Loe raamatut: «Letters From Rome on the Council», lehekülg 38

Appendix IV

Letter of a French Bishop to Count Daru.

On sait à Rome que vous aviez l'intention de rédiger une note ou un memorandum qui devrait être appuyé par les puissances.

Si vous agissez, vous serez appuyés. Ici les diplomates se plaignent de votre inaction.

Mais il faut agir immédiatement, on veut introduire l'infaillibilité après Pâques.

Vous ne pouvez rien faire par le M. de Banneville. Ses collègues ne le comptent pour rien, sinon pour un obstacle.

Il ne faut pas vous mettre exclusivement sur le terrain des canons des Ecclesia. On vous répondrait, soit en supprimant les Canons auxquels vous vous opposez; soit en disant que cela ne vous touche pas, à cause du concordat; soit, enfin, en les expliquant dans un sens qui vous paraîtra satisfaisant, quitte à décréter après tous les Canons, tous les Syllabus qu'ils voudront, et les plus formidables. Mais il y a un terrain où vous êtes invincibles, et sur lequel les puissances vous suivent. C'est celui de la liberté du Concile et du droit publique de l'Église, sous la protection duquel vos évêques sont venus à Rome.

Cette liberté n'existe plus. Ce droit est violé sur un point que plus de 100 évêques ont déclaré de la dernière importance.

Leur protestation vous donne un point de départ et des arguments invincibles.

Ces évêques déclarent que le Règlement est contraire à la loi de l'Église sur le point décisif de la Majorité. Car ce droit, depuis Nicée jusqu'à Trente, déclare que la règle indisputable et certaine pour les définitions dogmatiques c'est l'unanimité morale, et non la majorité.

Un nombre immense de faits confirme leur protestation:

Les scènes de violence faites à Haynald et à Strossmayer. – Les Présidents n'ont pas cherché à protéger leur droit et liberté de parole, tout au contraire.

La précipitation de la discussion par les Présidents.

Le Schema de Fide, 4 chapitres, 20 pages, canons avec anathèmes, a été distribué 24 heures seulement avant l'ouverture de la discussion, on a voté sur 47 amendements en 5 quarts d'heure.

Le lendemain de là scène avec Strossmayer, on a lu un Monitum, non pas pour admonéter les interrupteurs, mais pour recommander aux orateurs de se presser, de peur qu'ils n'ennuyent l'assemblée, et n'en provoquent des manifestations.

Ce Monitum est une provocation aux interruptions. Quelquefois un évêque est reçu avec des murmures avant de commencer.

Les demandes de la Minorité:

D'une salle où on puisse les entendre.

De bureaux, pour les discussions préliminaires, qui enverraient des Commissaires à la Députation.

De la liberté d'imprimer leurs discours et mémoires pour les distribuer parmi les pères.

Que les auteurs d'amendements puissent les expliquer et les défendre dans la Commission, et puissent avoir le droit de répondre dans les discussions.

D'un procès-verbal des séances.

Sur la majorité et l'unanimité.

Toutes ces demandes sont restées sans réponse et sans effet.

La pression exercée sur les Orientaux.

La scène faite au Patriarche Chaldéen.

L'emprisonnement intimé à l'Archévêque d'Antioche et au chef de sa communauté.

L'arrestation et les coups donnés au prêtre, secrétaire de l'Arch. de Diarbelair.

Les menaces aux Melchites, Maronites, et Chaldéens.

Le langage tenu par le pape lui même. Les cas de Montalembert et de Falloux.

Les lettres du pape à Guéranger, Cabrières, etc., traitant les Évêques de l'Opposition en ennemis.

Les allocutions publiques roulant presque toutes sur l'Infaillibilité.

Les cadeaux faits aux Vicaires Apostoliques en les priant de ne pas l'abandonner.

Attitude de la presse approuvée par le Vatican, exploitant ces lettres, et appelant les évêques à se retracter, en les dénonçant à leur clergé.

