Sermon V. Popular Objections to the Vatican Council

At the Church of St. Mary, Bayswater, on the Feast of St. Charles, 1869.

POPULAE OBJECTIONS TO THE VATICAN COUNCIL.

It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no farther burden upon you than these necessary things. ACTS xv. 28.

You were told this morning that St. Charles was the guide and the life of the Council of Trent. That great Council lingered on for eighteen years, and might have lingered longer, had it not been for the vigorous will and the indomitable perseverance with which he pressed it onwards to its close. The name of St. Charles is indissolubly united to the Council of Trent. It may be said that no Saint of the Church so represents its authority. He was the nephew of the reigning Pontiff, Pius IV.; and being always at his side, he had influence with him so to urge onward the work of that Council as to bring it to its completion. Between him and the Fathers at Trent there was constant intercourse. He gave strict orders, that when the couriers came from Trent, bringing as they did, day after day, the results of their deliberations, at any hour whatsoever, by day or by night, whether waking or sleeping, he should be immediately informed. He had divided a room into three parts; the two first of which he called his sanctum, and the third or innermost part the sanctum sanctorum. In the two first he placed all matters of discipline, and such as related to civil society; in the last he placed the decrees relating to doctrine and sacraments. He studied the decrees of that Council with a pious reverence; and when its sessions were concluded, it was at his suggestion that the Catechismus ad Parochos, which explains to the faithful, through the mouth of their pastors, the decrees of the Council of Trent, was drawn up. After the Council was over, St. Charles returned to his diocese in Milan, and was the first to carry into execution its decrees. In the diocese of Milan was seen the Council of Trent in life and activity; and the administration of St. Charles became the model and example for the whole Church; and is so to this day.

These facts would alone suggest to me the subject on which to speak; and if this motive were wanting, the time itself, the last night before I am compelled by duty to leave my flock, in obedience to the summons of the Sovereign Pontiff, to attend the Council at the Vatican, would point out to me, almost impose upon me, the subject of which I ought to speak. I have therefore taken these words from the book of Acts: words of the Holy Ghost, describing the first General Council, I may say, of the Church of Jesus Christ.

It was held in Jerusalem. The cause pf its meeting was this. Certain men, not as yet fully illuminated in the faith, went down to Antioch, where the Gentiles had begun to receive the doctrines of Christ, and troubled their consciences by teaching that, unless they were circumcised, and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved. They therefore sent up men to Jerusalem to receive from- the Apostles a decision on this point. A decree was framed, and sent to Antioch. In that decree are the words I have taken: ' It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no farther burden upon you than these necessary things.' They then go on to describe those necessary things: ' That you abstain from fornication, from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood.'

Now I wish to call your attention to two points in this decree, and then I will pass on to our main subject. First of all, observe here the great forbearance with which this Council made its decree. It considered the weakness of those for whom it was legislating. From a delicate instinct of supernatural charity it would not lay upon them any burden beyond that which was absolutely necessary. It proportioned the weight to the strength that was to bear it. Secondly, what were these ' necessary things'? To refrain from certain obvious violations of the moral law; and also to abstain from things strangled, and from blood. These last were prohibitions of the old law. "We are not now bound to abstain from things strangled, and from blood. They are lawful matters of our food; and we are not forbidden to use them. If we are not forbidden, I ask by what authority were we set free? That decree was an act of the supreme authority of the Church of God; and the Apostles spoke by the Holy Ghost. No authority less than theirs could undo what they then decreed. The decree they then made, if not lawfully rescinded, would be binding still on all members of the Church. Why, then, are members of the Church not bound by it now? The Apostles did not rescind it. Who-soever has intervened to release us must have acted by an authority equal to that of the Apostles speaking by the Holy Ghost. There is therefore on the earth an authority equal to the authority of the Apostles. And the Council which is now assembling will meet with the same authority to say, ' It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;' and that Council will bind or loose the consciences of men with the same force of obligation as that of Jerusalem.

