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 considerable 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.[310]
[310] Friedrich, _Döllinger_, iii. p. 206ff.
Secondly, as to regulations for procedure,[311] 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.
[311] Cecconi, i. p. 165.
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.[312]
[312] Cecconi, i. p. 379.
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[313] 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.
[313] Cecconi, i. p. 387 (8th September 1868).
Another letter[314] 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.
[314] _Ibid._ p. 390 (13th September 1868).
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.”[315]
[315] Cecconi, ii. p. 304.
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[316] 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.
[316] _Miscellanies Lit. and Religious_, i. p. 330, in Latin; transl.
p. 344.
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.[317]
[317] G. F. Cobb, _Few Words on Reunion_ (1869), p. 6.
“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.”[318]
[318] Liddon’s _Life of Pusey_, iv. p. 186.
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;[319]
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;”[320] 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.[321]
[319] Page 155.
[320] Page 182.
[321] Page 161.
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.”[322]
“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.”[323]
“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.”
[322] Page 180.
[323] Liddon’s _Life of Pusey_, iv. p. 181.
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.[324] 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.”[325] 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:--
[324] Page 190.
[325] Page 192.
“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.”[326]
[326] Liddon’s _Life of Pusey_, iv. p. 189.
Pusey’s biographers say that
“as the meetings of the Council went on, Pusey had really very little
hope of any wise result.”[327]
[327] Page 190.
“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.’”[328]
[328] Page 193.