Imágenes de páginas



its perfection the petition for bread answered by the gift of a stone.

Bishop Vaughan does not venture to assert that the Pope is bound by the canon law—the written law of the Church of Rome. The abolition of the French Sees under the Concordat with Napoleon, and the deposition of the legitimate Bishops even if it were the only instance, has settled that question forever. Over the written law of his Church the pleasure of the Pope is supreme. And this justifies, for every practical purpose, the as sertion that law no longer exists in that Church, in the same very real sense as we should say there was no law in England, in the reign of James the Second, while it was subject to a dispensing power. There exists no law wherever a living ruler, an executive head, claims and exercises, and is allowed to possess a power annulling or a power of dispensing with the law. If Bishop Vaughan does not know this, I am sorry to say that he does not know the first lesson that every English citizen should learn; he has yet to pass through the lispings of civil childhood. This exemption of the individual, be he who he may, from the restraints of the law is the very thing that in England we term absolutism. By absolutism we mean tho superiority of a personal will to law, for the purpose of putting asido or changing law. Now, that power is precisely what the Pope possesses. First, because he is infallible in faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, and he bimself is the final judge which of his utterances shall be utterances ex cathedra. He has only to use the words, “I, ex cathedra, declare;" or the words, "1, in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of my supreme Apostolic authority, define as a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church," and all words that may follow, be they what they may, must now and hereafter be as absolutely accepted by every Roman Catholic who takes the Vat ican for his teacher, with what in their theological language they call a divine faith, as must any article of the Apostles' Creed. And what words they are to be that may follow, the Pope by his own will and motion is the sole judge.




As our readers will be anxious to know of every new develop ment in the Gladstone-Manning controversy, we copy the following telegram:

* LONDON, Nov. 30, 5.30 A. M.—A circular letter from Arch bishop Manning was read in all the Catholic Churches of this diocese yesterday, declaring that all persons who do not accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility cease to be Catholics."

This, in view of what Gladstone has proved to be involved in the doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility, and what has been frankly admitted by eminent Roman Catholics to be true, must be regarded as almost a defiance on the part of Archbishop Manning. It is, at least, evidence that the Roman Catholic Church means to draw the lines sharply and make a square issue. It is a bold measure, especially in view of the known sentiments of leading Roman Catholics in England. We published last week the frank admission of Lord Acton in his letter to Gladstone. We give now another expression of English Roman Catholic sentiment, from Lord Camoys—a nobleman who stands high in his church, and is popular with all classes in England:

(FROM THE LONDON TIMES, Nov. 14.] We have been requested by Lord Camoys to publish the following letter:

HENLEY-ON-THAMES, Nov. 13, 1874. “ DEAR MR. GLADSTONE: In your 'Expostulation' you have appealed to those English Roman Catholics who concur in the views you have therein expressed. As I am one of those who so concur, I am bound to say so. No one is more entitled than yourself to an expression of confidence from those who have been benefited by the great principles of civil and religous liberty by which you have been invariably guided. I concur in the proposition you have stated, though I regret in reference to the reign of Queen Mary, you should have considered it necessary to use the term bloody.' It is unnecessary to argue upon the accuracy of the expression. That word has always been and is offensive to the Roman Catholics, and was not needed to support your assertion. I believe it to be perfectly true, since that reign it was not possible for the party to whom you allude,–1 presume the Ritualists—and, you might have added, for the Roman Catholics, and 1 add for both combined, though they might tend to overthrow the Established Church, yet could never make this a Roman Catholic country. Lord Acton and yourself have drawn attention, and quite appropriately, to the language held by the Roman Catholic clergy and laity previous to emancipation, when the distinction between the civil and spiritual duties of Catholics was clearly defined, and Infallibility emphatically denied. Had any Catholic of importance then said, 'I am a Catholic first and an Englishman after,' and that without the slightest reservation, and, had that expression been defended by a Catholic Archbishop of that day as it has been defended by the Archbishop of Westminster, I very much doubt if Catholic emancipation would have been granted." In noticing your 'Expostulation,' the Archbishop of Westminster, in his published letter, said that there is no change in the obligations of the Roman Catholics to the civil power in consequence of the publication of the Vatican Decrees. Now is this so? It is not likely the present Pope will adopt against Queen Victoria, the course pursued by the then Pope against Queen Elizabeth, but there is no telling what edict might be issued by the author of the Syllabus. Assuming an edict were now issued, tending to weaken or destroy allegiance, wliat & different position a Roman Catholic would be in now from what he would have been in then. Infallibility was not then a matter of compulsory belief, and he would have been at liberty to refuse compliance with such an edict; but what would be the effect of his belief in the personal infallibility? He must either withhold his allegiance on the one hand, or risk his salvation on the other; and is not this a new obligation ? To be compelled to believe under severe penalties now, what we were at liberty to disbeliere then with impunity, is surely a new obligation. As an independent English Roman Catholic, I consider it my duty to make this response to your appeal. Much may be said of the serious difficulties that many members of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world will be placed in, by being compelled to believe in the Vatican Decrees. For myself, I will say that history, common sense, and my early instruction, forbid me to accept the astounding and novel (novel at least, in its present promulgation) doctrine of the personal infallibility of the Pope, though limited, as asserted, to the large domain of faith and morals. I remain yours, faithfully,

