Le Père Lacordaire. He remembered that M. and I had called on him
three years ago. I recalled to his mind what he had said, that
well-informed and sincere persons could not remain out of the Church
of Rome. Since then I had been especially studying the question of the
Roman Primacy, and yet the conclusion to which I had come, after a
most careful examination of antiquity, was in favour of a primacy of
order, but against that of jurisdiction. He dwelt on the obscurity of
the first three centuries: they were times of persecution, in which
the popes had other work to do than to defend their primacy. Yet how
remarkable it was that at the Nicene Council this primacy was seen at
once emerging from the storm. The legates of the Roman Pontiff
presided there. I observed that Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, who signed
the first, was not marked as Roman legate, whereas the two priests who
followed were; that it was as imperial commissioner, and friend of
Constantine, that he presided. He seemed disposed to assume that
Hosius must have been papal legate. I said that I by no means
impugned the primacy, but entirely recognised it: my defence was in
the difference between a primacy and an absolute monarchy: for the
claim of universal jurisdiction, as at present exercised, amounts to
that. He said they did not consider the papacy an absolute monarchy at
all: they who lived within it felt that in fact it was limited in a
great number of ways. There were rights inherent in bishops which the
Pope could not touch: he could not suspend them from the government of
their dioceses without cause given, and a regular ecclesiastical
judgment rendered; he could not take from the priest his right to
offer the Holy Sacrifice, or to confess, without the like judgment. I
quoted the calling in of all the powers of the French episcopate in
1801, because it seemed to the Pope for the good of the whole Church.
He admitted the case, and that the power did exist; but it was
altogether an exceptional case, such as had never occurred before. I
said that in controversy it was necessary to push principles to their
absolute issue: it was natural enough that they, born and living under
the papacy, should not feel it to be an absolute monarchy. He quoted
Bellarmine as saying that it was a monarchy tempered by aristocracy
and democracy. The Pope could not destroy the episcopate. I said our
new converts maintained that he could: that if all the bishops of the
world were on one side, and the Pope on the other, he could make
a new episcopate. "I regard," he said, "as anticatholic, such opinions
as these." He dwelt on the primacy of Peter, as shown forth in the
Acts: nothing seemed to him clearer or more marked. He seemed to argue
as if, the primacy granted, the degree to which its power was extended
was a mere matter of discipline, of arrangement and growth in the
Church itself. Besides, there was another point: without living in a
system it is nearly impossible to understand it. Invaluable as
Scripture is, and written tradition, the works of Fathers, Councils,
&c., they are _writing_ after all: without a living _oral
tradition_, they will not be understood. The Church holds the truth as
a living body; it circulates in her veins. We see the same sort of
thing all around us. A young man may study diplomacy for four, five,
six, years; he may have the history and treaties of Europe at his
fingers' end: this knowledge is excellent; but he wants one thing,
without which he could never be a diplomatist--practical initiation;
this will be the most valuable part of all his knowledge. You may know
perfectly how to sew, but could any one make a coat without seeing
others make it, and the practical acquaintance with many little
points? This was seen most strongly in religious orders: there was a
traditional life in them of which no mere knowledge could take the
place. "I had studied well the rules of the Dominicans, but
until I saw their practical working I could not understand them at
all. Or again, in ten minutes' conversation with a person, you will
catch more of their mind and feelings, and tone of thought, than by
studying ten volumes of their works. There is something in the contact
with persons for which no study can make up. Or again, the sight of a
city. Half a day in a place will give you a better notion of it than
all the descriptions ever written. You drink in the knowledge of it at
all pores. I have read a great deal about London, but I assure you
that I am unable to form any notion of it to myself. The mere look of
the place would instruct me more than any books. Now such is the force
of oral tradition in the Church: it is the life of an organised body
which dwells in its members. Only think what would laws be without
jurisprudence: why the most important part of all laws is their
interpretation; if a man had the most perfect knowledge of the laws
themselves, he would be no jurisconsult without knowing their
practical application. Now this is a sort of knowledge which fails you
entirely, being outside the Church; thus it is that we have no
difficulties, while you are perpetually seeing them." I said, "I found
it very difficult to represent our real position to them. The question
was, not whether one _might_ be a Roman Catholic, for of that I had
no doubt; we all admitted that they were a part of the Church.
