and in virtue of his supreme apostolical authority, he defines that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held by the universal Church, he possesses, through the divine assistance promised to him in the blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed, in defining a doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not by force of the consent of the Church thereto. And if any one shall presume, which God forbid, to contradict this our defini- |tions. A letter from Cardinal Antonelli tion; let him he anathema. Given in Rome, in the Public Session, solemnly celebrated in the Vatican Basilica, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate. Ita est. to one of the Papal Nuncios declared in the name of the Pope that Rome regarded Infallibility as a doctrine of the Church from the moment of its promulgation, and that it would regard as a heretic every body who would refuse submission. The great war which broke out soon after the promulgation of Papal Infallibility averted public opinion both from the Council and from the attitude of the Opposition. The Bishops belonging to the Opposition acted with great reserve. Many theological scholars, on the contrary, were very outspoken in rejecting both the doctrine and the claims of the Council to an ecumenical character. Among those who publicly refused submission were Father Hyacinthe, of France, and a large number of theological scholars in Germany, one of whom, Professor Michelis, of France, declared the Pope to be a heretic. ART. VIII.-SYNOPSIS OF THE QUARTERLIES, AND OTHERS OF THE HIGHER PERIODICALS. American Quarterly Reviews. AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW, July, 1870. (New York.)-1. Sin and Suffering in the Universe. (Concluded.) Oosterzee's Theology of the New Testament. 3. Farrar on the Constitution. 4. The Problem of History. 5. The Mather Papers. 6. Protoplasm, or the Physical Basis of Life. 7. The Relation of Theology to the Preparatory Sciences. 8. The Felicity of God. 9. A New Analysis in Fundamental Morals. 10. New German Theological Literature. BAPTIST QUARTERLY, July, 1870. (Philadelphia.)—1. Miracles. 2. Subterranean Rome. 3. Bible Chronology. 4. Gladstone's Juventus Mundi. 5. Exegesis of Hebrews xii, 18-24. 6. The True Humanity of Christ. 7. Exegetical Studies. BIBLICAL REPERTORY AND PRINCETON REVIEW, July, 1870. (New York.) — 1. Tholuck's View of the Right Way of Preaching. 2. Heathen Views on the Golden Age, etc., compared with the Bible. 3. The Brothers Valdés. 4. Ecclesiastical History of the Venerable Bede. 5. The Trial Period in History. 6. The General Assembly. 7. The Delegation to the Southern General Assembly. 8. The Evangelical Alliance. 9. Minority Representation in the Diocese of New Jersey. BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, July, 1870. (Andover.)-1. The Crucifixion on Thursdaynot Friday. 2. The Doctrine of the Apostles. 3. The Creative Period in History. 4. Recent Questions of Unbelief. 5. Demosthenes, and the Rhetorical Principles Established by his Example. 6. Revelation and Inspiration. 7. Exposition of 2 Cor. v, 14. 8. The Topography of Jerusalem. 9. Explorations in Palestine. CHRISTIAN QUARTERLY, July, 1870. (Cincinnati.)—1. The Law of Liberty. 2. The Law of Divorce. 3. Christian Experience. 4. Education of Children. 5. A Page of History and a Line of Revelation. 6. The Infallibility Dogma. 2. The 4. The CONGREGATIONAL QUARTERLY, July, 1870. (Boston.) 1. Joseph Abbott. EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY REVIEW, July, 1870. Dogmatic Theology. Translated from the German and Latin. 2. Reminiscences MERCERSBURG REVIEW, July, 1870. (Philadelphia.)-1. Organic Redemption. NEW ENGLANDER, July, 1870. (New Haven.)-1. St. Francis and his Time. 2. Is NEW ENGLAND HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL REGISTER AND ANTIQUARIAN UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY, July, 1870. (Boston.)-1. Credibility and Inspiration E English Reviews. BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, July, 1870. (London.) 1. Freeman's History of the Norman Conquest. 2. The Education and Employment of Women. 3. Suggestions for the Repression of Crime. 4. The Congregational Ministry and its Education. 5. The Literary Character of Mr. Disraeli. 6. The Council of the Vati7. Mr. Matthew Arnold and Puritanism. can. 4 |