Même le journal officiel de Rome traitant la minorité d'alliés des Franc-maçons. Après tout cela, il n'y a pas de liberté au Concile.

L'ambassadeur que vous enverrez en recevra des preuves péremptoires. Les autres puissances sont déjà plus avancées que la France: la Prusse, la Hongrie, même la Turquie.

A nom de l'ordre publique menacé par l'inévitable refus de reconnaître ce Concile. Au nom de votre droit, ayant rendu possible la réunion du Concile, de protéger la liberté de vos évêques.

Dire —

“Ce Concile ne peut pas continuer dans les conditions actuelles.

“Nous protestons dès à présent contre la Non-liberté manifeste du Concile.

“Achevez ce que vous avez déjà commencé.

“Il y a des points sur lesquels vous pouvez espérer l'unanimité morale, sans violation de liberté.

“Tenez une session publique sur les Schema de Fide et de Discipline assez pour sauver votre honneur.

“Et prorogez une assemblée qui, aux yeux des évêques et du monde, ne possède plus ces conditions d'ordre et de liberté sans lesquelles ce n'est pas un Concile.

“Nous désirons que nos évêques retournent dans leurs diocèses jusqu'à ce que les conditions soient plus favorables pour la célébration d'un Concile.”

Appendix V

Protestation contre le projet de précipiter la Discussion.

(Presented early in May.)

Permettez, Monseigneur, que je proteste ici contre un tel projet, s'il existe, et que je consigne entre vos mains ma protestation. Saisir ainsi, irrégulièrement et violemment, le Concile de cette question, c'est absolument impossible.

Cette discussion immédiate de l'Infaillibilité Pontificale, avant toutes les autres questions qui la doivent nécessairement précéder, ce renversement de l'ordre et de la marche régulière du Concile, cette précipitation passionnée dans l'affaire la plus délicate, et qui par sa nature et ses difficultés, exige le plus de maturité et de calme, tout cela serait non seulement illogique et absurde, inconcevable, mais encore trahirait trop ouvertement aux yeux du monde entier, chez ceux qui imaginent de tels procédés, le dessein de peser sur le Concile, et pour dire le vrai mot, serait absolument contraire à la liberté des évêques.

Comment une telle question, sous-introduite tout à coup dans un chapitre annexé à un grand Schema, le dessein de ceux qui nous ont été soumis, passerait avant tous les schemata déjà étudiés, avant toutes les autres questions déjà discutées, et non encore résolues par le Concile.

Des questions fondamentales, essentiellement préliminaires à toutes les autres; Dieu, sa personnalité, sa providence, Jésus-Christ, sa divinité, sa redemption, sa grâce, l'Église, on laisserait tout celà de coté pour se précipiter sur cette question, dont nous n'avions entendu parler avant le Concile presque qu'à des Journalistes, dont la bulle de convocation ne parlait pas, dont le Schema sur l'Église lui-même ne disait pas un seul mot.

Et l'examen de cette nouvelle question, si compliquée, cette discussion, si nécessaire, cette définition si grave, tout cela se ferait à la hâte, violemment, au pied levé. On ne nous laisserait ni le temps ni la liberté d'étudier un point si important de doctrine avec gravité et à fond, comme il doit l'être. Car aucun évêque ne peut, sans blesser gravement sa conscience, déclarer de foi, sous peine de damnation éternelle, un point de doctrine de la révélation duquel il n'est pas absolument certain. Ce serait, Monseigneur, dans le monde entier, une stupeur et un scandale. Ce serait de plus autoriser trop manifestement les calomnies de ceux qui disent que dans la convocation du Concile, il y a eu une arrière pensée, et que cette question qui n'était pas l'objet du Concile, au fond devait être tout le Concile. Ceux qui poussent à de tels excès oublient clairement toute prudence: il y a un bon sens et une bonne foi publique qu'on ne blesse pas impunément.