CAMOY8." All such men are given to understand that they must eat their words and belie their convictions, or cease to be regarded as Catholics. This is frank, definite, unmistakable-indicating & settled purpose on the part of the Church to stand or fall with the doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility, accepting all its logical and theological consequences.

Those English Catholics whom we mention elsewhere as having pe or about to go to Rome, to persuade the Pope not to insist on applying the doctrine of Infallibility in such a way as to in. terfere with their political relations in England, will find cold comfort, according to the following statement:

“ This morning the Pope, who has recovered from his indispo sition, after receiving the Bishop of Bucharest, admitted several English Catholics to an audience. In addressing them, he said:

A former Minister of your country, whom I had believed rather moderate, and who, to say the truth, had never wbile in office manifested arrogance or violence toward the Catholic Church, intoxicated by the proceedings of another Minister in another State, has suddenly come forward, like a viper, assailing this bark of St. Peter. I have not read the book, and I have no great desire to read blasphemies, but from what I understand, the Minister whom they call Liberal, flatters the Catholics of that nation, and leads them to believe that I wish them to becomo disloyal to their sovereign and the laws of their country. Puzzled at beholding the vast progress made by that great na tion in the path of the true faith, the fallen Minister hoped to arrest the luminous triumph of the Church by interpreting after his own fashion, the will of this poor Vicar of Christ. A great King (Charlemagne) said that even should the Church impose heavy burdens on the conscience of the population, the Catholics should bear them from their interest in the communion of the Church; but our dogmas, far from being burdens, are light. Those who will walk astray are not Catholics; they are worse than infidels and Protestants, because, calling themselves Catholics, they daily rebel against God and the laws of the Church."

This fierce denunciation of Gladstone without one word of de nial of the truth of Gladstone's charges, or the slightest attempt to soften the doctrine of papal supremacy and Infallibility, is significant as an illustration of the spirit that reigns at the Vatican, and the policy of the Pope to push bis claims to the utmost.

That Gladstone is not a victim of idle fears in asserting that even England, in spite of all previous asseveratiors of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, is placed in a new and somewhat dangerous position, by the latest phases of Romanism, he has abundantly demonstrated; and, as we have seen, eminent Catholic noblemen admit the truth and force of his statements and reasonings. In this country, while we may flatter ourselves that we have no concern with this strife between Church and State, it is well to watch all the bearings of this controversy-since it may prove that even here, a strife may yet be provoked of exceeding bitterness. The open and

fierce assaults on our public school system, the unscrupulous efforts to secure State ronage for ecclesiastical institutions, and the bold avowal of the most offensive teachings of the famous and infamous Syllabus, all show the anti-republican nature of a power which is growing into immense proportions in our land.

[ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »