Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility/Chapter 15

by William John Sparrow Simpson

CHAPTER XV

THE IMMEDIATE PREPARATIONS

When Pius IX. had finally resolved on assembling a Council he proceeded without delay to the necessary preparations. These preparations may be classified as twofold: those within the Roman Communion, and those relating to other religious bodies.

1. The internal preparations were largely entrusted to a Commission of Cardinals, selected for that purpose. The Cardinals reported to the Pope upon the following points.

First came the important problem, to determine who were qualified for membership in a Council of the Church. The Episcopate, of course, without all doubt. But did this apply only to Bishops possessing diocesan jurisdiction, or did it include those who possessed no definite See? It was urged that the latter were just as really Bishops as the former, and that their omission might raise disputes on the Council's validity. It was accordingly decided that, with the Pope's approval, titular Bishops as well as diocesan were qualified for seats in the coming Assembly.

The case of Abbots and generals of religious Orders was considered next. If these did not possess episcopal authority, they possessed at least a real, a semi-episcopal jurisdiction; being themselves superiors over a consider- able multitude, and also exempt from episcopal control. This quasi-episcopal position was considered by the Congregation to qualify them for admission to the Vatican Council. These decisions were of great significance, as they added, it is said, almost two hundred votes.^[1]

Secondly, as to regulations for procedure,^[2] the Cardinals asserted that the Pope alone had the right to introduce matters for discussion. Otherwise, argued the Cardinals, the Council would become a constitutional chamber. But a Council is only summoned to discuss what the Pope desires to have discussed; not to introduce their individual conceptions of what ought to be done. If any reminiscences of the principles of Constance, Pisa, and Basle floated before the Cardinals' memories; if any distant echo of their predecessors' intention to reform the Church in its head and members haunted them; it was instantly condemned by the theory now introduced. By way of dispelling the possible objection that the Pope might omit important matters, the Cardinals observed that it is an unlikely thing, that it must be left to Providence, and that you cannot expect perfection in human affairs. Whatever, therefore, the Bishops desire to introduce for conciliar discussion, they must report it, not to the Council, but to the Pope or to his representative; and the Pope will determine whether its introduction is desirable or not. The Cardinals recommend that a Commission should be created for this purpose.

In the third place, it was thought desirable that four permanent Commissions should be formed: one on faith; one on discipline; one on religious orders; one on missions. It was suggested that two-thirds of the members should be chosen by the Bishops and one-third by the Pope. Pius, however, decided that the selection should be entirely left to the Bishops.

Another question creating no inconsiderable discussion was whether the Bishops should be required to pronounce a profession of faith. The problem was whether the dogma of the Immaculate Conception should be included. It was contained in no existing formula of faith. Some were adverse to its introduction. Others thought it impossible for the Council to ignore the existence of this dogma. Some again held that since the dogma had already been declared by the Pope, there could be no necessity to insert it in a Council's decree. For this reason it ought to be recited in the profession of faith. Nevertheless it was held wiser not to introduce it, for fear of producing upon the Bishops a bad impression. Accordingly it was decided to fall back on the Creed of the Council of Trent.

In the Commission a discussion was also held on the burning question of pontifical Infallibility. Two questions were raised: Was it definable? was it opportune? The former was answered in the affirmative. So was the latter, but with the proviso that it ought not to be proposed by the Holy See, except at the request of the Bishops. Accordingly no further mention was made of the subject in the Cardinal's report. Nevertheless they did not cease to study it.

2. The external preparation for the Council, beyond the limits of the Roman body, consisted in a series of letters and announcements to the other Churches of Christendom.

Three Papal letters were issued in reference to the Council's actual assembling.^[3]

First the Bull summoning the Bishops of the Roman Communion [29th June 1869], together with the Abbots, and all persons qualified either by right or privilege; requiring them, and exhorting them by their fidelity to the Roman See, and under the penalties appointed for disobedience, to attend at the Vatican on 8th December.

Was it accident or design which twice over introduced into this letter the famous phrase majorem Dei gloriam? Certainly it was not accident which omitted from the enumeration of the Council's uses and purposes all reference to the problem of pontifical Infallibility, and rested content with a general allusion to the wise ordering of those things which pertain to defining dogmas of faith.

