« НазадПродовжити »
He also takes care to explain that the office of the Pope does not hinder
That power of Episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops who are appointed by the Holy Ghost, and have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, each feed and rule the flocks committed to their respective care.?
We have here an admission of the grand foundation of Gallican principles, namely that bishops are successors of the apostles, by Divine appointment; and that their jurisdiction and teaching authority is from the Holy Ghost. This being conceded, the entire Gallican doctrine follows; and the doctrine of the Papal supremacy is subverted. A different supreme authority is established.
To proceed: the very assembling of the Council for the purpose of defining the Papal position amounts in itself to an admission that a power greater than that of the Papacy was being appealed to. If the Pope was truly the sole and supreme judge of matters of faith by Divine appointment—if this was so established by Revelation that whoever denied it was a heretic (as Dr. Manning and many others pretend), then why was an inferior authority summoned to decide authoritatively on what it had no Divine commission to define ? Why did not the Divinely appointed Oracle of Truth declare and define the disputed doctrine without associating himself with an
Illi episcopalis jurisdictionis potestati qua Episcopi qui positi a Spiritu Sancto in Apostolorum locum successerunt tamquam veri pastores assignatos sibi greges singuli singulos pascunt et regunt.'
assembly which had been erroneously supposed infallible in itself? Was not this to encourage error and heresy ? Was it not to foster and confirm the belief that an Ecumenical Council was really supreme in the Church, and that the Pope was not so i Hence we need not wonder to find that even after the definition of Papal infallibility, the authority of the Council of the Vatican is considered to be greater than that of the Pope—and that the Papal infallibility wherever it is believed, is believed, not because Scripture, tradition, or the Popes themselves have declared it, but simply because the "Ecumenical Council' has pronounced it to be de fide.' The Cisalpine world then is still Gallican.
Reflect for a moment on what is meant by the infallibility of a General Synod. Ultramontanes say that its infallibility arises simply from its being confirmed by the Pontiff. But it means more than this. The real meaning that every Roman Catholic attaches to it is this: The Church Universal represented by its bishops, and presided over by its head, meets in synod : it is then infallible, that is to say, the Church together with its head forms the infallible body-not the head alone.
We have now to offer some further remarks. In the first place, it should be noted that those who held these different theologies still form one communion; for, although one or two bishops have threatened excommunication against those who advocate this or that class of doctrines, no sentence has been pronounced against indivi
duals. There has, therefore, been no positive breach of communion, and the four faiths are actually, if not altogether lovingly, penned together in the same fold.
It seems indeed, from the present aspect of affairs, that there is not much chance that any one of these faiths will venture on declaring 'war to the knife' on its colleagues. The Church of Rome is perhaps not in a position which would render it desirable to diminish the numbers of its adherents in all countries. The spiritual sword therefore may perhaps be rather for show than for use; and the four faiths, notwithstanding some kicking and biting, may perhaps, on the whole, remain soberly housed together. It would be a pity to see so amiable an example of mutual forbearance and toleration, under somewhat trying circumstances, cease to exist for the general edification. Its continuance of course infers after a time a similar toleration for other differences beyond those of the Roman communion.
But this unity of communion between different beliefs goes to establish another point. It implies the admission that the differences between the four faiths do not affect the essence of Christianity: of course if they did, there would necessarily be a separation of communion. The Church of Rome would not tolerate in its communion doctrines which it was satisfied were contrary to the essence of the Catholic faith. The communion then of those who hold these four systems of belief amounts to a confession on their part that none of them is heretical.
Indeed we have seen Ultramontanism highly sanctioned, Minimism highly sanctioned ; Gallico-Ultramontanism highly sanctioned ; and if the Gallicanism of Dr. Doyle, Dr. Lingard, Dr. Murray,Dr. Troy, Daniel O'Connell, the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy, and priesthood, and laity, till within a few years, is now denounced as heresy by the Ultramontanes pure, their own system is just as violently attacked by other classes of Roman Catholics. Nevertheless all remain bound up in the same communion.
From the fact of the communion of Ultramontanism with the other three beliefs a doubt presents itself irresistibly to the mind—wbether its advocates really believe what they assert? The Papal ecclesiastic Manning, for instance, describes Gallicanism as the most dangerous error wbich had for two centuries harassed and disturbed the faithful;'1 affirms that it was a formal interruption of the universal belief of the Church ;'? that the contrary doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine of Divine faith before the council;'3 that this doctrine lies at the root .... at the foundation of Christianity. 4 Why, then, is it that Gallicanism is permitted to exist in the Roman communion, even after the Vatican definition ? Nay, why are its leading doctrines taught and believed by the Papal prelates and clergy? And why have its main principles been taught by Pius IX. himself in the
· Manning, Vatican Decrees, p. 26.
3 Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 157. Our italics.
Vatican decrees, as has been shown? Why, again, is the Gallican doctrine denying the temporal supremacy of the Pope, which Ultramontanes hold to be part of the apostolic depositum fidei, allowed to prevail so extensively, that Father Newman supposes that there are very few who are not in that error? Why do not the Ultramontane bishops attempt to clear their flocks of this heresy ? Why do they permit their followers to deny-openly to denyprinciples defined in the Bull Unam Sanctam? Those principles have been openly denied by Sir George Bowyer and Mr. Philipps De Lisle, although they have been announced again and again by Dr. Manning and Dr. Capel. Yet not a syllable do these prelates venture to say in condemnation of these denials of the Bull Unam Sanctam, and of the essential principles of the supremacy.
The impression left on the mind by this inconsistency of the Ultramontanes is that they have no firm trust in their own doctrines, notwithstanding the vehemence and dogmatism with which they announce them as the only foundations of Christianity. Did they really believe them to be so, how is it conceivable that they would remain in communion with those who deny them ?
The true evidence of sincerity on the part of the Ultramontane prelate Manning and his colleagues, who are always preaching the temporal power of the Papacy and the deposing power, would be the enforcement of the Bull Unam Sanctam on their flocks. Let them impose