Upon reaching Constantinople , the Crusaders showed the young
Alexis to the people, but soon perceived that they would excite no sympathy in this manner. They then
determined to force him upon
the city, which they took by
assault. They sent news of this to the
Pope by a letter in which they sought to excuse
themselves for having, attacked the Greeks.* “The cruel
usurper of the empire (Alexis Angelus) had harangued the people
and had persuaded them that the Latins were coming to ruin their ancient liberty,
and subjugate, the empire to their laws and
to the authority of the Pope.
This so excited them against us and against the young Prince, that they would not listen to us."
They pretended to have been first attacked by the Greeks; they related what the old Emperor Isaac, together
with his son
Alexis,
was doing for them, and took good
care to add, "He further promises to render you that
obedience which the Catholic emperors,
his predecessors
have rendered to the Popes, and to do all in his power to lead back the Greek Church to that obedience.”
One of the chiefs
of the Crusaders, the Count of
St. Paul, wrote, on his part, to the Duke of Louvain: "We have so
much
advanced the cause of the Saviour
that the Eastern Church, of which Constantinople was formerly the metropolis, being reunited to the Pope its
head, with the Emperor and all his empire,
as it was formerly, recognizes herself as the daughter of the Roman Church, and will humbly obey her for the future. The Patriarch
himself is to go to Rome to receive his pallium, and has promised the Emperor on his
oath to
do so.
The young Alexis wrote in the same strain to the Pope.
"We own," he said, "that the
chief cause
which has brought the pilgrims to succor us
is, that we have voluntarily promised,
and upon oath, that we would humbly recognize theRoman Pontiff
as the Ecclesiastical head of all Christendom, and as the successor of St. Peter, and that we would use
all our power to lead the Eastern Church to that recognition, understanding well, that such reunion will be very
useful to the empire and most glorious for us. We repeat to you the
same promises by these
presents, and we ask your advice how to woo back the Eastern Church."
It was, therefore, well understood that union meant nothing
but submission
to the Roman see. The Crusaders
and their protegés knew that
only such promises could lead Innocent III. to approve
what he had at first censured. The experiment succeeded. Innocent replies to Alexis that he approves of his
views as to the reunion
of the Eastern Church.
If he will remain faithful to his engagements, he promises him all manner
of prosperity; if he
should fail, he predicts that he
will fall before his enemies.
Innocent then replied
to the Crusaders. He feared that they had only exacted
from Alexis the promise to subject the Eastern to the Roman Church, in order to excuse their own
fault. “We will judge by these
results," he said, “whether
you have acted sincerely: if the
Emperor sends us letters-patent that we may preserve
as authentic proof of his
oath; if the Patriarch sends us a solemn deputation to recognize the primacy of
the Roman Church, and to
promise obedience to us; and if he asks
of us the pallium, without which he cannot legitimately exercise the Patriarchal functions.”
* See Villehardouin; see It. Godef. ad ann. 1203; Raynold. Annal.; Innocent III. Epist.
Could the Eastern Church
recognize such a doctrine
as being that of the
first eight centuries?
The Crusaders soon quarreled with Alexis, who,
when he was Emperor, at once
forgot his promises. But this young
prince had alienated the Greeks
by ascending the throne by means of the Latins.
He was dethroned, and Constantinople fell into the power of
an adventurer. The Crusaders decided that this man had no
right to the crown, and that the
Greeks were to be treated without
much consideration, since
they had withdrawn from their obedience to the Pope. They,
therefore, took possession of the city, and placed
one of their number, Baldwin, Count of
Flanders, on the throne. Constantinople was sacked; all its churches polluted, pillaged, and laid waste.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople began in 1204 and
ended in 1261.
