網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

fane," has, like Caiphas, uttered a true speech without at all intending it. How he has contrived, without playing the theologian, to write a commentary on the decrees of a General Council, being all of them of a purely theological character, we shall also see by-and-by.

Meantime, before proceeding to the settlement of these two points, we have to indicate certain characteristics common to Leto with Quirinus; and which, as we have marked them pretty fully in our former article on the Vatican Council,* we shall here dismiss with very brief notice.

We have the same attacks on the liberty of the Council, all resting on the same shadowy foundation. "It was said that tickets bearing the names of candidates were photographed in large numbers and distributed to the bishops, &c.

[ocr errors]

It was also said, in proof of the moral violence exercised, that some of the Fathers," &c. (p. 48). "Of the 535 present at the Session [the fourth, in which the Papal infallibility was defined], 533 gave a favourable vote; those who said Non placet' were only two. . . . Comments were made even on these two dissentients thus separated from the rest of the Opposition and left behind, and it was insinuated that their remaining, in order to bear testimony to the liberty of the Council, was due to some contrivance of the majority (p. 213). Comments were made! It was said! It was insinuated! From whom did these comments and sayings and insinuations come? We are not told. Not improbably from Leto himself: most certainly from him or from some of the set to which he belongs. Only think of five hundred and thirty-three bishops setting a trap to catch, and actually catching, two of their order, for the purpose of playing off before the world such a childish and clumsy trick. To originate or to credit such a statement indicates a mind at once unspeakably mean and malignant. Leto repeats the same charge of violence in other places. But he nowhere advances a single authentic fact to prove that any violence whatever was used, unless you call by the name of violence that dominating weight, which, in all deliberative assemblies, the freest and most unfettered, an overwhelming majority must, from the very nature of the case, possess as against a comparatively small minority.

We have the same doleful prophecies of schisms, nay of utter ruin, following from the definition of Papal infallibility. "A person of great talent and of excellent judgment, in de

"The Vatican Council: its Authority: its Work."-DUBLIN REVIEW, January, 1873.

scribing the state of affairs at the time, said that if infallibility were accepted the Vatican Council would certainly not be accepted; and, indeed, in forming any opinion on the prevailing condition of affairs, which was at all reasonable, it was impossible to escape from this dilemma" (p. 192). "The world, which previous to the Vatican Council was indiscriminately termed Catholic, will now inevitably split into two divisions; but between them there will remain a considerable number of persons, who, unable to follow the liberal ideas of the first party, and impatient of the yoke of the second, will be lost in the burning sands formed by the 'detritus' of wasted religious beliefs and moral principles, which constitutes the interminable desert, stretching away into the distance along the borders of modern civilization "* (p. 221). We quote the latter part of this sentence as a specimen of the half meaning or whole unmeaning verbiage so freely scattered over the "interminable desert" of these dreary pages, and of which some more specimens will be given hereafter.

We have the same extravagant laudations of the members of the minority whose names turn up, and confined exclusively to them. Three of them "spoke extremely well": another "a prelate profoundly versed in ecclesiastical learning": another "a most remarkable man": others " gave proof of the greatest aptitude and vigour in discussion": another " being universally considered the most splendid orator, the best Latin scholar, and the person of highest authority" [one of the three whose speeches displayed the grossest ignorance of Catholic theology]: a certain group of bishops "taken together formed a body which, on account of the learning of its members, the illustrious names it contained, and the nations it represented, made up in importance the weight it lacked in numbers": another exercised "considerable influence in the assembly by his eloquence, and the strength of his arguments" (pp. 54-56). The minority included" in their body the most illustrious men in the Church" (p. 74). One made a "famous speech at the opening of the Council, by which he took rank as one of the principal orators": another "attracted much notice by a convincing and eloquent speech" (p. 180): and so on. mark: to not ONE single member of the majority, outnumbering the minority by at least five to one, is one single

Now

*In the extracts from Leto the italics alone are ours: all the rest exactly as in the book.

word of praise or good word of any kind awarded. Of course the Jesuits are specially barked at: so are the Pope and Cardinal Manning.

We have the same repetition of flying reports, idle unattested rumours of what was said or done on such and such occasions. "It is said," "a report was circulated," &c. We have given a specimen above: let it suffice.

We had marked other damning points of resemblance, in lying and malignant spirit, between these two anonymous writers. As an historical authority on the Vatican Council, Leto stands exactly on the same level with Quirinus: not one step higher. Lower he could not stand: for in that lowest deep there is no lower deep.

But Leto is a Catholic, nay a sincere Catholic-that is, we suppose, a Catholic not merely in outward profession, but in heart and soul. So says his translator, but so says not Leto himself. He nowhere calls himself a Catholic, he nowhere in any way professes himself a Catholic. "The Catholic party " is the phrase which he uniformly uses to designate those to whom he is opposed, and against whom his book is entirely directed (pp. 25, 26, 27, 31, 70, &c. &c.). The sentiments and tone of his book are from beginning to end thoroughly anti-Catholic, as thoroughly anti-Catholic as the sentiments and tone of Chillingworth or Barrow. He is not indeed Protestant, except in the negative sense of the word: nor is he, like Quirinus, half Protestant, half Jansenist. As far as we can gather from this volume, he is a person who, if he ever held the Catholic faith, has utterly lost it, and got no other in its place. Like Joe Grimaldi's father, during the Gordon riots, he is of "no religion at all."

