« ForrigeFortsæt »
errors current in civil society and their relations to the Church, nine to errors of philosophy, ten to errors connected with Christian marriage, and six to modern liberty and the temporal sovereignty of the pope.
The following are among the most important condemned errors:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.
17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who have never been in the true Church of Christ.
23. The Church has not the power of availing herself of force, or any direct or indirect temporal power.
24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even committed errors in defining matters relating to dogma and morals.
32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress, especially in a society modeled upon principles of liberal government.
39. The state of a republic, as being the crigin and source of all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not circumscribed by any limit.
47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require that popular schools open without distinction to all children of the people, and public establishments destined to teach young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and opinions common to the times.
55. The Church must be separated from the State and the State from the Church.
77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.
78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free exercise of their own worship.
79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of worship and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and to the propagation of the evil of indiffer
So. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to and agree with
progress, liberalism, and modern civili
The Encyclical has not ceased since its publication to be a prominent topic of discussion for the entire press of the civilized world. The Catholic press are unanimous in accepting it. By Catholic press we understand solely those papers, whether ecclesiastical or political, which profess an unconditional attachment to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and to the authority of the pope as its head. The number of these papers has considerably increased since 1848, and every country of Europe has now its Catholic organs, though their number, in comparison with the Protestant and liberal press, is everywhere insignificantly small. There were hitherto among the professedly Catholic papers two different parties as regards the relation of the Church to modern civilization, and, in particular, to that modern theory of society which demands the recognition of the separation of Church and State, the broadest religious toleration, control of public education by the state, abolition of all political privileges of the clergy, and other similar doctrines among the fundamental laws of every state. One party, the rigorous ultramontanists, reject this theory absolutely and uncompromisingly as false and contrary to true religion. The its at Rome, and the Monde of Paris, are Civilta Cattolica, the organ of the Jesuthe boldest and most gifted champions of this theory. Another party regards these views as one-sided and fanatical. It recognizes many good features in modern civilization, advocates a reconciliation and union between it and the Church, and demands in particular the enjoyment of equal political rights by members of different religious denominations. The ablest organ of this party is editors of which are, or were, Count the Correspondant of Paris, among the daire, Father Gratry, M. de Falloux, Montalembert, the late Father LacorAugustin Cochin, and many other prominent Catholics of France. Montalembert and Lacordaire have frequently and severely criticised the fanaticism of Le Monde, and other ultramontane sheets; and Montalembert, at the Catholic congress of Belgium, in 1863, went further than any of his friends in the bold defense of the principle of religious toleration. The majority of the Catholic papers of the world have not directly taken
part in the controversy. The Monde, of Paris. is, on the whole, the chief and the favorite source from which the Catholic press of the entire world derives its information; yet occasionally the large majority of Catholic periodicals have ex-constitutions. Will they deem it compressed the same views on religious patible with their duty as Catholics to toleration and modern society as the remain loyally devoted to the liberal Correspondant. constitutions of their states?
equal civil rights of members of nonCatholic religions. Thousands of Catholics, including priests, bishops, and cardinals, are every year taking the oath of respecting, maintaining, defending these
By the Monde, the Civilta Cattolica and their partisans, the Encyclical was of course received as a great triumph. Henceforth, exclaimed the Monde, a liberal Catholicism will no longer be possible. Rome has expressly condemned, not only the false liberalism, but liberalism in general, and all good Catholics will now respect this decision of the Holy See. The editors of the Correspondant seem to have at first been doubtful as to what course to pur
It was rumored that they would discontinue their organ, but this proves to have been unfounded. The Correspondant has at length published the cyclical, but with the remarkable reservation that it accepts it in the sense of those bishops who do not regard it as conflicting with modern civilization. Many Catholic papers undoubtedly entertain the same sentiments as the Correspondant; but, as far as we know, not one avowedly Catholic paper of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, or any other country of Europe, has uttered an open word of dissent.
The same may be said of the bishops. Some of the recently appointed bishops of France, especially the Archbishop of Paris, are generally supposed to be Gallicans, and not to share all the views of the pope, yet all of them observe a respectful silence.