Sans doute on peut passer par dessus toutes les recriminations des ennemis de l'Église; mais il y a des difficultés avec lesquelles il faut nécessairement compter. Eh bien! Éminence, si les choses venaient à se passer de la sorte, je le dis avec toute la conviction de mon âme, il y aurait lieu de craindre que des doutes graves ne s'élèvent touchant la vérité même et la liberté de ce Concile du Vatican.

Que les choses se passent ainsi, on le peut, si on le veut: on peut tout, contre la raison et le droit, avec la force du nombre.

Mais c'est lendemain, Éminence, que commenceraient pour vous et pour l'Église les difficultés.

Par un procédé aussi contraire à l'ordre régulier des choses, à la marche essentielle des assemblées d'évêques qui ont été de vrais Conciles, vous susciteriez incontestablement une lutte dans l'Église et les consciences sur la question de l'issue œcuménique de notre assemblée: c'est à dire, tout ce qu'on peut imaginer aujourd'hui de plus désastreux.

Ceux qui essayent d'engager le Pape dans cette voie, en l'abusant et le trompant, sont bien coupables. Mais je ne doute pas que la sagesse du Saint-Père ne déjoue toutes ces menées.

Advertisement

Third Edition, Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.

The Pope and the Council.

By Janus.

Authorized Translation From The German.

Opinions of the Press.

“Had the book been, as its title might at first seem to imply, merely a Zeitschrift evoked by the exigencies of the present controversy, we should not have noticed it here. It is because it has an independent and permanent interest for the historical and theological student, quite apart from its bearing on the controversies of the day, and contains a great deal of what, to the immense majority of English, if not also of German readers, will be entirely new matter, grouped round a common centre-point which gives unity and coherence to the whole, that it falls strictly within the province of this journal.” – Academy, October 9.

“In this volume the main idea of the writers, the long fatal growth of the principles which are now about to develop into the dogma of the Pope's personal and exclusive infallibility, is traced in full detail, with a learning which would be conspicuous in any of the divided branches of the Church, with a plain-speaking which few Roman Catholics have been able to afford, and with a sobriety and absence of exaggeration not common among Protestants.” – Guardian, October 13.

“A profound and learned treatise, evidently the work of one of the first theologians of the day, discussing with the scientific fulness and precision proper to German investigation, the great doctrinal questions expected to come before the Council, and especially the proposed dogma of Papal Infallibility. There is probably no work in existence that contains at all, still less within so narrow a compass, so complete a record of the origin and growth of the infallibilist theory, and of all the facts of Church history bearing upon it, and that too in a form so clear and concise as to put the argument within the reach of any reader of ordinary intelligence, while the scrupulous accuracy of the writer, and his constant reference to the original authorities for every statement liable to be disputed, makes the monograph as a whole a perfect storehouse of valuable information for the historical or theological student.” – Saturday Review, October 16.

“It affords an opportunity for persons in this country to learn, on the most direct authority, how the grave questions which just now agitate the Church are regarded by members of a school within her pale, who profess to yield to none in their loyal devotion to Catholic truth, but are unable to identify its interests with the advance of Ultramontanism. Its aim is to show that the object in chief of the coming Council is to elect Papal Infallibility into an article – and therefore inevitably a cardinal article – of the Catholic Faith. It purports to investigate by the light of history this and other questions which are to be decided at the Council, as well as to serve as a contribution to ecclesiastical history.” – Morning Post, October 20.

“The concluding words of the volume, coming as they evidently do from a great leader of thought among German Catholics, are so startling and suggestive that we give the passage as it stands, while exhorting our readers to lose no time in procuring and carefully perusing the whole volume for themselves.” – Church Herald, October 20.

“It is our intention to deal with this book hereafter as it deserves, for we have reason to believe, we will not say to know, lest we should imitate the vicious example of Janus, that the work is a fabrication of English and German hands. Its name has been well chosen; Janus had two faces, which nationally may mean English and German, but in morals signifies a character not highly estimable for truth.” – Tablet, October 16.