The very idea of a sincere Catholic has always implied, as a primary and essential element, profound submission to the teaching of the supreme authority of the Church, a sincere acceptance of all which that authority proposes to be believed. Every Catholic child, who has learned the elements of his religion, knows this. That authority can never, in any possible circumstances, teach-the universal Church itself can never, in any possible circumstances, hold-as an article of Catholic faith, a doctrine that is not revealed, still less a doctrine that is not true. We are now taking ground common to all Catholics, before the Vatican Council, before the Council of Trent, just as at the present day-the active and passive infallibility of the Church. Now, whatever may be said of the Vatican Council; granting that every charge made against it by Leto is well-founded; you have the whole Catholic

Episcopate, without even one solitary exception,* with the Pope at their head, cordially accepting the definitions of that Council as a rule of faith, as cordially as they accept the definitions of Trent. From the day that Pius put on these definitions the solemn seal of his confirmation, not only not a murmur of dissent has been heard from a single bishop, but the very bishops who, like Mgr. Dupanloup and Bishop Kenrick, had taken a leading part in opposing certain definitions, in the most explicit and unreserved form accepted them. As to Döllinger, Reinkens, and company, who, with their little sect of lay dupes have openly rejected the Vatican Council, the purity and splendour of the Church's faith are no more affected by their apostasy, than are the purity and splendour of a crystal stream affected by the small driblets that have oozed out of it into a neighbouring cesspool. Now, to say nothing of his numerous heresies on other matters, Leto not only rejects several of the definitions, but sneers at them, flouts them, assails them with theological arguments. Therefore is Leto, whatever he may be, most certainly no Catholic.

He assails them with theological arguments! Surely this cannot be. Does he not, as we have seen, disclaim over and over again the intention of treating the definitions from a theological standpoint? Does he not profess his incompetency to engage in such a discussion? Yes, but let us see, not so much what he proposes to do as what he does.

We had actually marked about fifty passages, in which arguments of a purely theological character are advanced. In truth the poison of the book is concentrated far more in its unsound theology than in its unsound history, more in its heresies than in its lies. Objections not strictly theological may be made against the expediency of defining a particular doctrine; and, as we stated in our former article, such in fact were the objections raised by the minority, with a few exceptions, against the definition of Papal infallibility. But as to the doctrine itself, the question of its truth or falsehood is the only question to be raised about it, and this surely is a theological question. We are not going to encumber the pages of this journal with a detailed examination of the numerous objections, which our "sincere Catholic" has levelled against the defined dogmas of the Catholic religion from "a genuine desire to promote the welfare of that religion." We shall give a few, from which the force of the rest may be well inferred. The objections directed against the

We state this simply as a fact, by no means implying (not being Jansenist) that such absolute unanimity is at all necessary.

definitions of the first constitution ("Dei Filius") on Faith, Reason, &c., are altogether based on gross misapprehension of the meaning of these definitions. We shall confine ourselves mainly to the objections advanced against the definitions of the second constitution ("Pastor Eternus "), on the Papal authority and infallibility.

İ. "It is evident that there are three grand questions of principle before the Council. . . . . The first is the ancient conflict always going on in the Church from the earliest ages, between those who maintain a direct supernatural agency in all matters, and those, who without rejecting it, believe also in secondary causes" (p. 34).

1. "Without rejecting it." Rejecting what? "A direct supernatural agency in all matters"? Leto manifestly implies that he wishes to be taken as one of those who do not reject "it." He therefore holds "a direct supernatural agency in all matters"! We suppose he means those who, without rejecting a supernatural agency in some matters, &c.

2. "The ancient conflict always going on in the Church from the earliest ages." For more than forty years have we been more or less assiduously engaged in the study of theologians of every school,-in the study of Fathers, Councils, Papal decrees. We never met in any of them the slightest trace of such a conflict. We never met in any book the faintest allusion to such a conflict going on at any time, anywhere, in the Church or out of the Church. We never read or heard of any human being holding "a direct supernatural agency in all matters," not even in most matters, we might add, not even in many matters.

3. "Believe also in secondary causes," that is, in secondary causes in the supernatural order-for, of the natural order there is no question. Is not this belief, that God, in His ordinary providence, acts through secondary causes in the supernatural order, one of the most striking marks of Catholicism which distinguish it so clearly and so fundamentally from the prevailing Protestantism, from all Protestantism outside the "little church" of Ritualism, and from Ritualism too, though not in the same degree? Our invocation of the Saints, their prayers for us, the dispensation of the sacraments, in short, all the ministrations of the Church throughout the world, in every place and every day-what is all this but the operation of secondary causes? On the other hand, is not this a principle, the principle of genuine Protestantism, that there should be no intrusion of human authority, no interposed agency of any kind, human or angelical, between man and his Creator?

« 上一頁繼續 »