These are no new truths to you. They are the teachings of our Catechism, wherein we learn that the Church of God has always the same divine assistance, the same divine Person as its head, the same divine Teacher as its guide; and that its decrees are therefore made now in the same Name and power of the Holy Ghost.

Let us now turn from this obvious truth to some of those strange sayings with which the whole atmosphere has been full during the last months. Before I go from you, I wish to say a few words of encouragement, and also of forewarning; to put you on your guard, lest you be misled and troubled by the confident talk of those who are without faith.

1. We are told every day that this Council is ignored by the whole world; that it is a matter of curiosity perhaps, but of nothing more; and that the nations, both Catholic and Protestant, treat it with a supreme indifference. It is wonderful, then, that, being so utterly powerless and insignificant, not a week should pass — I might say, not a day — without all kinds of manifestos, in every country of Europe and in every language, all for the purpose of representing this General Council as utterly contemptible. If so, it seems to be very wonderful that they should have need to tell us this every day. We do not occupy ourselves every day with that which is utterly contemptible. That which is contemptible dies of itself. Men do not waste their time upon it. But why are their minds so full of the Council, why so preoccupied by it, that they can talk of little else? Great political events may turn their attention away for a moment; but still they always return to the General Council. It is not enough to call this curiosity. Is it not an evident fear lest the Council should make some decree contrary to their will — something condemnatory of their cherished theories or opinions? There is about this an anxiety, a fear, a restlessness, which they cannot conceal. A shadow has fallen upon them. But why should they fear it? The shadow is the shadow of Peter, which heals where it falls.

There is in this fear a consciousness of a presence, a recognition of an authority and of a voice, which will be heard throughout the world; of a power which will be obeyed by Catholic nations, and felt even by Protestant nations, through evil and through good report. By assent or by contradiction the Council will make itself felt throughout the Christian world.

It is in vain for men to say that nobody cares about it. More than a shadow is upon them. There is the finger as of a man's handwriting on the wall — a sign and a warning that there is here a presence and a voice greater than man, which will in a little time make itself heard and felt.

2. And again: we are told — and this is even yet more strange — that the Council will not be (Ecumenical, that it will not be a General Council, after all. It will be a packed meeting of Bishops gathered from here and there; but not a Council of the Universal Church. Many reasons are given for this; and the first is so passing strange that I cannot help repeating it. I saw the other day, in the writings of a man certainly of learning, and undoubtedly of vigour, that the (Ecumenical Councils of antiquity were Councils of the Koman Empire; that the word ' oecumenicaP signified the universal civilised world, then under the sway of Rome. He then asserted that, the Roman Empire being now dissolved, it is impossible to assemble an (Ecumenical Council. How any man evidently of learning could have been so blind in the light of Church history, I cannot understand. Before a Christian empire yet existed in the world, the Church was three hundred years old; and in those three hundred years it had its perfect organisation, its perfect unity, its supreme authority, its universal jurisdiction, its expansion, not only throughout the empire, but even beyond the bounds of the empire; for we know that Christianity had already spread farther than the eagles of Home had ever flown. The Church therefore was the empire of God — a kingdom not of this world, not dependent on the empire of Eome, but reaching beyond it and enveloping it. The Church was not in the empire; but the empire was in the Church; and that Church had its organisation, its unity, its authority, its episcopate, and its government, perfect in itself, and capable of all acts necessary for its own direction. Why then did not the Church in that age, before a Christian empire existed, convene a Council? For this self- evident reason: those three hundred years were years of persecution unto death. The Bishops of the Church had enough to do to maintain their flocks at home. All they could do was to correspond with each other. It would have been morally impossible for them, without drawing down a persecution, to meet in an (Ecumenical Council. They were in catacombs, hid out of the light of the sun. To manifest themselves openly would have been to concentrate upon themselves the enmity and cruelty of the whole heathen world. Nevertheless, before the Koman Empire was Christian, the Church did hold local and partial Councils, and legislated for the faithful: and now that the empire has be-en dissolved and swept off the face of the earth, the Church still stands as it stood before. It survives the ruin and desolation of the empire, and stands now, as it was, complete from the beginning. An (Ecumenical Council, then, does not signify a Council of any empire of man's creation; it signifies the gathering together of the pastors of the Universal Church dispersed throughout the world. That which in the beginning was impossible to the Church by reason of persecution, became possible in the time of its peace, and is possible at this hour. The same authority which convened the early Councils convened the last and convenes the present; not the authority of any empire, but of its own head. The Christian emperors did indeed use their authority in co-operation with that of the Roman Pontiff, but only as in the middle age they acted in union with the Church. Such is not our state. Now all civil powers in the world have with one consent gone their own way. They have left the Christian Church standing in its supernatural isolation, its spiritual independence, its universality, its unity, and its authority, as in the beginning. Now therefore its supreme authority alone convenes the Councils of the Yatican. This then is the first objection: that Councils are summoned -by princes, and that to be Catholic is not to be (Ecumenical. Strange, as I have said, and utterly at variance with both truth and with fact.