It is, therefore, all the more remarkable, that a cardinal should be found openly to disapprove the language of the Encyclical. Yet such is the fact. Cardinal d'Andrea has had the more than ordinary courage to declare himself opposed to the views of the pope, and it is reported that six other cardinals agree with him.
The most liberal among the Catholic countries of Europe is Belgium, whose constitution guarantees to every citizen personal freedom and liberty of conscience. Hitherto the "Catholic" party of that country has professed an equal attachment to the constitution as the Liberal party. The Monde, of Paris, has always represented the fundamental principles of the Belgian constitution as irreconcilably opposed to the spirit of the Catholic Church. The "Catholic' party of Belgium have generally avoided a discussion of the principles of their constitution, but regarding it as an acEn-complished fact, professed a determination to adhere to it. Most of them, in accepting the Encyclical, contend that it does not in the least alter their relation to their constitution. Thus, according to "La Paix," of Brussels, one of the leading Catholic papers of Belgium, the pope only declares that truth is solely to be found in the Catholic Church, that error cannot claim the same rights as truth, nor vice the same rights as virtue. In this sense it fully adopts the bull, and maintains that dogmatically the pope must be intolerant. But the Catholic legislators, it further argues, are not challenged by the bull to punish the abuses of liberty of the press any more than they are commanded to punish blasphemers or other offenders against the precepts of the catechism. Other Catholic papers of Belgium apologize for their constitution by remarking, that at the time of the adoption of the constitution Belgium was not a purely Catholic country, and had to make concessions to the anticatholic liberalism. All these arguments admit, that in the opinion of Roman Catholics the doctrines condemned by the Encyclical are not desiraable in themselves, and ought only to be conceded when the Catholics find themselves in a minority. On the other hand, however, the conduct of the Catholics of Belgium, and most of the other countries, clearly indicates that they lack the courage to carry the pope's view into execution. In our own country the
A point of great practical importance is the question whether Catholic citizens of states which have liberal constitutions can reconcile a sincere submission to the pope's Encyclical with a sincere loyalty to their state constitutions. Belgium, France, Italy, Austria, Bavaria, are states predominantly Catholic, but the constitutions of which recognize the
FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XVII.-18
Archbishop of Baltimore has made the singular discovery, that the papal anathemas are not at all intended against constitutions like that of the United States, but merely against the infidels of Europe. Such an assertion is not at all creditable to the candor and the intellect of the American prelate, but it shows that the representatives of the pope in this country do not dare to make a practical application of the views of Rome to our institutions.
The papal party itself, as we have seen, acknowledges but timidly the papal manifesto, and refuses to carry it out. But the papal party is now in a minority in probably every country of Europe. In Paris there are only four daily papers, which claim to be regarded as Catholic papers, against more than a dozen which respect neither the ecclesiastical nor the temporal authority of the pope. In Vienna, a single Catholic daily is with difficulty sustained by the high aristocracy; and in Austria, in general, more than five sixths of all the political papers are decidedly anticatholic. The same is the case with the press of Turin, Florence, Milan, Madrid, Lisbon, Cologne, and the other large Catholic cities of Europe. Everywhere one or two Catholic papers are with difficulty sustained, while all the leading papers are decidedly liberal. Of the Catholic governments of Europe there is not a single one which has expressed its concurrence with the views of the pope. Italy and Austria have allowed its publication, but expressly reserved the rights of the state, and carefully guarded against indorsing it. France and Spain have prohibited its official promulgation by the bishops, and new conflicts between Church and State seem to be the inevitable consequence.
Thus Europe has repelled the last attack of the papacy upon the progressive spirit of the age; and according to all signs of the times, Rome will now have enough to do to keep herself on the de
THE GREEK CHURCH. RUSSIA.