A second letter^[4] was directed to the Bishops of the Oriental rite not in communion with the Apostolic See. In this letter a solicitude is expressed for all Christians everywhere; more especially for those Churches which were formerly united with the Apostolic See, but now by the machinations of the Author of all schisms are unhappily parted. The Oriental Bishops are entreated to come to this General Synod, as their fathers came to that of Florence in order to be reunited to the Apostolic See, which is the centre of Catholic truth and unity.

Another letter^[5] was directed to all Protestants and other non-Catholics. They are aware that Pius has thought it desirable to summon all Catholic Bishops to a Council at Rome. He is confident that this will issue to the greater glory of God. He calls upon them to reconsider whether they are following the way presented by Christ. No community can form a part of the Catholic Church if visibly severed from Catholic unity. Such communities are destitute of that Divinely constituted authority which insures against variation and instability. Accordingly he exhorts and beseeches them to return to the one fold of Christ.

The replies of the Oriental Churches claim independence and equality. The Greek Patriarch at Constantinople declared that the Oriental Church would never consent to abandon the doctrine which it held from the Apostles, transmitted by the Holy Fathers, and the eight Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Council is the supreme tribunal to which all Bishops, Patriarchs, and Popes are subjected.

The Armenian Patriarch criticised the Pope's action with severity; asserted that the principles of equality and apostolic brotherhood had not been observed by the Pope. The rank which the Canons ascribe to the Papal See only give him the right to address personal letters to the Bishops and Synods of the East, but not to impose upon them his will by encyclicals in the tone of a master. The Armenian Patriarch wrote to the Catholicos of Ecmiazin to say that "the Patriarch of the Roman Church—Pius IX." had sent a letter, announcing a Council. The Catholicos replied that the tone of the Pope's letter gave no hope that union would be realised: for it did not acknowledge the chief Pastors of the Eastern Church as equals in honour and dignity. And yet they are successors of the Apostles. They have received the same authority from the Holy Spirit as the Roman Patriarch.

The attitude of the German Protestants was uncompromising. The Nuncio in Bavaria wrote to Antonelli that the Germans regarded the invitation as an insult. There might be individual conversions, but certainly not a general return. The common opinion was: the Pope invites us graciously to put ourselves at the mercy of the Council; but the bird which has escaped rejoices in its liberty. There existed a vague, indeterminate desire for unity, but entire diversity as to the basis for its realisation; and the personal interest of the Pastors was against unity.

From Berlin came this criticism on the Pope's letter: "We hold it impossible to find in this letter the least indication of really conciliatory spirit on the basis of evangelical truth." The Protestants assembled at Worms declared that the principal cause of the divisions which they deplored was the spirit and action of the Jesuit Society. This Society which, according to their view, was the deadly foe of Protestantism, stifled all freedom of thought, and dominated the entire existing Roman Church. If the permanent union and well-being of Christendom was to be secured, hierarchical pretensions must be laid aside. Elsewhere the resolution was passed to ignore the Pope's invitation, as being merely a matter of form.

An American Presbyterian reply to the Pope's letter said, that while firmly convinced that the unity of the Church is the will of Christ, they felt it a duty to state the reasons why they cannot unite in the deliberations of the coming Council. It is not that they reject a single article of the Catholic Religion. They are no heretics. They accept the Apostles' Creed and the doctrinal decisions of the first six General Councils. But they cannot assent to the doctrines of the Council of Trent. The barrier which this Council has erected between them and Rome is insurmountable.