The question was, whether I was _forced_ to become a Roman Catholic;
to deny all my past life; supposing that we had the succession, and
formularies which conveyed the episcopate and priesthood,--whether I
should be forced to affirm that the grace of the Sacraments was
intercepted by the sin of schism or heresy. We saw and deplored the
division of the Church; but might not such a state of things be
allowed, as in the great Western schism the Church was, as a fact,
divided for forty years; might it not then be for 300 years?" "As to
that," he said, "supposing the question of faith did not exist,
supposing you could interpret the Thirty-nine Articles in a Catholic
sense; granting there were no variance as to the number of the
Sacraments; supposing that you individually, or the whole English
Church, were to admit the faith of the Roman Church,--for _you_ must
come to her, not _she_ to you,--then there would be the _una Fides_,
but there would still remain the _unum Corpus_. Now every branch that
is severed from a tree does not immediately die, it may sometimes be
planted afresh, and take root beside the parent trunk; it may even
bear leaves and some fruit, but that will not be unity. The Greeks
have a vast deal in common with us. Supposing that the question of the
Procession could be resolved by explanations on their part, there
would only remain the authority of the Roman See to be admitted by
them. You again have retained much more than the Lutherans and
Calvinists. What you have of good is ours, is Catholic. If persons
among you believe in God, believe in the Redemption, lead a holy life,
bring forth good works, I do not deny that all this is Catholic in
them; if they are ignorant as to the sin of schism or heresy, this,
which is good in them, may be sufficient for their salvation. When I
hear persons saying there is this or that good in Protestants, I
always admit it; I say this is a portion of the truth they have
carried away from us; they have a certain root, and yet they are not
joined to the tree. Why, Mahomet himself carried away much truth from
the Catholic faith; and though he mixed and adulterated this,
Mahometanism lives still by those remains of truth. So it is with
those who have separated from the Church; the full life remains in
her; unity is in her alone: portions of the truth, portions of life,
may exist in other bodies; may suffice for the salvation of those who,
by no fault of their own, and with no consciousness of their own, are
in those bodies; but she alone has the full truth, she alone is one.
Whether you can exist with safety out of her depends on the degree of
your personal knowledge." I said, "It is very hard to represent to you
one's difficulties." "Because," he replied, "they are matters of
detail: you may study the question for sixty years and never come to a
result, unless you lay down clearly general principles. Grant
that the Church in Luther's time was in a frightful state of
corruption, that great tyranny had been exercised in England by the
Pope; grant this and much more--would that excuse separation? There
are always such causes as this at work. Men are not quite absurd. They
do not make revolutions for nothing, as we have just seen. Why, Louis
Philippe, was turned out, rightly or wrongly, because by his conduct
he had made nobody care to defend him. Grant that there were these
causes for your separation, does that excuse the state of schism?"
He quoted S. Cyprian's conduct as proving that reference was made to
Rome, asserted that the Pope presided at _all_ the general councils.
Throughout his conversation it struck me that he was weak in facts,
but strong in principles; and this seems to apply to the whole Roman
controversy on this point.
Here Count Montalembert came in, and, as it was very late, I retired.
He begged to be remembered to M., and asked if I was going to stay
some days longer.
This morning went to call on M. Defresne. No sooner was I there than
he began to read me parts of his friend M. Reboul's poetry, in a
whirlwind of enthusiasm. This continued, with one little interval of
detestation expressed for Louis Philippe, till breakfast. M. Reboul
was there, and read, at his request, his verses on the death of
the archbishop, treating it as a sort of expiation. M. Defresne is
full of charity towards the Puseyites, as he called them, but he
seemed not to be quite aware that we formed a part of the English
Church.
