Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/61

 DISIBOD

37

DISPARITY

general council because the majority of the Fathers were not French, chose as authoritative expounders of the dogmas of the Church the Genevan Beza and the Italian Vermigli.

It was a deep humiliation for the proud hierarchy of France to be compelled to listen to a long tirade by Beza against the most cherished of Catholic doctrines, the Real Presence of Clirist in the Eucharist. They suppressed their feelings, out of respect for the king, until the hardy Reformer, in the heat of argument, gave utterance to his conviction that the Body and Blood of Christ were as far distant from the bread and wine, as the highest heaven is from the earth. This was too much for the bishops to bear, and they cried out, " He blasphemeth ". It was too much for Catha- rine herself, and proved to her that the fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church was at stake. Beza's speech, revised and emended, was scattered broadcast among the people of France. We are told that the Cardinal of Lorraine confuted the heretic at the next session in a masterly address; but since he did not set it down in writing its value cannot be ascertained. The only sensilile speech made at this colloquy was that of the Jesuit Laynez, who had the courage to re- mind the queen that the proper place for ventilating subjects concerning the Faith was Trent, not Paris; that the Divinely appointed judge of the religious con- troversies was the supreme pontiff, not the Court of France. Catharine wept; but instead of following the Jesuit's wise counsel, she appointed a committee of five Calvinists and five lukewarm Catholics, who drafted a vague formula which could be interpreted in a Catholic or a Cahinistic sense, and was conse- c|uently condemned by both parties.

The spread of Protestantism and the application of its fundamental principle of private judgment natur- ally producetl far-reaching differences in belief. To heal these and so bring about imity, various confer- ences were held: at Weimar (1560), between the Luth- erans, Striegel and Flacius, on free will; at Altenburg (1568-69), between the Jena theologians and those from Wittenberg, on free will and justification; at Montb^liard (1586), between Beza and the Tubingen theologians, on predestination. None of these re- sulted in harmony; they rather emphasized diver- gences in belief anil intensified partisanship.

Discussions in Modern Times. — The conference of Poissy was the last attempt made to reconcile or slur over the radical differences of Catholicity and Prot- estantism. There have been some notable oral de- bates between champions of the rival religions in more recent times; but in these each side laboured to estab- lish its own position and prove that of its adversary untenable. The most memorable and successful of these modern disputations was the "Conference on the Authority of the Church" held S March, 1679, be- tween Bossuet and the Calvinist minister Jean Claude. This was a model of close debate, in which, with due courtesy, each antagonist kept strictly to the subject in hand, the relation of the Church and the Bible. The fondness of Enghsh-speaking peoples for public disputes has often shown itself in challenges, generally delivered by. Protestant controversialists, to discuss religious topics in public. As a rule, they have pro- duced no good results, since both sides revived worn- out arguments and wandered over too wide a field. Such was the "Controversial Discussion between Rev. Thomas Maguire and Rev. Richard T. Pope", held in the lecture-room of the Dublin Institution in April, 1827, Daniel O'Connell being one of the presiding offi- cers. It was printed and widely circulated. Of a similar nature was the " Debate on the Roman Catho- lic Religion", lieKl in Cincinnati from 13 to 21 Jan., 1837, between Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Campbellite sect, and Bishop John P. Purcell. More satisfactory, because confined within closer limits, was the celebrated "Discussion of the (Ques-

tion, Is the Roman CathoUc Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty? and of the Question, Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Lib- erty?" debated in Philadelphia in 1836 between Rev. John Hughes, later Archbishop of New York, and Rev. John Breckinridge of the Presbyterian Church. Both parties kept their tempers remarkably well; but to judge from the violent riots which broke out not long after, the debate had little eiTect in extin- guishing unreasoning prejudices. With the exception of a debate on the question of St. Peter's resilience in Rome, held in the Eternal City in 1872, there have been no oral religious discussions in recent times and this method of elucidating religious truth may be re- garded as discountenanced by modern public opinion. GopFEKT in Kircherdex,, s. v. Disputation; Santi, PrcElec times Juris Can. (Ith ed.. Ratisbon, 1906), lib. V, p. 106; LoiSELET, Ce que pense VEglise des Conferences Contradictoires in Etudes (20 Aug., 1905); Pastor. Die kirchlichen Reunions- bestrebungenitidhrend der Regierung Karls V. 'Freiburg, 1879). J.4.MES F. LOUGHLIN.

Disibod, Saint, Irish bishop and patron of Disen- berg (Disibodenberg), born c. 619; d. 8 July, 700. His life was written in 1170 by St. Hildegarde, from her visions. St. Disibod journeyed to the Continent about the year 653, and settled in the valley of the Nahe, not far from Bingen. His labours continued during the latter half of the seventh century, and, though he led the life of an anchorite, he had a numer- ous community, who built bee-hive cells, in the Irish fashion, on the eastern slopes of the mountain. Be- fore his death he had the happiness of seeing a church erected, served by a colony of monks following the Rule of St. Columba, and he was elected abbot-bishop, the monastery being named Mount Disibod, subse- quently Disenberg, in the Diocese of Mainz. Numer- ous miracles are recorded of the saint. Some authors are of opinion that his death really took place on 8 Sept., whilst the date 8 July is that of the translation of his relics in the year 754, St. Boniface being present. Acta SS., 8 July: Mabillon, Annal. Ord. S. Ben. (Lucca, 1739), IV; BCTLEH, Lives of the Saints, 8 Sept.; O'Hanlon, Lives of the Irish SainLs (London, 1S75). VII. IX.

W. H. Grattan-Flood.

Disparity of Worship (Disparitas Cullus), a diri- ment impediment introduced by the Church to safe- guard the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage. To effect this purpose a law was necessary that would debar Catholics from contracting marriage with per- sons unfit to receive the sacrament. The imfitness consists in (a) either non-reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the door to the other si.x sacra- ments; or (b) in an unbelief in the sacramental char- acter of marriage or in either or both of its essential properties (unity and indissolubility); or (c) in a pro- fession of belief or unbelief that endangers the three ends and threefold substantial blessings or advan- tages of this " great sacrament ... in Christ and the church". This unfitness, in whole or in part, is to be found in all persons who are not of the ( 'atholic P^aith and worship. Disparity of worship, in a general way, signifies a difTerence of religion or worship between two persons. This state of disagreement may be an- tecedent to, or consequent upon, their marriage. Consequent disparity occurs in the case of two pagans or unhaptized persons, one of whom, becoming a con- vert, is baptized in the Catholic Faith or validly bap- tized in some Christian .sect after marriage. The marriage is not affected by this consequent disparity of religion. A not her species of consequent diversityof worship which <loes not militate against the marriage is that of two Catholics, one of whom after their union apostatizes, or turns infidel, MohainMicdaii.etc. Ante- cedent dis[)arity is twofold: consiilrred in its strict and proper sense it is called perfect disparity of worship,