Chapter XVIII: Preface (18)

_Rome, July 14, 1870._—I must again interrupt my narrative of the occurrences and speeches between June 5 and 10 to communicate the details of the great event of the session of July 13—an event which has falsified all expectations on both sides, and created a sensation and astonishment in Rome which it will take people some time to recover from. Even beyond the Alps, in spite of the all-absorbing question of the war, it will rouse interest and joyful surprise. In the last few days before the critical morning of the 13th there was much discussion among the Bishops of the various nations as to whether they should vote a simple “No” or a conditional “Yes,”—a _Non placet_ or a _Placet juxta modum_. It was not merely the fourth chapter that was in question, which deals with infallibility, but the whole _Schema_ on the Papacy, which contains also the much-decried third canon of the third chapter, establishing for the first time the theory of the universal episcopate of the Pope, the very theory Pope Gregory the Great characterized as an abomination and a blasphemy. It was known that the Bishops who are mere dilettantis in theology—and their number is legion, as is natural under the present system of episcopal appointments—would greatly prefer voting _juxta modum_, _i.e._, with a conditioned “Yes.” That would always leave them free to reserve their further decision till the public voting “coram Sanctissimo” (as the Pope is here called), when only a direct “Yes” or “No” can be voted. Each of them could present in writing the conditions or wishes on which he desired to make his _Placet_ dependent, and then say “Yes” or “No” according to his pleasure in the Solemn Session, if his suggestions were disregarded—“Yes,” if he wished to direct the lightning flashes of the angry Jupiter to other heads than his own; “No,” if he could summon manliness and courage enough at the last moment. The Court party and the majority had neglected no means of impressing on the recalcitrants the uselessness of their negative votes and the personal disadvantages to themselves. Every one was told, “It is determined irrevocably to take no account of your ‘No,’ and to go on to the promulgation of the dogma. Supported by at least 500 favourable votes, and throwing the surplus weight of his own vote into the scale, the Pope, on the 17th or 24th July, will walk over your heads amid the presumed acclamations of the whole Catholic world; and how lamentable and hopeless a situation will yours be then! You are then heretics, who have incurred the terrible penalties of the canon law; you have surrendered at discretion, bound hand and foot, to the mercy of the deeply injured Pope. Consider, ‘Quid sum miser tunc dicturus, quem patronum rogaturus?’ ”

Thus they were worked on individually. And more drastic methods were employed as well. It was asserted that two documents had already been drawn up in the Vatican, which every Bishop would be compelled to sign before being allowed to leave Rome; the one a profession of faith comprising the new article of infallibility, and the other an attestation of the perfect freedom of the Council throughout its whole course. Whoever refused to sign either would thereby at once incur papal censures. “We shall thus have,” they were told, “your _Non placet_ and your ‘free’ acknowledgment under your hand of the article of faith you denied a few days before, and shall show it to the world. Do you wish then morally to annihilate yourselves in public opinion?”

As the Bishops who are resolved to give a negative vote knew well the more timorous temper of many of their colleagues, who were half-ready to be persuaded and half-ready to succumb, and remembered the Scriptural saying that “a high priest must have compassion on our infirmities,” some of them drew up a formula stating the basis on which the timid might vote _Placet juxta modum_. In the preamble of the _Schema_ the word “principium” was to be exchanged for “exordium,” and instead of “vis et virtus in eo (Papâ) consistit,” was to be put “præcipue in eo consistit;” the third canon of the third chapter was to be wholly omitted, and the word “episcopalis” left out of the chapter, and lastly, the formula of St. Antoninus was to be substituted for the fourth chapter. The proposed document ends with “Secus in Solemni Sessione dicturus sum, _Non placet_.”

On July 12 the Bishops of the minority held the most largely attended international conference which has yet taken place; about 70 were present. Three prelates, two German and one French—Ketteler, Melchers and Archbishop Landriot of Rheims—proposed that all should vote _Placet juxta modum_, but at the same time hand in a precise and decided formulas the condition of their assent, with a declaration that, if their demands were rejected or inadequately complied with, they should be obliged to vote _Non placet_ in the Solemn Session. This would have substantially secured the complete victory of the majority and the _Curia_. Every one would have naturally said, “Your ‘Yes,’ however conditioned, can only bear the sense that in the main point you agree with the _Schema_, and that main point lies in the two new and great articles of faith, which hang together and must shape the future of the Church, the universal episcopate of the Pope and his infallibility. By saying _Placet_ you affirm these two new dogmas, and after that it will matter little what particular collateral wishes or conditions you may choose to add. Whether they are acceded to or not, you must in consistency say ‘Yes’ on the great day of the public profession, when only a simple affirmative or negative vote can be given.”

The three Cardinals, the two primates Simor and Ginoulhiac, Strossmayer and others, spoke out repeatedly and emphatically against this mischievous proposal which would at the last moment have frustrated all their hopes, and annihilated the results of seven months’ sufferings and labours. A decisive impression was produced by the remark of the Archbishop of Milan, that there were many infallibilists who on various grounds would vote conditionally, and this peculiar kind of vote, which was better adapted to courtiers than Bishops, had better be left to them. “The only befitting course for us,” he said, “who are convinced of the falsehood of the doctrine, is to say ‘No.’ ” This was unanimously accepted. Tarnoczy, who for some time back has withdrawn from his German and Hungarian colleagues, and votes regularly with the majority, was not present. Cardinal Schwarzenberg said he should be glad if one of the Cardinals voted _Non placet_ before him, but if this did not happen he should be the first, and should count it a distinction to stand at the head of this noble band.

It was remarkable how generally the view prevailed that scarcely ten opposing votes would really be given when the time came. No means were spared, by rumours and inventions, to spread terror and despair among the ranks of the Opposition. Thus the report was circulated in foreign journals—where you will have read it—as well as here, that a “sauve qui peut,” and “débandade” had become the watchword of the Opposition, and not thirty would be left on the day for voting. We see now that this was all pure invention. Even Förster’s departure, which I reported myself, had not taken place; only Greith had gone. When Darboy had an audience of the Pope the day before the voting, and said that there was a considerable number of Bishops who would join him in saying _Non placet_, the Pope replied, “Perhaps many will vote _juxta modum_, but certainly not above ten _Non placet_.” For some time past Pius has notoriously known everything with absolute certainty, even the temper of distant countries. The formulas put into the Pope’s mouth by the Roman Chancery, “proprio motu” and “ex certâ scientiâ,” have been transmuted by the habit of twenty-four years into actual flesh and blood with him.