3. But there is another still stranger objection, that the Council will not be (Ecumenical, because the Greek separation in the East, and the Protestant separation in the West, will have no place in it. What would be thought of the man who should say that the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain is no longer competent to legislate because the United States are not represented in it? The Imperial Parliament no longer contains the representatives of those who have set up for themselves. Those who set up for themselves absolutely refuse thereby to recognise the supreme authority of the imperial government. So is it with the Church of God. They who have separated themselves.from its unity have forfeited all right to be present at its Councils. They claim to be independent, and they eat the bread of their independence, which is twofold — forfeiture of Catholic rights, and subjection to the civil power. The reason, then, why neither the Eastern schismatics nor the "Western nations, which have been separated from the Holy See for the last three hundred years, are represented in the Council now about to assemble, is this — that they, by their own act of separation, have forfeited and renounced their claim. They must renounce either their claim or their schism.

4. Once more: it is objected ' that the Council will not be free; or, in other words, that some superior power or authority, some constraint or influence, will overbear the freedom of its deliberations and decrees. A Council which is not free cannot be a true General Council, but an instrument in the hands of some superior and usurping power.' I would ask the objector, What is there on the face of the earth that can coerce a General Council? Common sense would tell us that a local synod, like a convocation, can indeed be coerced; or synods, as at Constantinople, under the authority of the Byzantine Empire, or of the Porte. Such assemblies might be compelled to make decrees according to the will of the civil power. But what power can coerce a Council made up of the Bishops of all nations? What power, I would ask, could coerce the Catholic Bishops of England? What power, civil or otherwise, is there on the face of the earth that could coerce us sitting in the Council? What power is there that could coerce the hundred Bishops of America and of the British colonies? If Bishops under governments which meddle with religion can in any way be swayed, we at least cannot. There will be a large element in that Council on which not even the shadow of human authority can fall. I should do dishonour to the Bishops of France, of Austria, and of Spain, if I were to conceive, or allow you to imagine, that any power — any civil authority, or any human influence — could turn them a hair's-breadth aside in the free deliberations of the future Council. But perhaps it may be meant, that the influence of the supreme Head of the Church may be too strong. It was well said the other day, that all the influence of the Holy Father could not coerce one poor Carmelite friar. It was then well asked, how should it prevail to coerce a thousand Bishops? But these are mere insinuations, in contumely or contempt. Nobody believes them. Even they who make them know them to be absurd. They are not the reasonings of men. They do not come from the intellect nor from the conscience: they come from the will and from temper; from the irritation of temper with a secret ill-will in the heart. The coercion of a General Council would be a serious undertaking. Whence could come the power sufficient for this task? Not from its own Head. Its own Head is the protector of its freedom. He stands as the tower of its strength, free from all human authority. Through a stormy pontificate of three-and-twenty years he has borne the brunt of revolutions, refusing to lay down his own independence, because it would betray the independence of the Church. They who talk of coercion imply that the Church is not free. I answer in two words, which are not mine; they are the words of the Holy Ghost: Ubi Spiritus Domini, ibi libertas — 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.' Where the Holy Ghost is, there is a freedom, not of men, but of God. The other word is: Verbum Dei non est alligatum — ' The Word of God is not bound.' You may bind man, you may put his limbs in fetters; but you cannot bind even his intelligence. Who, then, can bind the Word of God? You may' as well try to bind the wind, or the rays of the sun, or the tides of the sea. The light of the Holy Ghost in the Universal Church of God no man can coerce — no power can bind it; and when the Church meets in council, no authority whatever can prevent or constrain its decrees, which flow from the