“This extraordinary work should be read by the millions of Protestant England, as the ablest and most authentic exposure of the ecclesiastical and political despotism of Popery which exists in any language or any country.” – Rock, October 20.

“We feel, as we have already said, that it is hardly possible in a review to give an adequate idea of the volume before us, considered merely as a storehouse of facts on the Roman controversy, a value enhanced by the circumstance that it is written by earnest but sorrowing members of that Church, who desire, by its publication, to avert the progress of corruption and to save the Church from the blundering threatened by the action of the Council. We had marked many passages for extract in the course of our own examination. Space, however, forbids our indulging ourselves. We regret this the less because we feel assured that the book which we have so imperfectly noticed will soon be in the hands of most persons interested in the question which is debated.” – John Bull, October 23.

“It is of great importance at such a crisis that the public mind should be thoroughly informed as to the points on which the judgment of the Council is to be asked, or, to speak more correctly, as to the monstrous claims of the Papacy to which it is expected to give its formal submission. Especially is it desirable to understand clearly the exact position occupied by the ‘Liberal Catholics,’ men who are not prepared to forsake their Church nor to declare war against all progress, and who, despite many discouragements, still cling to the belief that it is possible to find some mode of reconciliation between ‘Catholic’ principles and modern ideas, and who resent such fanatical outbursts as that of Archbishop Manning even more bitterly than Protestants themselves. We attach, therefore, great value to a little volume just issued on the ‘Pope and the Council,’ by Janus, which contains a more complete statement of the whole case than we have anywhere met with.” – Nonconformist, October 27.

“Beginning with a sketch of the errors and contradictions of the Popes, and of the position which, as a matter of history, they held in the early Church, the book proceeds to describe the three great forgeries by which the Papal claims were upheld – the Isidorian decretals, the donation of Constantine, and the decretum of Gratian. The last subject ought to be carefully studied by all who wish to understand the frightful tyranny of a complicated system of laws, devised not for the protection of a people, but as instruments for grinding them to subjection. Then, after an historical outline of the general growth of the Papal power in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the writers enter upon the peculiarly episcopal and clerical question, pointing out how marvellously every little change worked in one direction, invariably tending to throw the rule of the Church into the power of Rome; and how the growth of new institutions, like the monastic orders and the Inquisition, gradually withdrew the conduct of affairs from the Bishops of the Church in general, and consolidated the Papal influence. For all this, however, unless we could satisfy ourselves with a mere magnified table of contents, the reader must be referred to the book itself, in which he will find the interest sustained without flagging to the end.” – Pall Mall Gazette, October 29.

“It is very able, learned, compact, and conclusive. The subject of Papal Infallibility is admirably treated, with a thorough mastery of Church history. We commend it to the perusal of all who take an interest in the progress of ecclesiastical questions, and wish to become more nearly acquainted with the Romish Church, its doings, pretensions, decrees – especially with the conduct of its successive heads. It is a perfect storehouse of facts brought together with telling effect. Let the voice of these German Catholics be listened to by enlightened Englishmen of all creeds, and they will be in no danger of ensnarement from the plausible rhetoric of Ultramontanism, whose principles are opposed to our free institutions – to the glory and strength of England.” – Athenæum, October 30.

“In France, in Holland, and in Germany, there has already appeared a multitude of disquisitions on this subject. Among these several are the acknowledged compositions of men of high standing in the Roman Catholic world, – men admittedly entitled to speak with the authority that must attach to established reputation: but not one of them has hitherto produced a work more likely to create a deep impression than the anonymous German publications at the head of this notice. It is not a piece of merely polemical writing, it is a treatise dealing with a large subject in an impressive though partisan manner – a treatise grave in tone, solid in matter, and bristling with forcible and novel illustrations.” – Spectator, November 6.