beginning to enlist considerable interest among the Russians. An interesting account of the disposition of the heads of the Russian Church with regard to this subject was published last year by the Rev. Mr. Young, the secretary of the Russo-Greek Committee, appointed by the last General Convention of the Prottestant Episcopal Church of this country, who in the first months of the year had visited Russia, and conversed with some of the prominent men of the Church. In St. Petersburgh he had an interview with the Procureur General and the ViceProcureur General, who are the emperor's representatives in the Holy Synod. They referred him to the Metropolitan of Moscow, Philaret. Mr. Young had two interviews with the Metropolitan Philaret of some three hours each, the Vicars of the Metropolitan, (Bishop Labas and Bishop Leonide,) together with the rector of the Spiritual Academy of Moscow, two interpreters being present on each occasion. The conversation consisted chiefly in the asking and answering of questions as to the doctrines and ecclesiastical position of the AngliIcan and the Russian Churches. It was arranged that the chief portions of the Anglican prayer-book should be translated into the Russian language. The Metropolitan expressed his gratification at the interview, and at the prospects of more friendly and intimate relations of the two communions. The Russians are especially beginning to acquaint themselves better with the literature of the Anglican Churches. An association of ladies has been formed for the dissemination of theological and general reading matter. The association has been in operation about a year, and has its depository at Moscow. The books kept at the depository and destined for circulation are:
INTERCOMMUNION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN AND THE ANGLICAN CHURCHESRUSSIAN MISSIONS-THE BIBLE IN RUSSIA. The movement toward establishing intercommunion between the Anglican and the Oriental Churches, is
5. Books on various subjects, but particularly adapted for popular reading, tales, stories, descriptions of foreign countries, engravings, etc.
This society, through the Rev. Mr. Young, expressed a desire to the Church Book Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of New York for material to help on their work, and in compliance with this request, the Book Society, on June 13, 1864, passed a resolution authorizing Mr. Young to forward to the Russian association, at his discretion, copies of any of the publications of the society, or of any books on its approved list, and to convey to the association assurances of fraternal and cordial sympathies, bidding them most heartily "God speed" in their labors of love.
An important report on the progress of the union movement was made February 15, 1865, to the convocation of Canterbury, by Chancellor Massingberd, in the name of the committee appointed by the convocation in 1863, in order "to communicate with the committee appointed at a recent synod of the bishops and clergy of the United States of America, as to intercommunion with the RussoGreek Church, and to communicate the result to convocation at a future session." After having referred to their communication with the American committee, the report continues:
It is an instance of the increasing interest that is taken in this question at home that your committee are enabled to state to the house that there has been formed in England an association called "The Eastern Church Association," which already numbers among its patrons the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Belgrade, the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Dublin, with several more of our English bishops, the principal objects of which are to inform the English public as to the state of the Eastern Churches, and to make known the doctrines and principles of the Anglican Church to the Christians of the East. Your committee have been favored, at their last meeting, with the presence of the Very Rev. Archpriests Popoff and Wassilieff, chaplains to the Imperial Embassies of Russia at London and Paris, from both of whom they have received the most cordial assurances of personal co-operation. It would be premature to lay down any principles or conditions on which it may seem to your committee that such intercommunion as is contemplated may be brought about, further than this: to establish such relations between the two communions as shall enable the laity and clergy of either
to join in the sacraments and offices of the other without forfeiting the communion of their own Church; that any overtures toward such an object should be made, if possible, in co-operation with those Churches with which the Church of England is in communion; and that such overtures, whenever made, should be extended to the other Eastern Patri
archates, and not confined to the RussoGreek Church. With this view your committee ask leave to sit again, and suggest that, if the Convocation of York should think fit to delegate any of its members to sit with them, they should be authorized to confer with them, and also to co-operate with any committees of other branches of the Anglican Communion. Your committee, citing the words of the Venerable Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople, that "the Orthodox Church of the East has never ceased to offer with tears fervent prayers to her God and Saviour, who maketh of two one, breaking down the middle wall of separation between them, that he may bring all Churches into one unity, giving them sameness of faith and communion words of the prayer familiar to us all, of the Holy Ghost," conclude with the "That as there is but one body and one spirit and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart and one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The interest taken in Russia in the progress of the union movement led to the sending of a Russian priest, Father Agapius, to New York, to organize the resident members of the Greek communion into a regular Church. Father the Protestant Episcopal Church with Agapius was received by the clergy of great cordiality. The rector of Trinity Church, and the bishop of the diocese, being asked for the use of one of the chapels of Trinity Church for the provisional celebration of the Greek service, not only gave unhesitatingly their consent, but expressed a profound interest in the success of the mission, and an ardent hope that it might promote the union movement between the two communions. As the Greek Church holds to transubstantiation, it would seem that this service was essentially a performance of Mass. In that case it is should have been admitted into an rather singular that the performance American Protestant Church.