light and the liberty of the Spirit of God. But what they who so speak really fear is this: they fear lest those decrees should bind them by the obligation to submit their private criticisms and theories to the consent of the faithful and the mind of the Church, which is the mind of the Spirit. They fear to lose the freedom of the private spirit in the necessity of submission. Therefore they prophesy that the Council will not be free. 5. But there is yet another objection. It is said that the Council will condemn all progress and civilisation, and put itself in opposition to the culture of human nature and the advance of the human intellect. Surely, the powers of darkness have never been so active or so bold during the past three hundred years as now. There is at this time on every side a rising of the birds of night. The bats and the owls are abroad, to obscure, if possible, the intellects of Christian men. Who was it, then, that civilised the Christian world? Was it kings or princes? Or was it pontiffs and pastors? Who laid the foundations of the Christian civilisation? Who ripened it to maturity? Who, under God, sowed the seed of the progress of the nations? What was it but the light of faith and the grace of the holy Sacraments that compacted the organisation of Christian society? Was this the work of a human power? Was it the work of human magistrates and lawgivers? It was the work of Christianity, that is, of the Christian Church. The mission of the Church is both to convert and to civilise the world. And its mission it has fulfilled. I am almost afraid to begin again about progress, on which I have spoken already, and, it seems, to the displeasure of some. If progress means the cultivation of science, as it is commonly understood, the Church has ever fostered it. If it means the development of the arts of life, I ask who developed the arts of life in the middle ages? If it means the advancing civilisation of the Christian world, who took the lead in it? All progress in the material arts the Church has always sanctioned and promoted. The other day I pointed out that what is called ' progress ' was really ' departure;' that progress in the true Christian sense would be the ripeness, the maturity of Christian homes, the Christian education of children, the unity of religious faith and worship, the obedience of all to the one supreme authority of the Christian Church; that all this should grow to perfection, as the acorn rises into the oak. It is the steady unfolding of the same principles of life into a perfect symmetry and stature. But the progress which begins by dissolving the foundation of domestic life, by separating the education of children from Christianity, by breaking up the unity of faith and worship, by withdrawing obedience from the authority of the Christian Church — I deny this to be 'progress.' When, the other day, I said these words, some did, what many always do; they took half of what was said: they would not take the whole. I do say that the Church opposes and condemns this inverted progress, because this ' progress' is not l progress' hut 'retrogression;' a departure from the t progress' of the Christian world, and a return to the society or state of nature. Men might as well say that the decay of a limb of a tree is growth, as to say that the violation of the laws of the Christian Church is ' progress.' I gave then, and I give now, a description of what ' progress' is. Modern 'progress' signifies the state of the world which has rejected the control of the Christian faith and of the Christian Church. This is not to advance, but to go back. I say again, that when the bond of Christian marriage is declared to be dissoluble by human law; when children grow up without religious education; when men are divided in religious contests which end in indifference or unbelief; when the spiritual authority derived from God is cast off, — I deny that that is 'progress;' I deny that these are the principles from which the progress of civilisation springs. If men expect that the Church or the Council will sanction these disorders, this ' retrogression' to the state of nature, they are greatly mistaken. But the Church is not for that cause an obstacle to the progress of human society. They are the obstacle who, by destroying the foundations of society, are turning it back again to the disorders of the world without faith. Be sure the Council will condemn nothing which is for the advancement of science or of human society; nothing which tends to its moral and material perfection. What may be decreed will, on the other hand, powerfully promote the progress and growth of civil society along those same true and unswerving lines from which it originally sprung.

