New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4336, 11 February 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1875.

Our correspondent, “A Catholic,” in another column, deals with the question of Papal Infallibility in an extremely 1 candid and straightforward manner. There is no concealment nor heating about the bush with him. He goes straight to the point, and we believe he rightly and truly interprets the dogma of Papal Infallibility, promulgated by the Vatican Council, which has created such a storm in Continental Europe and the British Isles. It has now been taken out of the region of polemics, and occupies tho foremost place in the domain of active politics ; and the two greatest living statesmen, Gladstone and Prince Bismarck, have felt themselves constrained to stand out from amongst their fellows, as leaders of the mighty army of Civil Order, and to declare that the decrees of the Vatican Council affirming the Infallibility of the Pope, are inimical to civil government, and the independence of the secular power. Of tho truth of this there cannot be a doubt. It is admitted to tho fullest extent by our correspondent who, assuming that “allegiance “ has one limit, that of conscience,” concedes the whole case. For the Church claims to exercise unquestioned and absolute authority over the consciences of her children and, therefore, when allegiance is limited by conscience, and an “ infallible ” and arbitrary authority controls the Catholic conscience absolutely, it follows that the limit of allegiance in all cases depends upon the will of that infallible authority. In other words, the limit of allegiance by Catholic subjects of any State is determined by the Church, whose motives may not be questioned, and whose decrees may not he resisted, even mentally, on pain of excommunication. “A Catholic” elsewhere puts this point so strongly that we cannot refrain from quoting the passage in his letter. He says ; “ Are English Catholics divided on the “subject of infallibility? This is my “ reply. As long as doctrines are not “ defined by the Church, they are left to “free discussion. Then divisions take “ place, yet without breach of unity, be- “ cause on all sides the golden rule of “ Catholic unity is adhered to, namely, “ submission to the past and future de- “ cisions of the Church. When the “ Church has spoken clearly and loudly “ on a point of doctrine, no division of “ Catholics is possible, because the dis- “ sen ting, or rebels, are ipso facto, ex- “ communicated.

“ Let this be illustrated by an example “ taken from the primitive history of the 1 ‘ Church. In the beginning of the fourth “ century, the Church having as yet given “no decision on the divinity, perfect “ equality, and consubstantiality of the “Son of God with the Eternal Father, “ men through ignorance, pride, or malice “ could deny this truth and yet remain “ within the pale of the Church. How- “ ever, in the year 325, there was at “ Nice a General Council of the Church. “.In that holy assembly, the divine attri- “ butes of the Second Person of the “ blessed Trinity were defined against the “ sectatorsof Aiaas. From this moment “ the Arians ceased to be Catholics, and “retained simply the name of Arians. “ So, in our day, after the solemn deci- “ sion of the holy Council of the Vatican, “ the opponents of Papal Infallibility, “ previously tolerated, must now submit, “ otherwise they are no longer Catholics, “ arid they form a new heresy under the “denomination of ‘Old Catholics,’ or “ Dollingerites, from the name of their “leader. Therefore, to say that Catho- “ lies are divided on the subject of Papal “ infallibility is quite preposterous, and “ could not be.accounted for but for the “ state of mental confusion of the sects “ placed without the ancient Church, and “ their total want of rule of unity.”

This exposition of “ the golden rule of “ Catholic unity ”is faultless. It is complete in every part; and the reference to ancient Church history to illustrate the most astounding fact in modern history, is pertinent in the extreme. But were we disposed to discuss it from a polemical stand - point, we might show that- the decree of the Council of Nice, affirming the doctrine of the Church on the divine attributes of Jesus Christ, is a two-edged sword which cuts both ways. But we have nothing to do with the purely doctrinal points involved. It is a matter of fact, however, that the doctrine of the Trinity was one of slow growth, like that of Papal Infallibility, and although the Arians became heretics after the decree, they certainly represented the ancient form of Christian belief, just as Dr. Bollinger and his adherents, “though ipso facto “ excommunicated ” since the decree of the Vatican Council, represent the “old” form of Catholic belief on the dogma of Infallibility. The recusants happened to be in the minority on both occasions; and are a standing protest—Arians and Dbllingerites to this day—against the doctrine of Evolution, of the truth of which the Church of Borne is the most conspicuous example in the whole range of social organisms, the Infallibility decree of the Vatican Council being the logical sequence of the decree of the Council of Nice to which “A Catholic” significantly appeals. But we have no concern with what lies within the strict domain of Theology ; nor has Mr. Gladstone interfered with it in any way. It is the political bearing of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that concerns statemen, and all lovers of civil and religious liberty : privileges which are held in too much esteem by Catholics and Protestants alike, to be ever surrendered at the bidding of the Vatican Council, or of any other Council of the Church. Nevertheless, there is the mighty disturbing element of the Vatican Council decrees which statesmen cannot ignore. The limits of civil allegiance are to be absolutely fixed by the Church, and it is not to be wondered at that the Lords Acton and Camovs, and many Catholic gentlemen of England disclaim, for themselves and others, adhesion to such a preposterous claim to control their patriotism, and shape their loyalty according to the exigencies of the Vatican authorities.