At the beginning of the sitting the news had spread among the majority that the negative votes would be much more numerous than had been supposed on the evening before. On this Dechamps of Mechlin went to the heads of the Opposition and entreated them with humble gestures and whining voice to vote _juxta modum_, saying there was really some disposition with the authorities to insert the “consensus” and “testimonium Ecclesiarum” into the fourth chapter. The trick was too barefaced to succeed, and sharp words were spoken on the other side. One of the Bishops said to the new primate, “C’est une impudence sans exemple,” and Darboy called the attention of the three Cardinals to this treacherous attempt at the last moment to divide and perplex the Opposition. Now began the voting “sub secreto,” as it was again called, and the sub-secretary Jacobini read the names of the Fathers from the pulpit. And then a wholly unexpected phenomenon came to light: out of 600 Fathers present in Rome—there were 764 in January—only 520 had appeared, and it was at once known that very many of the absentees had stayed away from dislike to the _Schema_, and to avoid the disagreeable consequences of a negative vote.

The line taken by the Orientals in the voting excites surprise here. The Propaganda has spared no means of exercising a strict supervision and control over them, and yet the upshot is that the most influential of them have voted _Non placet_, some _juxta modum_, and others have absented themselves. In fact all the real Eastern Bishops—_i.e._, those who represent dioceses—have voted against the dogma. Every one acquainted with the state of things in Asia foresees that the promulgation of the dogma, which will follow in spite of this, will lead to the definitive separation of the Uniate Churches in the East. But that makes not the slightest impression on the Pope and the Jesuits.

When the names of the _juxta modum_ voters were read out, the President said “quorum, quantum possible erit, habebitur ratio.” That sounded like open mockery: it meant, “We (the Deputation) have already settled among ourselves what is impossible, viz., making the co-operation of the episcopate a condition, but still there are some possible things. If, _e.g._, any Bishops wish to have ‘inerrantia’ substituted for ‘infallibilitas,’ perhaps they may be gratified.” But even concessions of that sort are doubtful, for one cannot give the lie to Bishop Gasser of Brixen, who has distinctly declared that “nec verbum addetur nec verbum demetur amplius.”

Among the conditional voters are Dreux-Brézé, certainly only because the decree is not strong enough for him. The whole Hungarian Episcopate remained firm in its opposition. The Austrians know now why Rudigier and Fessler were given them as Bishops. I send you with this the authentic list of the Fathers who did not vote with a simple _Placet_. It shows that it was just the Bishops of capital cities, as well as North American, Irish, English, and beyond expectation many North Italian prelates, who voted against the dogma. Only one, strictly speaking, was wholly false to his professions, the Bishop of Porto Rico.

The Pope is still sure that at the last critical moment a divine miracle will enlighten the benighted minds of the opponents and suddenly reverse their sentiments. The Holy Ghost will and must do this. Pius seems to have clear assurances on that point. He had lately a remarkable conversation about it with a French Bishop, whom he had never seen before. As he regards every opponent of the dogma as his personal enemy, he received him as such and reproached him with being Cæsar’s friend instead of the Pope’s; the Bishop replied that his white hairs testified to his having nothing to fear or hope for, but simply to follow his conscience, which constrained him with many of his colleagues to vote against the new dogma. “No,” exclaimed Pius, “you will not vote against it; the Holy Ghost at the decisive hour will irresistibly enlighten you, and you will all say _Placet_.”

When the French Government in 1733 had the cemetery of La Chaise surrounded with soldiers, to stop the miraculous cures at the grave of the Abbé Paris, the inscription was found one morning over the entrance—

De par le roi défense à Dieu,
De faire miracle en ce lieu.

On the 17th or 24th July 1870 there might be written over the entrance of the Council Hall—

De par le Pape ordre au bon Dieu
De faire miracle en ce lieu.

The echo of the Vatican, Veuillot’s _Univers_, has just been accusing the Bishops of the minority of ruining the papal treasury by prolonging the debates on infallibility through their opposition, and thus obliging the Pope to go on supporting his 300 episcopal foster sons, and buy his infallibility late and at a high price, when it ought to have been cast into his lap by spontaneous acclamation at the first. A physician has now been discovered for the treasury which has sickened under the infallibility affair. Rothschild is said to have been here and concluded a loan of forty million franks. As the deficit only amounts to thirty million, there remain ten million for fireworks, illuminations and church-decorations, the journey-money of trusty Bishops, and the like. But now the war is impending, and with it the withdrawal of Peter’s pence and perhaps still worse.(154)