5. There is still one farther objection on which I will touch, and then conclude. It is said that the Council is about to define doctrines which were never revealed. I am not now going to enter into what doctrines the Council may or may not be going to define. That is a secret with God. I do not know what they may be; but of this I am sure, that the General Council will not, because it cannot, define any doctrine which has not been revealed. If you ask me, on the authority of what theologian I make this assertion; I answer, the first little Catholic child from the school will be theologian enough for this. Every Catholic child would make its act of faith in words like these: ' I believe, 0 God, all that Thou hast revealed, and. all that Thy Church, guided by Thy Spirit, proposes to me to believe.' That is to say, the revelation of God is the only object of our faith; and the Church alone has the custody of that revelation. The Church, therefore, alone knows the limits of its trust; and alone knows what has or has not been revealed. According to the words of the Apostle — ' What man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him? even so the things of God no man knoweth but the Spirit of God.' The Spirit of God inhabiting the Church knows what He has revealed; and the Church, having the illumination of the Spirit within, knows likewise the contents and limits of that revelation. Be assured, then, that whatever is denned by the Council will have its root in the day of Pentecost; and no authority can tell what is contained in revelation but only the Church itself. Who, then, are they that tell us that the Council is going to define doctrines not contained in revelation? They are three classes of men. First, unbelievers, who reject all revelation. They, I think, may leave the court. Their testimony is not the testimony of credible witnesses. Next there are those who are in separation from the Catholic Church; who therefore do not know its faith, and cannot understand its mind. I think they also may leave the court, as witnesses to whom we need not listen. There are lastly those whom, I am sorry to say, I must call false brethren; Catholics in name and by the grace they have received, and by the account they will have to give;,who, by contact with unbelievers, and rationalists, and men of little faith, have learned to speak their language, if not to think their thoughts. They, too, add themselves to this medley of witnesses, who say that the Council is going to define new doctrines not contained in revelation. I ask, why should men be in such alarm, if they were not conscious in their hearts that by its decrees the Council will in some way condemn themselves? In the history of the Church there never was a Council free, in the judgment of those whom it condemned. Councils are always General until they condemn the error of somebody, who thenceforward denies their authority. Pontiffs are always infallible until their censure falls upon the head of somebody who has erred from the faith. Be assured that those who use this language thereby betray a soreness in their heart. They fear that the authority of the Council, guided by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, may detect and condemn the opinions they hold or the doctrines they teach.

I have now gone over six of the objections which are rife at this moment. I feel confident that, before I see you again, you will abundantly hear them. I foresee that after the Council has concluded, we shall hear the incessant repetition of these things, because those who are smitten by its authority can find no other way of avoiding their condemnation. Read the history of the Council of Trent. Before it was opened, whilst it was being carried on, and after it was concluded, these same things were said of it. ' It was not free.' ' It was not general.' ' It interfered with the authority of this king and of that prince. Its doctrines were Tridentine, not revealed.' Every kind of objection was made to it without ceasing, in every country in Europe: and with what result? The Council of Trent has governed the whole Christian world for three hundred years. It has created a new discipline and a new order; it has infused a new vigour, and given a new expansion to the Catholic Church. When the Council of Trent assembled, it was made up almost altogether of the Bishops of the Catholic countries of Europe. The Council which is to assemble next month will be made up not only of the Bishops of Europe, but also of the Bishops of America, of Asia, and of Australia, — an Episcopate which spreads throughout the world. Never since the beginning of time was there a Council so vast in its representation, never was there an Episcopate so wide - spread, as that which is now meeting around the See of Peter. Do not, then, allow the talk of the day, the pretentious criticism of adversaries, for a moment to affect your mind. All inventions are in motion to misrepresent the Council before it meets; they will be redoubled at its close: but knowing beforehand the devices of the enemy, we are prepared for the assault.