I then went to the other side of Paris to see M. Fernet, the surgeon
who attended the young girl so strangely cured. He entirely confirmed
her having been completely blind: she used to come to him with her
companions, crying, and after many vain attempts to relieve her, he
sent her to M. Sichel, a famous oculist: but he could do nothing. He
saw her a few days after she recovered her sight: she then saw
perfectly. Amaurosis is a paralysis of the nerves of the eye: it is
sometimes cured, but then gradually, and not instantaneously. He added
a few lines to the certificate stating that he had examined her after
the cure, and found the sight quite restored. After this interval the
cure might be esteemed complete. I inquired if he had any way of
accounting for this cure. He said, none whatever. It was a phenomenon
which he could not explain. He mentioned that he had been told she had
once before seen for an instant, and then lost her sight again.
Hearing this, I went to her pension again, to ask for an explanation.
The mother told me that, at Christmas last, when she took the Holy
Communion, she had for an instant seen the priest, and then became
blind again; that before September her sight had been more or
less affected, but that from September till May it had been quite lost
save this momentary restitution.
Calling on M. Bonnetty afterwards, I mentioned this and the other
case. He said they were very cautious and backward in assenting to
such things. As to the loss of the Pope's temporal power, he did not
believe 200 millions of Catholics would suffer him to be deposed by
four lawyers, who were the instigators of disaffection. Others,
however, anticipate that the time is come for this temporal
sovereignty to be given up, and that the spiritual power may come
forth the brighter when it is gone.
_Wednesday, August 2._--Called on M. l'Abbé Pététot. The last
revolution has had a happy effect on the side of religion. The utmost
respect has been paid to the priests; they have never ceased a moment
to go abroad _en soutane_. In 1830 they were obliged to give this up
for two years, and only recovered popularity by their devotion to the
sick in the time of the cholera. But now they have come to the priest
to bless the trees of liberty. He had blessed six. They even went in
procession with the Cross, which is contrary to the laws, and woe to
him who did not take off his hat. But this is the only good side of
the late movements. Commerce is at a standstill; and the very
boutiquiers talk freely of the necessity of having a king. Paris
subsists by articles of _luxe_, and a republic is not favourable to
these. But what is coming nobody can see. In the riots of June, the
insurgents had possession of the church of S. Paul, in the Faubourg
S. Antoine. The curé induced them to go elsewhere; and, before leaving
the church, they came to him for his blessing, saying they were going
to fight: and so they went forth to kill and be killed. But all the
middle class--the bourgeoisie--is profoundly hostile to religion: they
will do anything to prevent its gaining influence. Although liberty of
teaching would follow naturally from the principles of the republic,
yet the Assembly has just passed a law on primary instruction as bad
as can be; and another on secondary instruction will follow like it.
Religion does not make any way with these classes; money is their
idol. A workman or poor woman will give five francs to a charity,
where these people think much of ten sous.
M. Pététot, with two companions, went, last September, to see
l'Addolorata and l'Estatica. They were at Capriana on the Thursday
evening and Friday morning, 9th and 10th September. They saw the
wounds of the hands and forehead, as we did, quite dry on the evening,
and in the morning fresh with blood. The sister had gone out both
evening and morning, and they had to find her, so that Domenica was
left alone. Her state, in the six weeks which had elapsed since
our visit to that of M. Pététot, seems to have become much worse. She
was quite unconscious, and terrible to behold. All three were
profoundly convinced of the truth of the stigmata and of the miracle.
They went from Paris on purpose, with the full intention of rigorously
observing the facts. One of the party was then a pupil of the Ecole
Polytechnique: has since become priest. They were likewise three days
at Caldaro, and saw l'Estatica several times. They saw her elevated in
trance on the tips of her feet, _extremis digitis_,--"so," said M.
Pététot, "as I could not have remained a minute, and that on the soft
bed." They saw her repeatedly shoot herself from the recumbent
position to the kneeling one. The Holy Sacrament was exposed the day
when they found her in trance on the point of her feet. They addressed
her through her confessor, and recommended to her prayers a design
which they had in their thoughts. After she had prayed for it, they
inquired if God had made known to her the subject of it. She assented:
said that it was pleasing to God, but that one of those who took part
in it would shortly withdraw from it. "Fortasse unum ex vobis Deus
excipiet seu tollet; non agitur de morte," the confessor interpreting
said. This has since taken place. The information she gave was so
precise as to their design, which it was impossible for her to have
divined, that they were quite convinced of its having been made
known to her preternaturally.