“It is, as all our readers know, a history of how the Papal claims have grown from their modest germs in the fifth, down to their full development in the sixteenth century. This history, too, is accompanied by a corresponding exhibition of the inconsistency of these claims with actual facts. But the work is done with such elaborate care, and with such a well-marshalled and complete view of the historical facts of the case, that it may well be bought and read irrespective of the circumstances which have called it forth. It is a full, able, and learned bill of indictment against Popery proper.” – Literary Churchman, November 13.

“This book, characterized by great ability, singular grasp, and scholarship, demonstrates, with proof infallible, that the Ultramontane doctrine of the Pope's infallibility is the centre of an arch based upon error, raised by cunning craft, settled and cemented by shameless treachery. And this most damaging exposure of Popery proceeds from divines calling themselves ‘faithful Catholics.’ No Ultramontane is able to sneer at the scholarship of the book; nor can they take off the edge of its blows by ascribing it to the malice of Protestants.” – Record, November 17.

“Yet on this and other documents of the same kind, the whole fabric of Papal power and assumption has been built up. The forged donations of Constantine, Pepin, and Charlemagne are the title-deeds by which its possessions are held, and the Liber Pontificalis, and Isidorian decretals, are the authorities on which it rests for the assertion of a power inconsistent alike with the rights of God and the liberties of man. We know of no book in which the whole process is exposed with the same completeness and in the same brief compass, and we commend it to our readers as one from which they will derive an amount of valuable information for which otherwise they might search in vain.” – English Independent, November 18.

“The book before us is making England and Germany ring with valiant and wise words of warning, which ought to make the representative of St. Peter weep tears of honest grief over past and present, the crooked policy of the one and the headstrong ambition of the other. As a rule, we may say that anti-Papal literature is of the lowest grade of literary merit, filled with illogical and inconclusive reasoning, and characterized by ignorance, bigotry, and cant. The present work is a splendid exception, severe in tone, but not unduly so, clear in statement, and unsparing in its dissection of the contradictions involved in modern Ultramontane theories. Its German authorship secures for it patient and exhaustive treatment of the subject; its Catholic origin places its statements far above the ordinary suspicions of unfairness, while it raises our admiration for the love of truth, which could lead men to oppose so bravely the current of popular Roman thought.” – Church Times, November 26.

“Now, what this book of Janus proves is, that all these à priori reasons for Papal Infallibility are absolutely worthless. They are beaten off the stage entirely and altogether. There is not the smallest atom of ground for them to stand upon.” – Church Review, November 27.

“This work, written by continental Roman Catholics of the liberal school, will be read in Protestant England with the deepest interest, and on more accounts than one. Accustomed as we are so much to view this great Church system of Rome with feelings of antagonism, it is well we should know and learn to sympathize with able and earnest men within its body, who are keenly alive to its weaknesses, and are anxiously seeking for light as to how Christianity, as they have received it, may help to solve the perplexities of the age. We should hope that no Protestant who reads this able treatise will feel differently. At the same time, it has no little value for us Protestants, in days when our Protestantism is so scornfully arraigned among ourselves; for if anything can justify our position and deepen our gratitude to a merciful Providence that has ruled our history, it is a candid work like this, proceeding from what we must call the opposite camp.” – Contemporary Review, December.

“Rumour will, no doubt, be busy with its conjectures as to the name which lurks beneath the nom de plume of ‘Janus.’ We do not intend to offer any contribution towards the elucidation of the mystery, unless it be a contribution to say that the book bears internal evidence of being the work of a Catholic, and that there are not many Catholics in Europe who could have written it. Taking it all in all, it is no exaggerated praise to characterize it as the most damaging assault on Ultramontanism that has appeared in modern times. Its learning is copious and complete, yet so admirably arranged that it invariably illustrates without overlaying the argument. The style is clear and simple, and there is no attempt at rhetoric. It is a piece of cool and masterly dissection, all the more terrible for the passionless manner in which the author conducts the operation.” – Times, December 3.