The following voted _Non-placet_:—1. _Prague_, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Schwarzenberg; 2. _Besançon_, Cardinal Archbishop Mathieu; 3. _Vienna_, Cardinal Prince-Archbishop Rauscher; 4. _Antioch_, Patriarch Jussuf, of the Melchite Rite; 5. _Babylon_, Patriarch Audu, of the Chaldean Rite; 6. _Gran_, Archbishop and Primate of Hungary, Simor; 7. _Lyons_, Archbishop Ginoulhiac; 8. _Tuam_, Archbishop MacHale; 9. _Olmütz_, Prince-Archbishop Fürstenberg; 10. _Trabezund_, Bishop Ghiureghian, of the Armenian Rite; 11. _Munich_, Archbishop Scherr; 12. _Bamberg_, Archbishop Deinlein; 13. _Seert_, Bishop Bar-Tatar, of the Chaldean Rite; 14. _Halifax_, Archbishop Conolly, of the Capuchin Order; 15. _Lemberg_, Archbishop Wierzcheyski, of the Latin Rite; 16. _Paris_, Archbishop Darboy; 17. _Kalocsa_, Archbishop Haynald; 18. _Milan_, Archbishop Nazari di Calabiana; 19. _Tyre_, Archbishop Kauam, of the Melchite Rite; 20. _Biella_ (_Italy_), Bishop Losanna; 21. _Autun_, Bishop Marguerye; 22. _Ivrea_ (_Piedmont_), Bishop Moreno; 23. _Dijon_, Bishop Rivet; 24. _Metz_, Bishop Dupont des Loges; 25. _Iglesias_ (_Sardinia_), Bishop Montixi; 26. _Acquapendente_ (formerly in the Roman States), Bishop Pellei; 27. _Trieste_, Bishop Legat; 28. _Orleans_, Bishop Dupanloup; 29. _Vezprim_, Bishop Ranolder; 30. _Mayence_, Bishop Ketteler; 31. _Bosnia_ and _Syrmia_, Bishop Strossmayer; 32. _Budweis_, Bishop Jirsik; 33. _Breslau_, Prince-Bishop Förster; 34. _Kerry_, Bishop Moriarty; 35. _Leontopolis, in partibus_, Bishop Forwerk, Apostolic Vicar of Saxony; 36. _Plymouth_, Bishop Vaughan; 37. _Clifton_, Bishop Clifford; 38. _Nice_, Bishop Sola; 39. _Parenzo_ and _Pola_, Bishop Dobrilla; 40. _Kreutz_ (_in Croatia_), Bishop Smiciklas, of the Ruthenian Rite; 41. _Augsburgh_, Bishop Dinkel; 42. _Gurk_, Bishop Wiery; 43. _Caltanisetta_ (_Sicily_), Bishop Guttadauro di Reburdone; 44. _Vacz_ (_in Hungary_), Bishop Peitler; 45. _Marianne_ (_Syria_), —— of the Melchite Rite; 46. _Chatham_, Bishop Rogers; 47. _Csanad_ and _Temesvar_, Bishop Bonnaz; 48. _Pittsburg_, Bishop Domenec; 49. _Luzonia_, Bishop Colet; 50. _Sura, in partibus_, Bishop Maret; 51. _St. Brieuc_, Bishop David; 52. _Trèves_, Bishop Eberhard; 53. _Coutance_, Bishop Bravard; 54. _Lavant_, Bishop Stepischnigg; 55. _Soissons_, Bishop Dours; 56. _Akra_, Bishop Mellus, of the Chaldean Rite; 57. _Siebenbürgen_, Bishop Fogarasz; 58. _Châlons_, Bishop Meignan; 59. _Valence_, Bishop Gueullette; 60. _Perpignan_, Bishop Ramadié; 61. _Paleopolis, in partibus_, Bishop Mariassy (_Hungary_); 62. _Petricola_ or _Little Rock_ (_United States_), Bishop Fitzgerald; 63. _Marseilles_, Bishop Place; 64. _Cahors_, Bishop Grimardias; 65. _Osnaburgh_, Bishop Beckmann; 66. _Szathmar_ (_Hungary_), Bishop Virò de Keydi Polany; 67. _Munkacs_, Bishop Pankovics, of the Ruthenian Rite; 68. _Bayeux_, Bishop Hugonin; 69. _Raab_, Bishop ——; 70. _La Rochelle_, Bishop Benedetto; 71. _Nancy_, Bishop Foullon; 72. _Constantine_ (_Algiers_), Bishop de las Cases; 73. _Oran_ (_Algiers_), Bishop Callot; 74. _Gap_, Bishop Guilbert; 75. _Ermeland_, Bishop Crementz; 76. _Rochester_, Bishop MacQuaid; 77. _Louisville_, Bishop Kenrick; 78. _Cassovia_, Bishop Perger (Hungary); 79. _Agathopolis_, Bishop Namszanowski, Provost of the Prussian Army in Berlin; 80. _Montreal_ (_Canada_), Bishop Bourget; 81. _Grosswardein_, Bishop Lipovniczky; 82. _Fünfkirchen_, Bishop Kovacs; 83. _Steinamanger_, Bishop Szenczy; 84. _Rottenburg_, Bishop Hefele; 85. _Ajaccio_, Bishop Sante Casanelli d’Istria, and three more whose names were omitted in the official catalogue.

There voted _Placet juxta modum_:—1. De Silvestri, Cardinal-Priest; 2. Trevisanato, Cardinal Patriarch of Venice; 3. Guidi, Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna; 4. _Salsburg_, Archbishop and Primate Tarnoczy; 5. _Oregon City_, Archbishop Blanchet; 6. _Nisibis, in partibus_, Archbishop Tizzani; 7. _Tyre and Sidon_, Archbishop Bostani, Maronite; 8. _Manila_, Archbishop Melithon-Martinez; 9. _Granada_, Archbishop Monzon y Martins; 10. _Avignon_, Archbishop Dubrevil; 11. _New York_, Archbishop MacCloskey; 12. _Cologne_, Archbishop Melchers; 13. _Melitene, in partibus_, Archbishop Mérode; 14. _Rheims_, Archbishop Landriot; 15. _Sens_, Archbishop Bernardou; 16. _Burgos_, Archbishop Yusto; 17. _Ventimiglia_ (_Italy_), Bishop Biale; 18. _Columbica_, _in partibus_, Bishop Verolles, Apostolic Vicar in Leao-Tung (China); 19. _Canopo_, _in partibus_, Bishop Besi; 20. _Sira_, Bishop Alberti, Apostolic Delegate in Greece; 21. _Zenopolis_, _in partibus_, Bishop Moccagatta, Apostolic Vicar in Xan-Tung; 22. _Lipari_, Bishop Ideo; 23. _Birmingham_, Bishop Ullathorne; 24. _Vancouver_, Bishop Demers; 25. _Mileto_, Bishop Mincione; 26. _Moulins_, Bishop Dreux-Brézé; 27. _Gezira_, Bishop Hindi, of the Chaldean Rite; 28. _Hadrianopolis, in partibus_, Bishop De la Place, Apostolic Vicar in Tsche-Kiang; 29. _Tarnovia_, Bishop Pukalski (Galicia); 30. _Chartres_, Bishop Regnault; 31. _Urgel_, Bishop Caixal y Estrade; 32. _Monterey_, Bishop Amat; 33. _Tanes_, _in partibus_, Bishop Salzano, Dominican; 34. _Newcastle_, Bishop Chadwick; 35. _Lacedonia_, Bishop Majorsini; 36. _Todi_, Bishop Rosati; 37. _Avellino_, Bishop Gallo; 38. _Amelia_, Bishop Pace; 39. _Nola_, Bishop Formisano; 40. _Imola_, Bishop Moretti; 41. _Zamora_, Bishop Condé y Corral; 42. _Avila_, Bishop Blanco, Dominican; 43. _Savannah_, Bishop Verot; 44. _Cuenca_, Bishop Payà y Rico; 45. _Cajazzo_, Bishop Riccio; 46. _Teramo_, Bishop Milella, Dominican; 47. _Nocera_, Bishop Pettinari; 48. _St. Christophori_, Bishop De Urguinaona; 49. _Clariopolis_, _in partibus_, Bsciai, Apostolic Vicar in Egypt, of the Coptic Rite; 50. _Erzeroum_, Bishop Melchisedechian, of the Armenian Rite; 51. _Monte Fiascone_, Bishop Bovieri; 52. _Savona_, Bishop Cerruti; 53. _Agathonica_, _in partibus_, Bishop Pagnucci; 54. _Ascalon_, _in partibus_, Bishop Meurin, Society of Jesus; 55. _Dionysia_, _in partibus_, Bishop Gentili; 56. _Cattaro_, Bishop Marchich; 57. _Serena_, Bishop Orrego; 58. Mardin, Bishop of the Chaldean Rite; 59. _Tiberias_, _in partibus_, Bishop Valeschi; 60. Guardi, General of the Ministers of the Sick; 61. The Abbot of the Camaldolese in Etruria.