I asked M. Pététot which had made the greatest impression on him. He
said, the Addolorata by far; that her case made him inclined to
believe the other. This produced an effect quite of a different kind
from the former. He equally believed both. He saw the stigmata on her
hands, which we did not, as her sleeves covered them. It appears the
confessor is quite weary of accompanying people to see her; they were
some time before they got on with him, only after saying that they had
come from Paris on purpose. I was much pleased with the ample
corroboration given by M. Pététot to our own visit.
He spoke of the priest at Capriana as the worst specimen he had met
with; he would scarcely speak of l'Addolorata; treated it as nothing
extraordinary. They found out the secret of this afterwards, that the
Austrian government prohibited its being mentioned. An ecclesiastic at
Trent quoted to them Tacitus, that it was not allowed to them to think
or to express their thoughts. The priest was continually _à la
chasse_; so he was the two days we were at Capriana.
Called on M. des Billiers: we had a little skirmish about the Primacy.
In the evening went with M. Gondon to the Count de Montalembert's. The
new Archbishop of Paris, now Bishop of Digne, came in accompanied by
the Bishop of Langres; he looks an Italian prelate, full of courtesy;
I should think his affability will stand him in good service. There
were several representatives, M. de Cazalès, M. de Falloux, l'Abbé
Sibourg,--and M. Bonnetty, M. Le Normand, Guizot's successor at the
Sorbonne. The conversation was chiefly on the state of politics, the
doings of the Assembly, M. Proudhon's recent developement. M. de
Montalembert was the liveliest and best converser. He said he was
greatly obliged to M. Proudhon; they were in a cavern with a gulph at
the bottom of it, and Proudhon had lighted a torch to show them where
the gulph was. "What good will the torch do, if no one will beware of
the gulph?" one of the company said. "Nevertheless, I am much obliged
for it," said M. de M. "I shall wave it about and make use of it." He
could not understand the selling of livings in England, and asked if
it was not simony. I said it was, and done in defiance and by elusion
of the law. He wondered that bishops were obliged to institute,
however dissatisfied with the fitness of the presenté. I said, in the
actual state of things, our only hope was in the liberty, firmness,
and integrity of the priesthood. All the company seemed to have the
worst opinion of French prospects. As we went home with M. Le Normand,
he observed on the misconception of their position by the Quarterly
lately, which seemed shocked at the acceptance of the republic by the
Church; as if it was possible to do anything else. I said it was a
sentiment of loyalty among us, which dictated that feeling. "Loyalty,"
he replied, "is entirely extinct in France; it is a fiction, and it is
useless to attempt to conjure it up."
_Thursday, August 3._--Called on Père de Ravignan, but he was out.
Went for some little time to the Chapel des Dames du bon Secours. It
is a delightful feeling to get out of the noise and glare of the world
into that exquisite little shrine. Then went to Issy, and was two
hours with M. Galais. I asked his opinion about modern miracles, and
whether one could in good faith deny the material facts in the cases
which had come under my notice. He said there could be no doubt that
God did occasionally work miracles; and he did not see how the facts
could be denied here. I remarked, that the chief difficulty seemed to
be, why such and such cases were chosen more than others, as they had
to our eyes no peculiar fitness. He observed, that there seemed
analogous cases in the Gospel, where our Lord appeared often to heal
out of a sentiment of compassion to the individual; and there are a
multitude of cases where the details are not given, but it is said,
curavit omnes, He healed them in globo. I asked which nation in the
Roman Church was at present most conspicuous for its missionary
exertions. He said, the French by far; there are ten French for
one Italian missionary. Will the Jesuits get more liberty of action
under the Revolution? He thought not. There was no disposition to
apply the principles of liberty either to the Jesuits or the other
religious orders. They had the reputation of being very "habiles;" and
"habiles" they certainly were, but not so much as they were esteemed.
