Chapter IV: , VII (214)

You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral
vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the
charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in
the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have
unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the
sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of
the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with
salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned
pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated
it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in
vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,
were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls
by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and
condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the
heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of
the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,
and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited
serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society
into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our
predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to
the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading
their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and
promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor
by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of
the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to
destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and
hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of
inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to
corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and
finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But
as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been
raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the
mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the
most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by
evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury
caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in
accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and
following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we
raised our voice, and by the publication of several
encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other
apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of
our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,
warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear
children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid
the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our
first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,
and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the
9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the
monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the
present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the
detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the
Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable
rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God
upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we
have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the
principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic
Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to
us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely
demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude
to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors
as from so many sources.
{2469}
These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as
they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary
force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine
author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end
of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with
regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy
that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the
government which have always existed for the happiness and
security of religious and civil society, For as you are well
aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in
the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and
absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach
that the perfect right of public society and civil progress
absolutely require a condition of human society constituted
and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,
as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any
distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to
the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the
fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best
condition of society is that in which the power of the laity
is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon
violators of the Catholic religion unless required by
considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social
government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further
to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety
of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by
our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:
"Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every
man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by
law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are
entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which
neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,
their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,
or through the press, or by other means." But in making these
rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,
that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,
Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human
conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to
struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of
human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus
Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this
culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,
Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil
government, since the doctrine and authority of divine
revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected
therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness
and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate
right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,
entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,
to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested
by what is called public opinion or by other means,
constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human
right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by
the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the
force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand
that human society, released from the ties of religion and
true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,
and can follow no other law in its actions than the
indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and
interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with
so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved
so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly
declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so
doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.
For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius
VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of
public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the
Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and
in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the
celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who
constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."
(Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In
their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the
church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly
"receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law
forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon
certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious
pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the
principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating
religion from public society, they desire further to banish it
from families and private life. Teaching and professing these
most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare
that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its
right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be
concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of
parents over their children, and, above all, the right of
instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and
machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the
salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from
the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and
miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices
the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble
sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of
society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have
always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and
efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave
and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is
upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.
Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have
descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain
records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has
been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society
and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so
far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies
of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they
ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and
educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times
condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the
authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred
upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,
and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see
with regard to exterior order.
{2470}
They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not
bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil
power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs
concerning religion and the church require the sanction and
approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and
that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,
whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and
branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have
no force in those regions of the world where these
associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is
likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the
Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who
invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,
seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to
attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide
nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a
temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not
demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by
temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred
theology and the principles of public law to claim for the
civil government the property possessed by the churches, the
religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they
have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the
principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and
perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is
not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil
power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind
can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the
essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over
in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound
doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy
See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare
of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim
the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of
the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the
Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the
sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to
see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a
diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic
duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy
religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls
confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,
have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our
apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe
generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines
specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may
be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the
children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,
venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth
and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have
spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent
books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the
surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You
are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that
excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master
Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous
persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited
eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with
which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an
impiety.

_Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed
Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX._

I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.

1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and
providence distinct from the universality of things, and God
is none other than the nature of things, and therefore
immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all
things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,
therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence
mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of
action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.

(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.

(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole
arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in
itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the
welfare of men and nations.

(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native
strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule
by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all
truths of every kind.

(See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,
and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the
progress of human reason.

(See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and
divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to
the perfection of man.

(See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred
books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the
Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The
books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and
Jesus Christ is himself a myth.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.

8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,
theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.

(Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly
the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,
instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength
and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most
abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed
as objective.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
December 4, 1862.
Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)

{2471}

10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,
it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to
the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but
philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.

(Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
December 11, 1862;
and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself
with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the
errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their
correction.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman
congregation fetter the free progress of science.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
demands of the age and the progress of science.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)

14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
supernatural revelation.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)

N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the
errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the
Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,
and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"
April 30, 1860.

III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain
eternal salvation.

(Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)

17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
have never been in the true church of Christ.

(Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the
same true religion in which it is possible to be equally
pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.

(Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)

IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.

Pests of this description have been frequently
rebuked in the severest terms in the
Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.

V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.

19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free
association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual
rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it
appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights
and limits within which the church may exercise authority.

(Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
"Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)

20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

(Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)

21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically
that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true
religion.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers
does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as
articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)

23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
or any direct or indirect temporal power.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded
the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,
and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to
dogma and morals.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,
further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,
either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also
revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
acquisition and possession.

("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;
Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)

27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to
be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over
temporal affairs.

(Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)

28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their
apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be
considered null unless they have been requested by the civil
government.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons
derives its origin from civil law.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether
civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even
without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military
law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right
or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,
especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal
government.