Certainly nothing was further from the Pope's intentions than to invite members or representatives of any other Communion to discussion. All he intended was to advise them to profit by this occasion, to submit and secure their eternal salvation. If, said Pius, they would only seek with all their hearts, they would easily lay aside their preconceived opinions, and return to their Father from whom they have so unhappily departed. He would receive them with paternal benevolence. And then, with a scarcely diplomatic allusion to the prodigal who had wasted his substance in riotous living, Pius declared he would rejoice to say, "These my sons were dead and are alive again; they were lost, and are found."^[6]

In the English Church opinion was divided as to the manner and spirit in which the Pope's letter should be met. Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln^[7] replied in a Latin letter. He assumed that the English Church was included in the letter addressed to all Protestants; and accepted the title in the sense of protesting against errors contrary to the Catholic Faith. He resented the tone and temper of the Pope's appeal; the judgment implied on the validity of the English Episcopate; protested that we have never seceded from the Catholic Church, nor separated willingly even from the Church of Rome; criticised in particular the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as an instance of indisputable variation; and added certain unhappy exegetical remarks of an apocalyptic character on the relation between Rome and Babylon. This line of response probably represented no inconsiderable element at the period at which it was written.

On the other hand, a section existed in the English Church, keenly alive to its local deficiencies, and possessed with strong and enthusiastic aspirations for corporate reunion. In their opinion, faults of taste and assumptions due to Italian ignorance or other points of view, might well be overlooked, if not condoned, in the interests of what appeared to be a genuine desire for unity. A resentful and criticising spirit seemed only calculated to frustrate all hope of better things. The magnificence of the coming Assembly, the grandeur of its scale, the regions it involved, the Churches it included, captivated their imaginations. Whatever might be the individual view of the relative position of the separated portions of the great Christian family, such a gathering as this must enlist their respect, their sympathy, and their prayers. They pleaded earnestly for corporate reunion. As the separation was corporate, so must the reconciliation be. They insisted as strenuously as any other members of the Anglican Communion on the impossibility under present circumstances of doing anything else than remain where they are.^[8]

 

"You require us, for instance, to say—not formally indeed, but in effect—that we have no priest and no sacraments; whilst it is quite plain to us that our present Episcopate is in all respects the true and lineal descendant of the Apostolic Mission in this land. You require us to renounce communion with the Church of England on the ground that she is heretical; we, on the other hand, are convinced that there is nothing in her authorised teaching which you do not yourselves teach in your own pulpits and Catechisms. That she is actually separated from the centre of visible Catholic unity is a fact deplorable indeed, but too patent to be questioned; that she is wilfully, avowedly, and therefore guiltily schismatical we utterly deny; to say that we ourselves are schismatics is simply to give the lie to the most cherished longing of our hearts. No! we must remain where God has placed us, loyal to our own Communion and to our own Episcopate, loyal at the same time (in spirit) to yours: if we are not of the body of your Church, we belong at any rate to its soul."

 

After this vigorous declaration of principles and loyalty the reunionist felt justified in confessing the defects within the Anglican Communion of which he was painfully conscious.

 

"Need we, after all, be so very angry at being classed with Protestants—if it be true that we have been so—when at least half our brother Churchmen rejoice at it, and are never tired of proclaiming to the world that we are a Protestant Church, a creation of the sixteenth century, specially commissioned to wage war with the Papal anti-Christ to the end of time? Even regarding our Communion from the most favourable point of view, can we say that she has done very much during the centuries of her separation from the Holy See towards vindicating her Catholicity even in the Anglican sense of the word? Does she present herself to her Catholic brethren on the Continent in any very marked contrast to the Protestant sects?"

 

Thus there was at least in certain directions within the Anglican Communion a distinct readiness to respond to any overtures for unity. There was in addition a very wide-spread interest in the coming Council, not unmixed with curiosity and anxiety as to the steps which might be taken to bring the severed sections of Christendom nearer together.

By far the most penetrating and profound on the Anglican side was Dr Pusey. Perfectly clear and sure of his position, whole-hearted in his devotion to his own Communion, he insisted that the English Church must be treated collectively: as a portion of the Church Catholic, to be reunited; not as individuals, to be absorbed. He was in correspondence with the Bishop of Orleans and the Archbishop of Paris. With this aim he wrote his Eirenicon, Is Healthful Reunion Impossible? The Belgian Jesuit De Buck corresponded with Bishop Forbes of Brechin. The Jesuit Father

 

"was certain that at Rome there was no wish for Infallibility." He ""maintained that every one at Rome was astonished to hear that the Anglican Bishops did not consider the command to attend the Council as addressed to them."^[9]