During that period of about half a century,
the hatred between the Greeks and Latins assumed fearful proportions. The Marquis of
Monferrat, chief of the Crusaders, wrote to the Pope, that, if Constantinople had been taken,
it was principally to do
a service to the holy see, and bring the
Greeks back to the obedience
which was due to it. “After our miraculous
conquest," he adds, “we have done nothing
except for the sake of reuniting the Eastern Church
to the holy see; and we
await your counsel for that result."
In his reply, Innocent
censures the excesses
and sacrileges of which
the Crusaders had been guilty.
"The Greeks," he adds, "notwithstanding the bad treatment they suffer
from
those who wish to force them to return to the obedience of the Roman Church, cannot make up their minds to do so, because they only see crimes and works of darkness in the Latins,
and they hate them like dogs. . . . But the judgments of
God," continues the Pope, “are impenetrable, and hence we
would not judge lightly
in this affair. It may be that the Greeks have been justly punished for their sins, although you
acted unjustly in gratifying your own hatred against them; it is possible
that God may justly reward you for having been the instruments of
His own vengeance." It is evident
that Innocent III. was calm enough to make subtle distinctions in the presence of a city of bloodshed and rains. The rest of his
letter is worthy of the foregoing: "Let us
leave," he says,
"these doubtful questions. This is certain, that you may keep and defend
the land which is conquered
for you by the decision
of God; upon this condition,
however, that you
will restore the possessions
of the churches, and that you always remain faithful to the holy see and to us."
The Papal sovereignty was the
great and single aim. Crimes became virtues,
provided the authority of the holy see was propagated and sustained.
Not content with approving the taking of Constantinople , Innocent
undertook to establish firmly the new empire. He accordingly wrote to the bishops
of France a circular, of which
this is the substance: "God, wishing to hallow His Church by the reunion of the schismatics, has transferred the empire of
the proud, disobedient, and superstitious Greeks to the humble, pious, catholic, and submissive Latins. The new Emperor,
Baldwin, invites all manner of people, clerical and lay, noble and villain,
of all sexes and conditions, to come to
his empire to receive
wealth according to their merit and quality. The Pope,
therefore, commands the bishops to persuade every one to come; and he promises the Indulgence of the Crusade to those who
will go to uphold the new
empire.”
Baldwin having begged
the Pope to send him some Latin ecclesiastics to strengthen the Papal Church in the East,
Innocent wrote a new
circular to the bishops of France . "Send," says he, "to
that country all the books
you can spare, at least to have them copied, that the
Church of the East may agree with that of the West in the praises of God!" Thus the venerable liturgies of the East found no grace in the eyes of the Papacy.
It was a new church it wished for in the new
Latin-Greek Empire.
Baldwin established a Latin clergy
at Constantinople , and named the canons,
whom he installed at Saint Sophia.
These elected the Venetian,
Thomas Morosini, for their
Patriarch. Innocent found no irregularity except in his elective
character; therefore, instead
of confirming the election, he directly
appointed Thomas to the Patriarchate. His letter deserves to be quoted:
“As for the personal character of the
Patriarch elect, he is sufficiently
known to us and
to our Brethren the Cardinals, because of the long sojourn be has made with us.
We know he is of a noble race, and of proper life, prudent, circumspect, and sufficiently
learned. But having examined the election, we have not found it
canonical, because, laymen having
no right to dispose of ecclesiastical affairs, the Patriarch of
Constantinople should not
have been elected by the authority of any secular prince.
Besides, the Venetian
clergymen, who call themselves canons
of Saint Sophia, could
not have the right of election, not having been established in their Church
either by ourselves or
our legates or deputies. For this
reason we have cancelled the election in full Consistory.”
Then the Pope declares
that, wishing to provide for that
Church, the care of
which is specially his, he appoints
the same Thomas Patriarch in virtue of the fulness
of his power.
Nothing can be legitimate in the Church, except by
this full power; such was the claim of the Papacy.