(Letter to Bishop Montisregal,
"Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)

33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
matters of theology.

(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to
a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine
which prevailed in the middle ages.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

{2472}

35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,
or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical
sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other
bishopric in another city.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of
subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that
matters shall remain as they are.

(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

37. National churches can be established without, and
separated from, the Roman pontiff.

(Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
of the church in Eastern and Western churches.

(Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.

39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of
all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not
circumscribed by any limit.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
and interests of society.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic
sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over
religious affairs.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law
ought to prevail.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and
render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the
use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without
the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.

(Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding
religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has
control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences
issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the
church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of
administering the divine sacraments and the necessary
arrangements for their reception.

("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth
of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the
case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the
civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority
shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the
discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the
taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.

(Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
"Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)

46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
must be submitted to the civil authority.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require
that popular schools open without distinction to all children
of the people, and public establishments destined to teach
young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to
them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to
the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and
opinions common to the times.

(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in
separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of
the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of
natural things and the objects of social life, may be
perfectly approved by Catholics.

(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of
religion and the faithful from communicating freely and
mutually with the Roman Pontiff.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of
presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take
possession of their diocese before having received canonical
institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing
bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to
obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of
sees and the institution of bishops.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")

52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the
church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both
sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to
admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of
religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil
government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a
religious life, and break their vows. The government may also
deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to
collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their
goods to civil competence and administration.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
"Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)

54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction
of the church, but are superior to the church even in
litigious questions of jurisdiction

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

55. The church must be separated from the State and the State
from the church.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)

VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,
and there is no necessity that human laws should be
conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction
from God.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws
may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in
matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency
of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of
riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of
every pleasure.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)

{2473}

59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain
words, and all human facts have the force of right.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material
force.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the
sanctity of right.

(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and
observed.

(Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)

63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate
princes and to rise in insurrection against them.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)

64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and
shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only
undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the
highest praise when done for the love of country.

(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.

65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised
marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the
contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself
only consists in the nuptial benediction.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be
pronounced by the civil authority.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the
impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which
can remove the existing hindrances.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to
pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not
of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil
power.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema
against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing
upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be
considered as emanating from borrowed power.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of
nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has
appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to
be used in marriage.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of
chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the
place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the
marriage contract between Christians must always be a
sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does
not exist.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to
civil jurisdiction.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of
the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of
marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the
first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the
second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,
1851.

IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not
agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the
spiritual power.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the
Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and
liberty of the church.

(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
abundantly explained in Allocutions,
"Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
"Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.

77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the
Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the
State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

(Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some
countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free
exercise of their own worship.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of
worship and the full power given to all of overtly and
publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce
more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and
to the propagation of the evil of indifference.

(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to
and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

----------Syllabus: End--------

PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

"More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
… He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
Council convened. …
{2474}
It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
(September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a
vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
disproportion between the representatives of the different
nations and the number of their constituents was
overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."

_P. Schaff,
History of the Vatican Council
(appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'
American edition)._

The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma
"showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta
modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the
congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their
dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed
that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not
to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the
dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on
the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have
the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.
This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant
bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans
mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia
Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates
alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of
Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,
in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.
Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted
till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst
its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their
negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …
Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the
opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for
the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once
declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled
again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …
Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them
was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon
made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to
the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological
faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously
support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,
held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against
the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The
German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And
the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and
Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the
members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.
They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the
month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to
the internal affairs of the Church."

_Annual Register, 1870,
part 1, foreign History, chapter 5._

{2475}
But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken
possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings
of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had
opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the
end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his
ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all
those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were
disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this
position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon
itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the
19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated
by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to
retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A
paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.
Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,
together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number
of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,
testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,
moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.
Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held
at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was
formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in
the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the
University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against
six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress
assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.
… Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic
body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the
Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in
1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he
never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at
any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct
Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop
of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical
function. He always continued a strict observer of the
disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic
Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make
that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters
had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany
by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical
property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in
each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old
Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.
van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44
in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in
Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body
of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;
Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number
of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently
some advance was recorded over these numbers."

_Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,
volume 4, pages 213-216._

ALSO IN:
_Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
Letters from Rome on the Council._

_Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
The Pope and the Council._

_J. I. von Döllinger,
Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees._

_H. E. Manning,
The Vatican Council._

_Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),
The Vatican Council._

_E. de Pressense,
Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council._

_W. E. Gladstone,
The Vatican Decrees._

The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
"Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
subsequently promulgated by the Pope:

"_Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the
approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting
remembrance._ The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,
in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His
Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,
as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be
united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,
before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through
their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might
be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the
Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were
sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by
the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors
and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in
order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the
faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and
communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,
and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,
and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the
everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the
firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to
Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase
of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that
might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the
preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic
flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to
be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all
the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant
faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic
Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the
entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the
contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.