 

Attempts were made by Newman to induce Pusey to visit Rome; or at least to get up a big petition and present it to the Holy See;^[10] quietly observing at the same time that the sort of petition which he had in view "cuts off the subscribers to it from the existing Establishment;"^[11] Newman also suggested that no Anglican Bishops should go. Pusey replied by enquiring why should not Newman himself go to Rome for the Council. Dupanloup invited him as his theologian. But Newman declined, on the pretext that he was not a theologian, and would only be wasting his time in matters which he did not understand.^[12]

Not unnaturally, Pusey's penetrating criticism was:

 

"If they invited any, it should be Bishops. Theologians go to accompany their Bishops. They have ignored our Bishops, and ask any of us whom they may ask informally, because they will deliberately withhold all acknowledgement of the slightest basis upon which we can treat as a Church."^[13]

"I have no doubt," Pusey added, "that the invitation to Rome is given in the hope that the imposing spectacle presented by the Council may bring about individual conversions of English Churchmen more or less learned or well known. But what can we expect when they invited the great Greek Church simply to submit? I expect nothing under the present Pope."^[14]

"The difficulty of treating is this, that we have two entirely distinct objects: we, corporate reunion upon explanation of certain points where they have laid down a minimum and upon a large range beyond it; they, individual conversions or the absorption of us."

 

Meanwhile, Pusey prepared an edition of Cardinal Torquemada's great work, against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, originally composed for use at the Council of Basle at the instigation of Pope Paul III. This edition Pusey dedicated to the Council about to be held in Rome. He sent copies to Rome for the Bishop of Orleans, and other members of the Council. These were returned from Rome with refusé written upon them.^[15] Pusey wrote to Newman to enquire what this meant. Newman answered that he was certain that the Bishop to whom the books were sent would not be guilty of such incivility; and suggested a suspicion that the Roman police would not pass a book with Pusey's name. This suspicion proved correct. Newman wrote again: "I had a very kind letter from Bishop Clifford, telling me that neither he nor the Bishop of Orleans had refused my book, and asking me to send it to him at Clifton."^[16] But these despotic methods of government at the end of the nineteenth century were hardly conducive to the advancement of mutual understanding, or indeed to the interests of truth. The movements at Rome were watched by Pusey with ever-deepening sorrow:—

 

"Manning's is a strange lot," he wrote "with, I should have thought, but a very moderate share of learning, by throwing himself into the tide, to seem to be at the head of a movement which should revolutionise the Church. It is a mysterious lot, one which one would not like for oneself. The composition of the Congregation on Dogma has discouraged us. Those whom we should have had most confidence in, Mgrs. Dupanloup and Darboy, omitted, and Manning in it. It is utterly hopeless to send any propositions to a Congregation in which Manning should be a leading member. I am told that he has been impressing the Council, or at least important Bishops, with the idea that hundreds of thousands of the English would join the Roman Communion if the Infallibility were declared."^[17]

 

Pusey's biographers say that

 

"as the meetings of the Council went on, Pusey had really very little hope of any wise result."^[18]

"In all later issues of his third Eirenicon, Pusey altered the title from 'Is Healthful Reunion Possible?' to a form which embodied his future attitude towards the Roman question—'Healthful Reunion, as conceived possible before the Vatican Council.'"^[19]

1. Friedrich, Döllinger, iii. p. 206ff.
2. Cecconi, i. p. 165.
3. Cecconi, i. p. 379.
4. Cecconi, i. p. 387 (8th September 1868).
5. Ibid. p. 390 (13th September 1868).
6. Cecconi, ii. p. 304.
7. Miscellanies Lit. and Religious, i. p. 330, in Latin; transl. p. 344.
8. G. F. Cobb, Few Words on Reunion (1869), p. 6.
9. Liddon's Life of Pusey, iv. p. 186.
10. Page 155.
11. Page 182.
12. Page 161.
13. Page 180.
14. Liddon's Life of Pusey, iv. p. 181.
15. Page 190.
16. Page 192.
17. Liddon's Life of Pusey, iv. p. 189.
18. Page 190.
19. Page 193.