“ A Oatuolio ” quotes the resolutions passed by the Catholic Union, signed by Lord Petre, as President, disclaiming in the name of “the Catholics of Great “ Britain” the interpretation of the Infallibility decree by Lords Oasioys and Acton and Mr. Henry Petre, but he appears to bo unaware of the fact that, on the publication of these resolutions, they were promptly repudiated by Catholic gentlemen through the columns of The Times, and in other leading newspapers, Lord Petre being told in the plainest English, that he had bettor speak for himself and the other gentlemen who are members of the “Union” of which ho is president, inasmuch as the Catholics of Great Britain as a body do

not “submit unreservedly to the clefini- “ tion of the Council of the Vatican on the ' “ Pope’s Infallibility.” As a matter 1 of fact, only a minority of English Catholics of influence accept the doctrine of the Pope’s Infallibility, and his powers ; and authority in relation to Church and State, in any other light than was declared most solemnly on oath, some forty ,or fifty years ago, before a Parliamentary inquiry, to be the fixed doctrine on these points of Irish and English Catholics. Irish Catholic Prelates then made solemn oath on the subject, and political rights were conceded in consequence by the British Parliament to the Catholic people. Nor was this evidence held back from the Vatican Council. On the contrary, it was quoted in a speech of marked ability by Bishop Kenriok, of Baltimore, U.S., who fortified his arguments by extracts from the Parliamentary evidence of Archbishop Murray (Dublin), Dr. Doyle, Archbishop Kelly (Tuarn), and others ; while Dr. Mac Hale, “ tho lion of St. Jarlath’s,” in a powerful oration, said to have been one of the very best and most telling disquisitions that were delivered during the debate, vindicated with all his might the traditional tenets of Ireland’s “ Old Catholicism,” in opposition to Ultramontane innovation, and he repeated and defended tho evidence given by himself on these subjects in 1825. These speeches are reported at length in the Documenta, illustrative of the decrees of the Vatican Council, given to the world shortly after its close by Professor Ereidrich, of Munich, and show how strong a feeling of opposition existed to the dogma of Papal Infallibility amongst the members of tho Council. Nay more, so strong was that feeling that a considerable number of high Episcopal Dignitaries also subscribed and handed in a protest against the course adopted, warning the Pontifical authorities that unhappy consequences “ moat pernicious to tho Church “and to the Holy Apostolic See itself” would speedily ensue in the course of events, for which calamities they disclaimed all responsibility, both in the sight of men, and “ before the tremendous “judgment of God,” by handing in the aforesaid protest. Mischiefs have already arisen, but they have not matured.' What the end may be it is impossible to say ; but that the moral responsibility rests altogether with the Vatican authorities there cannot be a shadow of doubt. The remonstrant Bishops laid the blame at their doors; but with heavy hearts, in strict observance of their-vows,' and by virtue of “ tho golden rule of Catholic “ obedience,” they dispersed abroad to give effect, each one in his own station, to those decrees for the consequences of which they disclaimed all responsibilty in the sight of God and man. What a spectacle this presents for consideration ! and how necessary it has become for tho Civil Power to gird up its loins, and do battle for human rights, against an aggressive Power, that claims absolute control over the whole domain of conscience, thought, and action. The conflict between the two Powers will be tremendous should they meet in arms. They are gathering their forces all over the earth’s surface ; but we have no doubt of the final issue, “ Personal infallibility,” at which “A Catholic” sneers; —tho inherent and natural right which every human being has to exercise his reason and his judgment, free and un--1 fettered—will be too strong for Papal Infallibility, which usurps the domain of reason, and, acting for God, decrees the enslaving of that which God himself has created free. Meanwhile, we have to consider this latest development of the Church of Rome, as a factor in solving the problem of civil government. As such, it has been considered by Mr. ' Gladstone, in his pamphlet; as such, it has been challenged by Prince Bismarck ' in his own high-handed way; and as such, ■ it has . been treated by the secular Press, ■ from which we have already quoted. For 1 ourselves, we do not very much care what 1 men believe so long as they act honestly ■ and loyally; and, for tho matter of that, wo suspect the Church is far from being : unanimous within its own borders on ' questions of doctrine, however much “ the , “ golden rule of Catholic unity” may suppress any outward manifestation of dissent. It is only when Catholics are impaled upon the horns of an Infallibility ; dilemma that “ the sects placed without | “ the ancient ( huroh,” unfortunate in . their total want of the rule of unity, get ■ a glimpse of the seething mass which is kept within bounds by the most perfect Absolutism over soul and body the world has ever yet seen. Ancient Rome was the most perfect Oligarchy that history makes us acquainted with ; the Vatican —the kernel of modern Romo, in which the Savoyard holds high festival—is the i most perfect Despotism, and wields a power which tho Caesars never dreamed • of, and which Cuasarism was incapable of achieving.