Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/91

 OLD CATHOLICS (Ger. Altkatholiken), the designation assumed by those members of the Roman Catholic Church who refused to accept the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870 defining the dogma of papal infallibility (see and ) and ultimately set up a separate ecclesiastical organization on the episcopal model. The Old Catholic movement, at the outset at least, differed fundamentally from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century in that it aimed not at any drastic changes in doctrine but at the restoration of the ancient Catholic system, founded on the diocesan episcopate, which under the influence of the ultramontane movement of the 19th century had been finally displaced by the rigidly centralized system of the papal monarchy. In this respect it represented a tendency of old standing within the Church and one which, in the 18th century, had all but gained the upper hand (see and ). Protestantism takes for its standard the Bible and the supposed doctrines and institutions of the apostolic age. Old Catholicism sets up the authority of the undivided Church, and accepts the decrees of the first seven general councils—down to the second council of Nicaea (787), a principle which has necessarily involved a certain amount of doctrinal divergence both from the standards of Rome and those of the Protestant Churches.

The proceedings of the Vatican council and their outcome had at first threatened to lead to a serious schism in the Church. The minority against the decrees included many of the most distinguished prelates and theologians of the Roman communion, and the methods by which their opposition had been overcome seemed to make it difficult for them to submit. The pressure put upon them was, however, immense, and the reasons for submission may well have seemed overwhelming; in the end, after more or less delay, all the recalcitrant bishops gave in their adhesion to the decrees.

The “sacrificio dell’ intelletto,” as it was termed—the subordination of individual opinion to the general authority of the Church—was the maxim adopted by one and all. Seventeen of the German bishops almost immediately receded from the position they had taken up at Rome and assented to the dogma, publishing at the same time a pastoral letter in which they sought to justify their change of sentiment on the ground of expediency in relation to the interests of the Church (Michelis, Der neue Fuldaer Hirtenbrief, 1870). Their example was followed by all the other bishops of Germany. Darboy, archbishop of Paris, and Dupanloup, bishop of Orleans, in France adopted a like course, and took with them the entire body of the French clergy. Each bishop demanded in turn the same submission from the clergy of his diocese, the alternative being suspension from pastoral functions, to be followed by deprivation of office. It may be urged as some extenuation of this general abandonment of a great principle, that those who had refused to subscribe to the dogma received but languid support, and in some cases direct discouragement, from their respective governments. The submission of the illustrious Karl Joseph von Hefele was generally attributed to the influence exerted by the court of Württemberg.

The universities, being less directly under the control of the Church, were prepared to show a bolder front. Dr J. F. von Schulte, professor at Prague, was one of the first to publish a formal protest. A meeting of Catholic professors and distinguished scholars convened at Nuremberg (August 1870) recorded a like dissent, and resolved on the adoption of measures for bringing about the assembling of a really free council north of the Alps. The Appel aux Evêques Catholiques of M. Hyacinthe Loyson (better known as “Père Hyacinthe”), after referring to the overthrow of “the two despotisms,” “the empire of the Napoleons and the temporal power of the popes,” appealed to the Catholic bishops throughout the world to put an end to the schism by declaring whether the recent decrees were or were not binding on the faith of the Church. This appeal, on its appearance in La Libertà early in 1871, was suppressed by the order of the king of Italy. On the 28th of March Döllinger, in a letter of some length, set forth the reasons which compelled him also to withhold his submission alike as “a Christian, a theologian, an historical student and a citizen.” The publication of this letter was shortly followed by a sentence of excommunication pronounced against Döllinger and Professor (q.v.), and read to the different congregations from the pulpits of Munich. The professors of the university, on the other hand, had shortly before evinced their resolution of affording Döllinger all the moral support in their power by an address (April 3, 1871) in which they denounced the Vatican decrees with unsparing severity, declaring that, at the very time when the German people had “won for themselves the post of honour on the battlefield among the nations of the earth,” the German bishops had stooped to the dishonouring task of “forcing consciences in the service of an unchristian tyranny, of reducing many pious and upright men to distress and want, and of persecuting those who had but stood steadfast in their allegiance to the ancient faith” (Friedberg, Aktenstücke z. ersten Vaticanischen Concil, p. 187). An address to the king, drawn up a few days later, received the signatures of 12,000 Catholics. The refusal of the rites of the Church to one of the signatories, Dr Zenger, when on his deathbed, elicited strong expressions of disapproval; and when, shortly after, it became necessary to fill up by election six vacancies in the council of the university, the feeling of the electors was indicated by the return of candidates distinguished by their dissent from the new decrees. In the following September the demand for another and a free council was responded to by the assembling of a congress at Munich. It was composed of nearly 500 delegates, convened from almost all parts of the world; but the Teutonic element was now as manifestly predominant as the Latin element had been at Rome. The proceedings were presided over by Professor von Schulte, and lasted three days. Among those who took a prominent part in the deliberations were Landammann Keller, Windscheid, Döllinger, Reinkens, Maassen (professor of canon law at Vienna), Friedrich and Huber. The arrangements finally agreed upon were mainly provisional; but one of the resolutions plainly declared that it was desirable if possible to effect a reunion with the Oriental Greek and Russian Churches, and also to arrive at an “understanding” with the Protestant and Episcopal communions.

In the following year lectures were delivered at Munich by various supporters of the new movement, and the learning and eloquence of Reinkens were displayed with marked effect. In France the adhesion of the abbé Michaud to the cause attracted considerable interest, not only from his reputation as a preacher, but also from the notable step in advance made by his declaration that, inasmuch as the adoption of the standpoint of the Tridentine canons would render reunion with the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches impossible, the wisest course would be to insist on nothing more with respect to doctrinal belief than was embodied in the canons of the first seven oecumenical councils. In the same year the Old Catholics, as they now began to be termed, entered into relations with the historical little Jansenist Church of Utrecht. Döllinger, in delivering his inaugural address as rector of the university of Munich, expressed his conviction that theology had received a fresh impulse and that the religious history of Europe was entering upon a new phase.

Other circumstances contributed to invest Old Catholicism with additional importance. It was evident that the relations between the Roman Curia and the Prussian government were becoming extremely strained. In February 1872 appeared the first measures of the Falk ministry, having for their object the control of the influence of the clergy in the schools, and in May the pope refused to accept Cardinal Hohenlohe, who during the council had opposed the definition of the dogma, as Prussian minister at the Vatican. In the same year two humble parish priests, Renftle of Mering in Bavaria and Tangermann of Unkel in the Rhineland, set an example of independence by refusing