In a former number of the Method
ist Quarterly Review we gave an account of the missions of the Russian Church in Asia. Outside of Russia, the Church had hitherto sustained only one mission, in Pekin, China, which was established in the reign of Peter the Great, more than one hundred and fifty years ago. Its objects were strictly limited to the welfare of a colony of Russian subjects who had been captured on the Amoor, and planted near Pekin. A treaty between China and Russia authorized the Russian Government to keep six Russian missionaries at Pekin, being changed once in ten years, with the right of having a few students to learn the Chinese and Manchoo language, with a knowledge of Chinese affairs. Hitherto the character and the fruits of this mission have not been well spoken of by the Protestant missionaries in China. But we now find, in the "Missionary Herald" for February, 1865, a letter from Mr. Blodgett, missionary of the American Board at Pekin, who writes, September 8, 1864, that "the Russian missionaries in Pekin now labor directly for the Chinese" in the country, as well as in the city. And he adds in behalf of the Russians this testimony:
It is an interesting fact, and one which
marks a difference between them and the Roman Catholics, that they translate and use the sacred Scriptures. Their version of the New Testament into Chinese is now in print in this city. They have obtained, also, from the English missionaries, the version of the Bible by Messrs. Swan and Stally brass, and published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, for the use of their ministers to the Mongolians, and the version of the New Testament, published by the same society, for the use of their missions in Russian Manchuria. It is hopeful to see this regard for the Word of God. Their terms and usages coincide mostly with those of
the Roman Catholics.
work in Siberia and the adjacent districts. A Russian noble, who is one of the emperor's chamberlains, and favorable to missions, gave him much information on what the Russian Church is doing for the missionary cause: they have missionaries located in the Altai Mountains, at Kamtschatka and the Caucasus, near Lake Baikal, and have also a number who labor among the Bariats, who are Buddhists. The Russians intend shortly to found a missionary seminary, to be located either at Kasan or Irkutsk, as St. Petersburgh is unsuited for it, and they wish to have it in a place where the Oriental languages can be taught to the students. Another nobleman, member of the council of state, much interested in missions, wished to introduce Mr. Long to the emperor's physician, who is a pious man, and for this purpose took him to the palace of Tsarko Celo, twenty miles from Petersburgh, when the physician promised to speak to the emperor in favor of the proposal to form a general Russian missionary society to remove obstacles and secure the support of the imperial family. He afterward spent several days at the monastery of Troitza, near Moscow, in company with a Greek monk, who is going out as a missionary to the Caucasus, where the Russian Church is prosecuting its missions vigorously in Siberia and Eastern Asia. The principal of the Russian Academy, at Moscow, gave him an interesting work on the " History of the Missions of the Russian Church." Mr. Long speaks of Mr. Yususoff as warmly in favor of missions. Also of Bishop Leontides as one who speaks English, and is the only bishop of the Russian Church who has not been brought up a monk, having formerly served as an officer in the Russian navy. He is a anxious for a reform, as is also Philaret, man of enlightened views, the Archbishop of Moscow.
Other interesting statements on the missionary work going on in the Russian Church we derive from the report of the Rev. J. Long, an English clergyman, who recently spent several months in traveling in Russia, for the special purpose of studying the religious and social condition of the country. Mr. Long was informed by the Bishop of Viborg, who is at the head of the academy of St. Petersburgh, for training priests, that the Russian Church has about a hundred missionaries and missionary agents at
The same Mr. Long also makes some interesting statements on the circulation of the Bible in Russia. The holy synod of the Greek Russian Church has itself put in circulation a new and improved version of the Gospel in Russ. The Russian clergy have never made, like the Council of Trent, a decree against Bible circulation among the people. Mr. Long was told by Kasim Beg, a professor of Persian at the University of St. Petersburgh, that he had translated the New Testament into the Tartar language,