The following abstained from voting, though in Rome at the time:—_Cardinals_: 1. Mattei, 2. Orfei, 3. Quaglia, 4. Hohenlohe, 5. Berardi, 6. Antonelli, 7. Grassellini; 8. The Patriarch Harcus of Antioch, of the Syrian Rite; 9. The Archbishop and Primate Salomone of Salerno; 10. The Maronite Archbishop Aun of Beirout; 11, 12. Two other Archbishops; 13. _Aleppo_, Archbishop Matar, of the Maronite Rite; 14. _Venezuela_, Archbishop Guevara; 15. _Utrecht_, Archbishop Zwysen; 16. _Tours_, Archbishop Guibert; 17. _Rodi_, _in partibus_, Archbishop Pace-Forno, Bishop of Malta; 18. _Mardin_, Archbishop Nasarian, of the Armenian Rite; 19. _Alby_, Archbishop Lyonnet; 20. Iconium, _in partibus_, Archbishop Puecher Passavalli; 21. _Guadalaxara_, Archbishop Loya; 22. _Amida_, Archbishop Bahtiarian, of the Armenian Rite; 23. _Tournay_, Bishop Labis; 24. _Terni_, Bishop Severa; 25. _Veglia_, Bishop Vitezich; 26. _Almira_, _in partibus_, Bishop Carli, Capuchin; 27. _Montauban_, Bishop Doney; 28. _Cava_, Bishop Fertilla; 29. _Curia_, _in partibus_, Bishop Grioglio; 30. _Segni_ (Papal State), Bishop Ricci; 31. _Paphos_, _in partibus_, Bishop Alcazar, Dominican Vicar Apostolic; 32. _Vicenza_, Bishop Varina; 33. _Salford_, Bishop Turner; 34. _Catanzaro_, Bishop de Franco; 35. _Bergamo_, Bishop Speranza; 36. _Savannah_, —; 37. _St. Angelo in Lombardy_, Bishop Fanelli; 38. _Dromore_, Bishop Leahy, Dominican; 39. _Glarus_, —; 40. _Birta_, _in partibus_, Bishop Pinsoneault; 41. _Fernes_, Bishop Furlong; 42. _Anagni_, Bishop Pagliari; 43. _Siguenza_, Bishop Benavides; 44. _Ceramo_, _in partibus_, Bishop Jeancard, Suffragan of Marseilles; 45. _Polemonia_, _in partibus_, Bishop Pinchon; 46. _Lipari_, Bishop Athanasio; 47. _Apamea_, Archbishop Ata, of the Melchite Rite; 48. _Mindus_, _in partibus_, Bishop Papardo del Parco; 49. _Bursa_, Bishop Tilkian, of the Armenian Rite; 50. _Astorga_, Bishop Arguelles y Miranda; 51. _Comacchio_, Bishop Spoglia; 52. _Charlottetown_, Bishop MacIntyre; 53. _Vallis Pratensis_, — (?); 54. _Lamego_, Bishop de Vasconcellos Periera de Mello; 55. _Montpellier_, Bishop Curtier; 56. _Barcelona_, Bishop Monserrat y Navarro; 57. _Amatunto_, _in partibus_, Bishop Galezki, Apostolic Vicar in Cracow; 58. _Kilmore_, Bishop Conaty; 59. _Priene_, _in partibus_, Bishop Cosi; 60. _Tuy_, Bishop Garcia y Anton; 61. _Puno_, Bishop Huerta; 62. _Adelaide_, Bishop Shiel; 63. _Albany_ (_America_), Bishop Conroy; 64. _Concordia_, Bishop Frangipani; 65. _St. Hyacinth_, Bishop Laroque; 66. _Dubuque_, Bishop Hennessy; 67. _Vannes_, Bishop Becel; 68. _Goulburn_, Bishop Lannigan; 69. _St. Germani bei Monte Cassino_, — (?); 70. _Verdun_, Bishop Hacquard; 71. _Egéa_, _in partibus_, Bishop Reynaud; 72. _St. Giov. di Cuyo_, Bishop Achaval; 73. _Cirene_, _in partibus_, Bishop Canzi; 74. _Rodiopolis_, _in partibus_, Bishop Tosi; 75. _Buffalo_, Bishop Ryan; 76. _Adramyttium_, _in partibus_, Bishop Gibbons; 77. _Coria_, Bishop Nuñez; 78. _Heliopolis_, Bishop Nasser, of the Melchite Rite; 79. _Titopolis_, _in partibus_, — (?); 80, 81. Abbates nullius; 82, 83. Burchall, President of the Benedictine Congregation in England; 84. The Abbot of Janow, Apostolic Administrator in Russia; 85. Montis Coronæ; 86-91. These names could not be announced on account of the great confusion.

SIXTY-SEVENTH LETTER.

_Rome, July 16, 1870._—As I had to report in my last letter, the attempt of the Legates and the Deputation to outwit and catch the minority by a violation of their own order of business had all but succeeded. Darboy and Strossmayer frustrated this plot, on which it is literally true that the fate of the Church was staked. For the third canon of the third chapter had been brought forward in so enlarged and altered a form, that it involved in substance the abolition of the entire episcopate, as an integral constituent of the Christian Church, and substituted for it the papal “totality,” as the theologians of the seventeenth century called it; _i.e._, the theory that in the whole Church there is one sole individual who is in exclusive possession of all plenary powers and all ecclesiastical rights. The weight and importance of the doctrine thereby designed to be for the first time imposed on the Church cannot even be made intelligible in a few words. Most readers are naturally unaware of the sense attached in canon law and the language of the _Curia_ to the words, “potestas immediata et ordinaria.” Well! they mean that all Christians, whether laymen or clerics, are personally subjects, body and soul, of their lord and master, the Pope, who can impose on them without restriction whatever commands seem good to him. There are, besides the Pope, who exercises immediate authority by virtue of his universal episcopate, papal commissaries in the separate dioceses, who call themselves Bishops, and are so named by the Roman Chancery. They exercise the powers delegated to them by the one true and universal Bishop, and carry out the particular orders they receive from Rome. According to this view the whole Church has, properly speaking, no other right or law or order but the pleasure of the reigning Pope. This is the most perfect form of absolutism ever yet excogitated in any man’s brains.