Of this be sure, the Council will make manifest the unity, the universality, and the authority of the one only Church of God throughout the world with such a luminous evidence, that even those who refuse to submit to it will not be able to deny its presence. No man, knowing what passes round about the throne of the successor of Peter in the next six months, and seeing gathered together the pastors of the universal flock from east to west, from sunrise to sunset, can fail to see that the Christian, Catholic, and Roman Church not only transcends in dignity, in vastness, and in.authority, all Christian communions or Christian churches (if I am so to speak), but that it has alone the notes which mark the imperishable Church of God. Remember how it was that those three names by which we are called arose in succession. Cherish them; for they are a precious birthright. 1 The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch,' to distinguish them from those who did not believe in Jesus Christ. When among Christians local errors or false doctrines arose, Christians that were true to the universal faith were called Catholics; not Catholic in the modern sense of latitudinarian comprehension in which all errors meet, but in the true and divine sense of absolute exclusion of all and everything contrary to the one faith. That faith alone is Catholic which is identical in every place, without change or variation of jot or tittle throughout the world. And thirdly, when among Catholics heresies arose, as especially in the time of Arius, the faithful Catholic Christian was distinguished by this, that he was also Koman: that he was under the jurisdiction and in the communion of the successors of Peter. To be called ' Christian,' ' Catholic,' and ' Koman,' are three degrees of test and of assurance that we are legitimate descendants of the first disciples of Jesus Christ; that we are under the pastoral care of the Apostles, and within the unity of the one only fold of the one Shepherd. I recall to you these truths of your childhood, because we have read lately, in a melancholy document, of doctrines which are Koman, but not Christian. There are no doctrines which are Koman which are not Christian. They are Christian because they are Roman; the test of their Christianity is that they have the stamp and authority of Kome: for the faith of Kome is infallible. The Council will bring before the world with surpassing light this great truth; and the countersign of this supernatural fact will be the universal crumbling and dissolution, the passing and vanishing away, of all forms of fragmentary Christianity, which within the last three hundred years have sprung up round the unity of the Catholic Church.

And now, I would rather have bid you farewell by speaking of truths more personal to us all, more simple, more near to our hearts; but, as I said before, the time chooses for us that on which I should speak. I bid you therefore to stand steadfast in your faith. We live in a country in which we are compelled to breathe an intellectual atmosphere which is not Catholic. The bright mirror of steel exposed to the damp of evening contracts a rust which will eat away its perfection. Day by day you read or you hear confident assertions which come from those who have not faith. It is not possible, except by special grace, that your faith should not suffer somewhat in its instincts. We are more than ever brought into contact with the outer world. So long as the Church was under penal la\vs, in this at least it was safe — it was hidden out of sight; it did not penetrate society. Now it has entered into the public and private life of England. It is in contact with every body and with every thing. ' Contact brings and propagates contagious evils. There are intellectual and moral diseases which are propagated hy contact; for the errors of the mind are contagious. Be, then, on your guard. If you ask me how to be safe in these dangers, I will not tell you to study theology, or to read learned books. I will not lay on your pastors the heavy and intolerable burden of perpetually answering controversial mis-statements. I will give you that which will preserve you safe through every per^l — that by means of which you may go through the most pestilential atmosphere unhurt. Every day, and often in the day, make the act of faith: ' My God, I believe in all Thou hast revealed, for Thou art the Truth, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived; and I believe all that Thou teachest me through Thy Church, because it is guided by Thy Holy Spirit.' And what are these words but an act of confidence in the promise of God to His Church which cannot fail? ' My Spirit that is in thee, and My words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.'1

1 Is. lix. 21.

VI.

At the Pro-Cathedral, Kensington, Rosary Sunday, 1870.

BOME THE CAPITAL OF CHRISTENDOM.

Pilate, seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, taking water, washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent. ST. MATT, xxvii. 24.

I DO not intend to draw any historical parallels of persons, nor to affix any names; but to make a parallel of certain motives and actions, with their inevitable results.

It is evident that Pilate was not willing to condemn our divine Lord to death. Again and again he sought to let Him go. But the clamorous multitude would not. The more he sought to save Him, the more they clamoured. And when Pilate saw ' that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made,' to clear himself he took water and washed his hands before the people, and said: ' I am innocent.' But neither God nor man holds him guiltless.

The other day we read a letter of a Catholic King to the Vicar of Jesus Christ. It stated, not that he k