He doubted if they had been wise under Louis Philippe's government; it
was known that in their colleges out of France, Brugelette for
instance, devotion to the elder branch was inculcated. Now, the wise
course seemed to be to accept the government de facto, as the Fathers
of the Church did. They troubled themselves very little who was
emperor. Had the Jesuits done so, they would not have been suspected
by Louis Philippe; and so, perhaps, would have had colleges entrusted
to them. I asked what the actual position of the Church with regard to
the state was. "There are," he said, "in the Assembly sixty--it may be
as many as a hundred--good Catholics; but all the rest are
indifferent, or even hostile to us. The immense majority are bent on
resisting the influence of religion." "It seems to me then," I said,
"a kind of miracle that you subsist at all." "It is so," he replied.
"The thing in our favour is that, small minority of the nation as we
are, we are firm, compact, and banded together, while our enemies are
divided in every way. They have no common principle, and so they
have a dread of us, a fear of our succeeding in winning back the
nation to religion, by which they would fall into a minority. The real
feeling which influences this unbelieving mass is the lust of
domination; they have got their feet on the neck of religion, and they
mean to keep it there. For this reason they will allow no liberty of
teaching if they can help it." "But I suppose you have won ground
since 1802; have you not?" I said. "We have won and we have lost," he
replied. "Doubtless the clergy are better constituted now; there is a
great devotion among them. Our bishops are in the main well chosen,
and do their duty. They understand the crisis, and are fully convinced
that they must fight the battle stoutly, and make no concession. But,
on the other hand, in 1802, though religion had been overthrown, and
impiety had publicly triumphed, yet the great mass of the nation had
received a Christian education. It is the reverse now; this mass is
now unbelieving, they have not been brought up as Christians, their
first impressions were not in favour of religion." "You are then as
missionaries among unbelievers," I said. "Precisely so. And this
enormous unbelieving mass has the greatest jealousy of us. We only ask
fair play; liberty, not privileges; and this they will do every thing
to keep from us. They are making, quietly but definitely,
efforts to secularise, as they call it, the education of girls; that
is, knowing the importance of first impressions, and of the female sex
on society, they would take this primary education out of religious
hands. There are infernal plots abroad. They dread us, and have a
feeling, that if we were allowed a fair trial we should win our
ground. I am convinced that we should reconquer France if we were only
allowed liberty of action. Even the multitude who seek to satiate
themselves in sensual enjoyments, even these come to us sooner or
later for aid. Few after all can gain these enjoyments, and those who
do, feel that they have not reached what they were seeking for. And
then in the young clergy I am continually seeing instances of the most
touching generosity and devotion. Many give up fair prospects, and
fortunes, and surrender themselves wholly to their ministry." I
remarked, what a difficulty the law of continence must impose on those
who had to determine the vocation of young men. "You have, indeed," he
said, "named the true difficulty." "The readiness," I added, "to
embrace such a law, must be in itself the touchstone of a ministerial
vocation, for it involved a continual sacrifice; and feelings, which
were very pronounced at one time, might not continue." "It is so," he
said. "Here is the most trying and embarrassing part of our duty. We
do not always succeed. It is most hard to judge if a young man
of twenty, who appears devoted, will continue so. Yet, I assure you, I
have known many whose most secret thoughts have been laid open to me,
and who were pure as angels. I was once acquainted with a man of great
capacity, but an infidel. He was thoroughly persuaded that continence
could not be really observed by the French clergy. He set himself to
work, and made for many years the most minute inquiries. The result
was, that he discovered many horrors; but he likewise was completely
convinced that continence was maintained by a great number. Now this
could only be, he knew, by a supernatural gift; and it had such an
effect on him that he became a good Catholic."
M. Galais afterwards went through Migne's Cursus Completus Theologiæ,
pointing out the most valuable treatises in it. He strongly
recommended Klee's Manual of the History of Christian Dogmas, and
Pouget's Institutiones. Their examinations begin to-morrow, and their
vacations in four days. He looks forward to taking the waters
somewhere. They absolutely require a change of scene and occupations.
I called on Mr. Coppinger this evening, and staid to tea with them.