The order of business prohibits any alteration in the text of the decrees being voted upon without previous discussion in Council. That however was now attempted, and the violation of the order of business by the Legates themselves was so flagrant, the design of fraud so palpable, that the incident continued to be the subject of general conversation up to the 12th July. When the plot had miscarried, it was alleged in excuse that the previous discussion had been forgotten!—forgotten precisely in the case of the most important article yet brought forward, and of a change of such immeasurable weight that one may truly say no discussion of equal weight and influence has been passed in any Council during 1800 years. The affair of course made a great sensation. The words “deceit” and “lying” were used more than once in the national meetings of the Opposition Bishops, and it was urged that the whole Deputation _de Fide_ were accomplices of the Legates in this unworthy trick, and that the Bishops were being compelled in a truly revolting manner to vote on alterations of the most comprehensive kind, which had only been communicated to them the day before. A short memorandum was issued by the French Bishops, which recommended that this opportunity should be seized for leaving Rome. It runs as follows:—

“(1). L’heure de la Providence a sonné: le moment décisif de sauver l’Église est arrivé. (2.) Par les additiones faites au III. canon du 3me chap. la Commission _de Fide_ a violé le règlement qui ne permet l’introduction d’aucun amendement sans discussion conciliaire. (3.) L’addition subreptice est d’une importance incalculable; c’est le changement de la constitution de l’Église, la monarchie pure, absolue, indivisible du Pape, l’abolition de la judicature et de la co-souveraineté des évêques, l’affirmation et la définition anticipée de l’infaillibilité separée et personnelle. (4.) Le devoir et l’honneur ne permettent pas de voter sans discussion ce canon, qui contient une immense révolution. La discussion pourrait et devrait durer six mois, parce qu’il s’agit de la question capitale, la constitution même de la souveraineté dans l’Église. (5.) Cette discussion est impossible à cause des fatigues extrêmes de la saison et des dispositions de la majorité. (6.) Une seule chose, digne et honorable, reste à faire: Demander immédiatement la prorogation du Concile au mois d’Octobre, et présenter une declaration, ou seraient énumérées toutes les protestations déjà faites, et où la dernière violation du règlement, le mépris de la dignité et de la liberté des évêques seraient mis en lumière. Annoncer en même temps un départ, qui ne peut plus être différé. (7.) Par le départ ainsi motivé d’un nombre considérable d’évêques de toutes les nations, l’œcuménicité du Concile cesserait et tous les actes, qu’il pourrait faire ensuite, seraient d’une autorité nulle. (8.) Le courage et le dévouement de la minorité auraient, dans le monde, un retentissement immense. Le Concile se réunirait au mois d’Octobre dans des conditions infiniment meilleures. Toutes les questions, à peine ébauchées, pourraient être reprises, traitées avec dignité et liberté. L’Église et l’ordre moral du monde seraient sauvés.”

But the majority of the Opposition did not assent to this; they resolved to present another Protest, which the Court party might apply, like its predecessors, “ad piper et quidquid chartis amicitur ineptis.” It was drawn up by Bishop Dinkel of Augsburgh, and signed, so far as I know, by all of them.

On the evening of the 9th July a proposal of a new formula of infallibility was distributed to the Bishops; it was apparently designed to split up the Opposition, and was broad, declamatory, full of quotations, and lavish of assurances that the Roman See has always administered its supreme teaching office in the most excellent manner and proclaimed nothing but truth. Now, it was added, since there has been a great deal of contradition, it is necessary to define that its _ex cathedrâ_ decisions are infallible, and its decrees on faith and morals irreformable by virtue of the divine promise given to it. This new production was discussed in the French and German conferences and rejected, although one of the most influential German Bishops, Ketteler, had taken it under his protection. He assured them that the Deputation had unanimously resolved that no change or concession by a hair’s-breadth should be allowed in this form of words, for to deny papal infallibility involved a denial of the primacy altogether.

Meanwhile the Jesuit Franzelin had received orders from the highest authority to revise afresh the formula adopted by the Deputation, with which Schrader is said to be very ill satisfied.

In the sitting of July 11, first the Bishop of Trevisa, as a member of the Deputation, defended the notorious decree in the third canon of the third chapter, which is to revolutionize the whole constitution of the Church in the sense of papal absolutism. Then the votes were taken, by rising and sitting down, on the weightiest and most pregnant article that has been laid before any Council for 600 years, and the uncertainty in this method of voting, wholly unprecedented in Church history, was so great that according to the majority only 50 or 60 voted against it, while the minority reckon between 90 and 100 adverse votes.

Then Bishop Gasser of Brixen made a speech three hours long in the name of the Deputation on the infallibility decree, which in its new form—and this he declared to be the _ultimatum_—had been enriched with an anathema against those who “contradicere præsumpserint.” Gasser was unwilling to be left behind by Manning, Dechamps, Dreux-Brézé and the Spaniards. He vindicated the doctrines of Cardinal Cajetan against Ketteler.

Meanwhile Cardinal Guidi had been so powerfully belaboured, that it had frightened him, and he now voted for the third chapter with the majority. The process which had been found so effective in France, of raising their diocesan clergy against fallibilist Bishops, had been applied to him too by means of agents sent to Bologna. The apostasy of Archbishop Tarnoczy of Salzburg, who also voted with the majority, excited grief but no surprise. While the occupant of one of the oldest Sees of Germany, the successor of Arno, Pilgrim and Colloredo, flung away his own rights and those of his successors like so many hollow nutshells, even Cardinal Silvestri voted against the third chapter and the anathema attached to the fourth.

The result of the 13th July has acted like an earthquake, shaking and confusing for the moment men’s heads and plans of operation. Even if half the voters _juxta modum_ are abstracted, as belonging to the majority, there remain 31 votes among them in favour of essential changes in the fourth chapter, changes which the Deputation has declared to be absolutely inadmissible, and which, if admitted, would offend one section of the majority. This last consequence would not of course matter at all; a single word from the Pope would set it aside at once, for it is self-evident that no Bishop who is convinced of his unconditional inerrancy could hesitate for a moment to vote for a decree sanctioned by him. Still the perplexity is great. If the decree, as voted by the majority, is brought forward at the public session, some 120 negative votes may be expected. But the Pope is resolved to become infallible “senza conditione,” as he says.

