ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 



611 



bishop of Malines for a promulgation at this time 

 of the doctrine of infallibility were insufficient. 

 Only one bishop, Monseigneur Maret, Bishop 

 of Sura, in partibus infidelium, and Dean of 

 the Theological Faculty of Paris, published a 

 work (" On the General Council and the Pub- 

 lic Peace," 2 vols., Paris, 1869) against the 

 doctrine of infallibility itself from the stand- 

 point, as the author expressly states, " of the 

 old Gallican Church." The arguments of this 

 work are in brief as follows : 



According to the Holy Scriptures, the Church, is a 

 limited monarchy which stands under the common 

 rule of the Pope and the bishops. The history 

 of the Councils is at least as much in favor of the 

 divine right of the bishops as of the supremacy of 

 the Holy Chair. Freedom of discussion, vote by 

 majority, a juridical examination of the apostolic de- 

 crees : and, in certain cases, a right to condemn the 

 doctrines and the person of the Pope these are rights 

 which prove beyond all doubt the participation of the 

 bishops in the sovereign powers of the Holy Father. 

 But these rights do not extend far enough to give 

 the episcopal body a supremacy over the Pope, and 

 the latter therefore exercises, in general, all the privi- 

 leges of supremacy. He summons the Council, pre- 

 sides over it, dissolves it, and sanctions its decrees. 

 In a word, he always remains the head of the Church. 

 If, however, the changes desired by a certain school 

 are made, the Church will cease to be a limited, and 

 become an absolute monarchy. This would oe a 

 complete revolution ; but what is truly divine is un- 

 changeable, and consequently, if the constitution of 

 the Church is changed, it ceases to be divine. Pius IX. , 

 in his bull, Ineffaoilis Deus, has himself said of doc- 

 trine, Grescat in, odem sensu, in eadem sentential but 

 the new dogma would lead to a development of doc- 

 trine in olio sensu* in alia sententia. It would there- 

 fore amount to a denial of the divinity of the Church. 

 "If it were realized," exclaims the bishop, " what a 

 triumph would it be to the enemies of the Church ! 

 They would call the asseverations of centuries, and 

 history itself, as witnesses against Catholicism ; she 

 would be crushed by the weight of opposing testi- 

 mony j the Holy Scriptures, the Fathers, and the 

 Councils, would rise in judgment against her. They 

 would bury us in our shame, and, from the desert, 

 atheism would rise more powerful and threatening 

 than ever." 



No other bishop expressed his approval of 

 this work, while quite a number hastened to 

 declare against it. 



The doctrine of infallibility called forth 

 among the theologians, lower clergy, and laity 

 of the Church, a more earnest opposition than 

 among the bishops. A considerable sensation 

 was produced by a letter from a noted French 

 pulpit orator, the late Father Hyacinthe, pro- 

 testing against what he regarded as the ultra- 

 montane tendencies prevailing at Rome. Father 

 Hyacinthe, belonging to a family of the name 

 of Loyson, had been for many years a monk 

 of the Order of Barefooted Carmelites. His 

 fame as a preacher having attracted the atten- 

 tion of the present Archbishop of Paris, he 

 was several years ago appointed to preach the 

 Advent course of sermons at Notre-Dame, 

 the Lent course being reserved for the repre- 

 sentative of the opposite school of the Church 

 the Jesuit, Pere Felix. His sermons ran 

 chiefly on general topics, such as "Society," 

 " Education," " The Family," " The Church," 



and attracted general attention by a marked 

 liberalism which met with great applause 

 on the part of some liberals in the Catholic 

 Church and of non-Catholics, but called forth 

 many remonstrances from prominent men in 

 the Church. A speech made at the Peace 

 Congress, held in Paris in 1869, drew upon 

 him a sharp rebuke from his superior, the Gen- 

 eral of the Carmelite Order. This led him to 

 announce to the Archbishop of Paris the im- 

 possibility of his preaching again at Notre- 

 Dame, and soon afterward he published an an- 

 swer to the General of his Order. 



The letter of the General of the Carmelite 

 Order to Father Hyacinthe was as follows : ' 



BOMB, July 22, 1869. 



MY VERY KEVKREND FATHER HYAOINTHE : I have 

 received your letter of the 9th hist., and in a short time 

 after the speech which y_ou delivered at the Peace 

 League. I have not, happily, found in that speech the 

 heterodox phrase attributed to you. It must be said, 

 however, that it contains some vague propositions, 

 admitting of unfortunate interpretations, and that 

 such a speech does not come well from a monk. The 

 habit of the Carmelite was certainly there no longer in 

 its place. My reverend father and dear friend, you 

 know the great interest I have always taken in you. 

 From the commencement of your sermons at Notre- 

 Bame de Paris, I have earnestly exhorted you not 

 to identify yourself with questions in dispute among 

 Catholics and on which all are not agreed ; because, 

 from the moment you attach yourself ostensibly to 

 one side, your ministry became more or less unfruit- 

 ful with the other. 



Now ; it is patent that you have made no account 

 of the intimation of your father and superior, as last 

 year you wrote a letter to a club in Paris in which 

 you freely disclosed your opinions in favor of a party, 

 having little wisdom, and in opposition with the 

 sentiments of the Holy Father, the episcopacy, and 

 the clergy in general. I was alarmed, as were also 

 the French clergy. I wrote to you immediately to 

 enable you to see the false path you had entered on, 

 in order to stop you. But in vain, for some months 

 after you authorized from yourself a periodical re- 

 view in Genoa to publish another letter, that has 

 been the cause of so much vexation to you and me. 

 Lastly, during your last sojourn at Kome, I made 

 you serious observations ; and even rather strong re- 

 proaches on the false position you were placed in on 

 account of your imprudence, but you had scarcely 

 arrived at Paris when you published, under your own 

 signature, a letter deplored by all, even by your 

 friends. 



Lately your presence and speech at the Peace 

 League have caused as great scandal in Catholic 

 Europe as happened about six years ago, on the occa- 

 sion of your speech at a meeting in Paris. You have, 

 beyond doubt, given some reason for such recrimina- 

 tions by some bold, obscure, and imprudent phrases. 



I have done all that I could up to the present to 

 defend and save you. To-day I must think of the 

 interests and honor of our holy order, which, un- 

 known to yourself, you compromise. 



You write me from Paris, November 19, 1868 : " I 

 avoid mixing the Paris convent and the order of 

 Mount Carmel with these matters." Let me say to 

 you, my dear father, that this is an illusion. You 

 are a monk, and bound to your superiors by solemn 

 vows. "We have to answer for you before God And 

 man, and consequently have to take the same meas- 

 ures in your regard as in that of other monks, when 

 your conduct is prejudicial to your soul and our order. 



Already in France, Belgium, and even here, some 

 of the bishops, clergy, and faithful, are blaming the 

 superiors of our order for not taking certain measures 

 in your regard, and it is concluded that there is no 