It is now often said that on the day of the Solemn Session the Holy Ghost will yet most assuredly work a wonderful miracle and convert the Opposition so suddenly that, although they had entered the Council Hall resolved to say “No,” they will say “Yes.” Some, including Antonelli, vote for conciliatory measures and concessions, which however the Deputation on Faith declares to be impossible. The other very numerous party says on the contrary that the unexpected force and extent of the opposition to so fundamental a dogma makes an anathema all the more necessary. A new plan of operations has now been hit upon, which is greatly favoured by the recent deaths. The grand Session for proclaiming the dogma had been fixed for the 17th, and many among the minority were with great difficulty persuaded to remain till that critical day. But now the 25th is talked of.(155) At the same time the report is circulated and confirmed by Antonelli, that there will be no prorogation even at the end of July or beginning of August, but the Council will continue, though many Bishops, on requesting leave, will be permitted to depart. It is urgently necessary, according to Antonelli, to settle the questions about the Oriental Rite. Yet for centuries the Court of Rome has not troubled any Council with these affairs, but settled and regulated them by itself, as is testified by a whole series of papal decrees. And after infallibility is proclaimed, it is utterly superfluous to keep hundreds of foreign Bishops here on that account. But it is known that the new dogma will lead to the separation of the Orientals, and so their Bishops are to be kept here longer as hostages, and the name of the Council is to supply the pretext. And it is hoped that the French and German Bishops will the more certainly ask leave and go home, so that the Opposition may be reduced to a small handful. The Pope himself appears greatly to desire this, as was at once inferred from his remark that the Archbishop of Paris is staying on a long time.

Five Bishops, including Förster of Breslau, actually took their departure on the 14th.

SIXTY-EIGHTH LETTER.

_Rome, July 17, 1870._—All the Bishops of the minority have left Rome, after presenting a statement of their attitude towards the decrees on the Papacy. They made a last attempt, immediately before going, to move the Pope at least not to hurry on the affair but to grant some respite by proroguing the Council. At twelve o’clock to-day he received a deputation headed by Darboy and Simor. Darboy, who spoke first, represented to him the great and manifold dangers the definition would unquestionably give rise to for the whole Church. Hitherto Pius had met all suggestions of scruple by appealing to his “I am Tradition”—his already assured infallibility. This time he did not do so. He fell back on the ground of its being “too late.” Matters had gone too far, and the whole Christian world was now too much occupied and too powerfully excited about the question. Besides, the Council had already passed a decree by a considerable majority, and he was therefore in no position to put a check on the Council, which was now in full swing and urgently pressing for a final decision on this question. The promulgation of the decree of the majority will accordingly follow to-morrow.

The Orientals have subscribed the declaration of the minority. Two German Bishops only, Melchers and Ketteler, have withheld their signature and presented a separate declaration of their own to the Pope. The manifesto of the minority runs thus:—

“_Beatissime Pater!_

“In Congregatione generali die 13 h. m. habitâ, dedimus suffragia nostra super schemate primæ Constitutionis dogmaticæ de Ecclesiâ Christi.

“Notum est Sanctitati Vestræ 88 Patres fuisse, qui, conscientiâ urgente et amore Sanctæ Ecclesiæ permoti, suffragium suum per verba _non placet_ emiserunt; 62 alios, qui suffragati sunt per verba _placet juxta modum_, denique 70 circiter qui a congregatione abfuerunt atque a suffragio emittendo abstinuerunt. His accedunt et alii, qui, infirmitatibus aut aliis gravioribus rationibus ducti, ad suas diœceses reversi sunt.

“Hâc ratione Sanctitati Vestræ et toto mundo suffragia nostra nota atque manifesta fuere, patuitque quam multis episcopis sententia nostra probatur, atque hoc modo munus officiumque quod nobis incumbit persolvimus.

“Ab eo inde tempore nihil prorsus evenit quod sententiam nostram mutaret, quin imo multa eaque gravissima acciderunt, quæ nos in proposito nostro confirmaverunt. Atque ideo nostra jam edita suffragia nos renovare ac confirmare declaramus.

“Confirmantes itaque per hanc scripturam suffragia nostra a Sessione publicâ die 18 h. m. habendâ abesse constituimus. Pietas enim filialis ac reverentia quæ missos nostros nuperrime ad pedes Sanctitatis Vestræ adduxere, non sinunt nos in causâ Sanctitatis Vestræ personam adeo proxime concernente palam et in facie patris dicere _non placet_.

“Et aliunde suffragia in Solenni Sessione edenda repeterent dumtaxat suffragia in generali Congregatione deprompta.

“Redimus itaque sine morâ ad greges nostros, quibus post tam longam absentiam ob belli timores et præsertim summas eorum spirituales indigentias summopere necessarii sumus; dolentes, quod, ob tristia in quibus versamur rerum adjuncta etiam conscientiarum pacem et tranquillitatem turbatam inter fideles nostros reperturi simus.

“Interea Ecclesiam Dei et Sanctitatem Vestram, cui intemeratam fidem et obedientiam profitemur, D. N. J. C. gratiæ et præsidio toto corde commendantes sumus Sanctitatis Vestræ

“devotissimi et obedientissimi filii.

“ROMÆ, _17 Jul. 1870_.”

SIXTY-NINTH LETTER.

_Rome, July 19, 1870._—On the evening of the 15th a deputation of the Bishops of the minority waited on the Pope, consisting of Simor, Primate of Hungary, Archbishops Ginoulhiac, Darboy and Scherr (of Munich), Ketteler and Rivet, Bishop of Dijon. After waiting an hour they were admitted at 9 o’clock in the evening. What they tried to obtain was in fact much less than the Opposition had hitherto aimed at: they only asked for the withdrawal of the addition to the third chapter, which assigns to the Pope the exclusive possession of all ecclesiastical powers, and the insertion in the fourth chapter of a clause limiting his infallibility to those decisions which he pronounces “innixus testimonio Ecclesiarum.” Pius gave an answer which will sound in Germany like a maliciously invented fable,—“Je ferai mon possible, mes chers fils, mais je n’ai pas encore lu le Schéma; je ne sais pas ce qu’il contient.” And he then requested Darboy, who had acted as spokesman, to give him the petition of the minority in writing. He promised to do so, and added, not without irony, that he would take the liberty of sending with it to his Holiness the _Schema_, which the Deputation on Faith and the Legates had with such culpable levity omitted to lay before him, when it wanted only two days to the promulgation of the dogma, thereby exposing him to the peril of having to proclaim a decree he was ignorant of. This Darboy did, and in a second letter to the Deputation severely censured their negligence in not even having communicated the _Schema_ to the chief personage, the Pope.

Pius added further, whether ironically or in earnest I know not, that if only the minority would increase their 88 votes to 100, he would see what could be done. He concluded by assuring them it was notorious that the whole Church had always taught the unconditional infallibility of the Pope. Bishop Ketteler then came forward, flung himself on his knees before the Pope, and entreated for several minutes that the Father of the Catholic world would make some concession to restore peace and her lost unity to the Church and the episcopate. It was a peculiar spectacle to witness these two men, of kindred and yet widely diverse nature, in such an attitude, the one prostrate on the ground before the other. Pius is “totus teres atque rotundus,” firm and immoveable, smooth and hard as marble, infinitely self-satisfied intellectually, mindless and ignorant, without any understanding of the mental conditions and needs of mankind, without any notion of the character of foreign nations, but as credulous as a nun, and above all penetrated through and through with reverence for his own person as the organ of the Holy Ghost, and therefore an absolutist from head to heel, and filled with the thought, “I and none beside me.” He knows and believes that the holy Virgin, with whom he is on the most intimate terms, will indemnify him for the loss of land and subjects by means of the infallibility doctrine and the restoration of the papal dominion over states and peoples as well as over Churches. He also believes firmly in the miraculous emanations from the sepulchre of St. Peter. At the feet of this man the German Bishop flung himself, “ipso Papâ papalior,” a zealot for the ideal greatness and unapproachable dignity of the Papacy, and at the same time inspired by the aristocratic feeling of a Westphalian nobleman and the hierarchical self-consciousness of a Bishop and successor of the ancient chancellor of the Empire, while yet he is surrounded by the intellectual atmosphere of Germany, and with all his firmness of belief is sickly with the pallor of thought, and inwardly struggling with the terrible misgiving that after all historical facts are right, and that the ship of the _Curia_, though for the moment it proudly rides the waves with its sails swelled by a favourable wind, will be wrecked on that rock at last.

The prostration of the Bishop of Mayence seemed to make some impression on Pius. He dismissed the deputation in a hopeful temper. It was of short duration. For directly the report got about that the Pope was yielding, Manning and Senestrey (_de grands effets par de petites causes_) went to the Pope and assured him that all was now ripe, and the great majority enthusiastically set on the most absolute and uncompromising form of the infallibilist theory, and at the same time frightened him by the warning that, if he made any concession, he would be disgraced in history as a second Honorius. That was enough to stifle any thought of moderation that might have been awakened in his soul.

The sitting of July 16 was held to consider the proposals of those who had voted _juxta modum_. The Legates had promised to pay as much consideration as was possible to their wishes, and they redeemed their pledge by striking out one passage and inserting another. The majority decided, on the motion of certain Spaniards, which was adopted by the Deputation on Faith, to strike out the words at the opening of the fourth chapter, saying the Pope will define nothing “nisi quod antiquitus tenet cum cæteris Ecclesiis Apostolica Sedes.” This was felt to impose too narrow limits on the Pope’s infallibility and arbitrary power of defining. And as the minority had the day before expressed to the Pope their special desire that the consent of the Church should be laid down as a requisite condition of doctrinal definitions, it was now resolved, in direct contradiction to their wishes, again on the motion of Spanish Bishops, not only to leave the words “definitiones Pontificis ex sese seu per sese esse irreformabiles,” but to add to them “non autem ex consensu Ecclesiæ.” And thus the infallibilist decree, as it is now to be received under anathema by the Catholic world, is an eminently Spanish production, as is fitting for a doctrine which was born and reared under the shadow of the Inquisition.

In the last sitting of the Congregation three Bishops of the Deputation on Faith spoke, the Neapolitan D’Avanzo, Bishop of Calvi and Teano, Zinelli, Bishop of Rovigo, the author of the notorious addition to the third chapter of the third canon, and Gasser, Bishop of Brixen. D’Avanzo was jocose: “As,” said he, “the angel bade the Apostle John swallow a book, telling him it would make his belly bitter but taste sweet as honey in his mouth, so must we Bishops swallow this infallibilist _Schema_, and I have done so already. It will no doubt give many of us a stomach-ache, but we must act as if we had honey in our mouths.” Gasser, who as a speaker is “se ipse amans sine rivali,” to quote Cicero’s saying about Pompey, made a speech of endless length, exhausting the patience of his hearers; but there was some gold mixed with all this dross. Such was his declaration that Councils had hitherto been useful only for people of unsound faith, who did not chose to believe the Pope’s _ipse dixit_, which every good Christian had always believed. But now “quid credendum sit unice ab arbitrio Pontificis in posterum dependebit.” On this a well-known Hungarian Bishop could not refrain from observing to his neighbour, “Si etiam infallibilitas Pontificis contenta esset in Sacrâ Scripturâ magis compromitti non posset quam hoc levissimo ac ineptissimo sermone, quo auditores ex integro jam lassos ad vomitum movit et martyres reddidit.”

An amusing scene occurred at the close of this sitting, the last attended by the Bishops of the minority. A printed address was read out and distributed to the Fathers, in which the Legates complained in the strongest language of certain works describing the course of the Council. Two were named and characterized as “calumnious,” both published at Paris. The one, by Gaillard, was _Ce qui se passe au Concile_; the other was by a man distinguished alike for intellect, eloquence and learning, a member of the Council, who has had almost unique opportunities of seeing through the whole business. It is the work I have before mentioned, _La Dernière Heure du Concile_, in which the personal intervention of the Pope and the pressure brought to bear by him are forcibly depicted in strict accordance with truth. This pamphlet had already created a great sensation, and when the Legates called on the Bishops to join them in condemning it, the Italians and Spaniards, who—being for the most part ignorant of French—had not read it, immediately shouted out “Nos condemnamus.” “We do not,” cried the Bishops of the minority. Two copies of the address were then handed to each of them, one of which they were ordered to return with their names subscribed. The result was not successful; Haynald told the Legates, in the name of the Hungarian Bishops, that they had better first translate _La Dernière Heure_ into Latin, and then he and his colleagues would see whether it was really as bad as the Cardinals maintained.

All the Bishops from South and Central Italy who could be whipped up, or who had previously obtained leave of absence on account of illness or age, were peremptorily recalled for the Solemn Session of July 18. Of the Cardinals, Hohenlohe was absent. The rest appeared, including Antonelli, but only three, Patrizzi, Bonaparte and Pambianco, threw a certain spontaneity and energy of voice and manner into their _Placet_ by standing up to deliver it. Guidi was the one most observed; he sat there with an oppressed and abstracted air, and his scarcely audible _Placet_ escaped with difficulty from his lips. The two negative voters were Bishops Riccio of Cajazzo and Fitzgerald of Little Rock. When the Monsignore who was repeating the names and votes had credited one of them with a _Placet_ out of his own head, the Bishop shouted in a stentorian voice, “No; _Non placet_!”

As all the Bishops of the Opposition but two stayed away, and an _abest_ was the answer to every name of the slightest note that was called, the Holy Ghost had no opportunity for working a miracle of conversion, and all went prosaically and smoothly as the wheels of a watch, without any sensation. Each of the stipendiaries has discharged his obligation, and the Pope and Monsignori find that the Council has cost large sums, but think the money is well spent and will bring in abundant interest. The most remarkable case of desertion was that of Bishop Landriot of Rheims. Not one of the Bishops had been so open-mouthed, or had announced his fallibilist opinions with such copious flow of words to everybody he came across. He now says, like Talleyrand, that he has only deserted before the rest. Clerical Rome, so far as I can yet make out, is not in any very exalted state of enthusiasm; that is prevented by the political conjunctures, which give Antonelli and Berardi a good deal to think about. De Banneville has indeed given the most consoling assurances to Antonelli; the 5000 French troops at Civita Vecchia, who had received orders to hold themselves ready for recall to France, are to be at once replaced by 5000 more—recruits it is believed. Paris wishes just now to be on the best terms with Rome, who may well prove a useful ally in what the _Monde_ has already designated a religious war against Protestantism. Meanwhile they are pleased at the Vatican to have erected their _rocher de bronze_ beforehand. The Bishops have—ostensibly of their own free will—abdicated in favour of the monarch, to receive back from him so many rights and commissions as he may think good to delegate to them. The revolution in the Church is accomplished “to enrich _one_ among all.” Pius himself is more than content; his supreme desire, the crown of his life and work, is attained.

During the voting and promulgation a storm burst over Rome, and made the Council Hall so dark that the Pope could not read the decree of his infallibility without having a candle brought. It was read to an accompaniment of thunder and lightning. Some of the Bishops said that heaven thereby signified its condemnation of Gallicanism, while others thought Pius was receiving a divine attestation, as the new Moses who proclaimed the Law of God, like the old one, amid thunder and lightning. It is remarkable that the days of the opening and closing of this Council were the two darkest and most depressing Rome has witnessed during the eight months of its session. It rained without intermission, so that the promised illumination was partly given up and partly proved a lamentable failure. There were few but monks, nuns and Zouaves, during the session in the very empty-looking church. When the Pope at last proclaimed himself the infallible and absolute ruler of all the baptized “with the approbation of the holy Council,” some bravos shouted, several persons clapped, and the nuns cried in tones of tender rapture, “Papa mio!” That was the only semblance of a demonstration. If any spark of enthusiasm really glimmered in the souls of the Romans, it was quenched by the downpour of rain. The keen-witted Roman, who is accustomed to speak of this Pope with a certain good-humoured irony, as a sort of comic personality, thinks there is no harm in gratifying the wish of the old man who has set his heart on this infallibility; that will hurt nobody. All the most important members of the diplomatic bodies stayed away, in obedience to the instructions of their governments. Neither the ambassadors of Austria, France, Prussia or Bavaria were present. The Belgian and Dutch consuls and an agent of some South American Republic attended. The decrees of July 18, establishing under anathema the two new dogmas, are the following:—

“(_a._) Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quæ ad fidem et mores, sed etiam quæ ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiæ per totum orbem diffusæ pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem hujus supremæ potestatis, aut hanc ejus potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas Ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos Pastores et fideles—anathema sit.

“(_b._) Sacro approbante Concilio docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex cathedrâ loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, pro supremâ suâ apostolicâ auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universâ Ecclesiâ tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, eâ infallibilitate pollere, quâ divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definiendâ doctrinâ de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque ejusmodo _Romani Pontificis definitiones esse ex sese, non autem __ ex consensu Ecclesiæ irreformabiles_. Si quis autem huic Nostræ definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, præsumpserit—anathema sit.”

In the work against infallibility circulated here by the Bishop of Mayence occurs the following passage: “Will it not seem to all nations that the authority of all Bishops is suppressed and sentenced to death, only in order to erect on such vast and manifold ruins the unlimited authority of the one Roman Pope?” When these lines were written, the Bishop and his theologian had no notion, or at least no knowledge, of the third anathema of the third chapter, which was afterwards made still more rigorous. They were only thinking of infallibility, but what would they have said, had they known that the Bishops would be required to subscribe to the abolition of the episcopate and the transference of all conceivable ecclesiastical powers and rights over the 180 million of Catholics in principle and in detail to the Pope alone, as a new article of faith imposed under anathema? And yet this is what happened on the 13th and 18th July 1870. That the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Bishops still survives, is indeed affirmed in the decree, but the affirmation is contrary to fact. It would be in inevitable collision with the constantly encroaching jurisdiction of the Pope; the earthen vessel dashed against the iron.

The Jewish general and historian, Josephus, relates how he was shut up with forty companions in the valley of Jehoshaphat, and summoned to surrender by the Romans. They resolved to die first. The Bishops are not offered this alternative, but threatened with both at once. They are bidden to submit and then kill themselves, to subscribe the decree of the majority, and thereby sign the sentence which degrades and annihilates them, under pain of incurring anathema. That is the demand. The situation is an unprecedented one. And what of the 532 real or titular Bishops who have made the 13th and 18th July “dies nefasti” for the Church, and renounced so many rights and duties for themselves and their successors, like a cast-off garment? Perhaps it lightens their hearts and is a pleasant feeling to them to be able to say, “Thank God, I need not trouble myself any more about doctrine, tradition, or dogma; henceforth the one infallible oracle in the Vatican will attend to all that, and he again will devolve the burden on the lusty shoulders of the Jesuits, as he has done before. And how sweet and convenient it is to be a mere executor of papal decrees, while one’s episcopal income remains untouched, and to be able to cover one’s-self with the Medusa shield of a papal order in every difficulty, and every conflict with clergy, people or governments!” I heard a Bishop of this party say the other day, “Now first begin the golden days of the episcopate.”