Innocent defended the ecclesiastical possessions of which a part had been
appropriated by the Crusaders. “It is not expedient," he said, “for the holy see to authorize
this act. Moreover, since their treaty was
made
with the Venetians--for the honour
of the Roman Church, as they say
in nearly every article--we cannot confirm an act which detracts from
that honour."
Innocent conferred upon Thomas Morosini, who was only a sub-deacon, the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy; then he published
a bull, in which he thus
expresses himself: "The
prerogative of grace which the holy see has
given to the Byzantine Church proves clearly the fulness of power
that this see has received
from God, since the holy
see has put that Church in the rank of
Patriarchal Churches. It has
drawn it, as it were,
from the dust; it has
raised it to the point of preferring it to those of
Alexandria , Antioch , and
Innocent recognized the fact that the Church of Constantinople
the decrees
of the œcumenical councils
of Constantinople and Chalcedon , which had given that Church the second
rank in spite of Rome . It was
thus that the Papacy in the middle ages
distorted history to find proofs in
support of its pretensions.
The Greek Patriarch
of Constantinople, John
Camaterus, resigned and retired to Thrace . He was succeeded by Michael Autorian, who crowned Theodore
Lascaris Emperor of the Greeks. They both fixed their residence at Nicea in Bithynia .
The French and Venetians quarreled
about the new
Latin Patriarch and the division
of the ecclesiastical property. Thomas applied
to the Pope, who replied in a long letter,
from which we will quote an extract:
“Of the four beasts which are about
the throne Ezekiel put the
eagle above the others, because, of the
four Patriarchal Churches,
represented by the four beasts, which surround the holy see as its servants,
the Church of Constantinople has the preëminence."
Thus Rome was
the throne. The imperial eagle, the type of
Constantinople , was to be the first of the symbolic beasts
that adored it. Such was Innocent's modest notion of his authority. He thus gives a divine
origin to the preeminence of Constantinople , because it had
come
from the holy see--God's organ.
After this preamble the Pope
gives Thomas some instructions, among which we
will notice the following: "You ask me how you should
arrange the bishoprics in those countries where there
are only Greeks, and in those where
they are mixed with Latins.
In the first you must consecrate Greek bishops,
if you find any, who will be faithful
to you, and are willing to receive consecration from you. In mixed bishoprics you will ordain Latins,
and give them preference over the Greeks.
. . . If you cannot bring the Greeks
to the Latin ritual, you must
suffer them to keep their own until
the holy see otherwise orders." Such was
the policy constantly followed by the
Papacy in respect to the united
Greeks; to tolerate
them until they could be made to submit.
From that epoch there were in the East, by Papal
authority, two Catholic churches opposed to each other. Schism was thenceforth an accomplished fact, (1206.) As the Bishop of Thessalonica justly wrote to Pope Adrian IV., no schism really existed
before that period. There had merely been a protest of the
Eastern Church against the Roman innovations. This protest was anterior
to Michael Cerularius and even to Photius. It took a more decided
character under those
Patriarchs, because Rome innovated more and more, and wished
to impose her autocracy upon the
whole Church; but in reality
the schism had not taken
shape. As Fleury judiciously remarks, respecting the intercourse between
Manuel Comnenus and
Alexander III., "It cannot be said that in his day the schism of the
Greeks had yet taken shape."* This cursory
remark of the learned historian, who cannot be suspected
of partiality for the Greek Church,
has an importance
which every one will understand. It necessarily follows from it that neither
Photius nor Michael Cerularius created the schism. Who then was
its author? It would be impossible to point one out among the Greeks. To our
minds it is
the Papacy, which, after having
called forth the protests
of the Eastern Church, and strengthened them by its own autocratic pretensions, was
really the founder of the schism.
The true author of it is Pope Innocent
III. It had been commenced by the
Latin Church of Jerusalem; it was consummated by that of Constantinople .
This is the testimony of authentic and impartial
history. The Papacy,
after having established the schism, strengthened it by establishing Latin bishoprics
in cities where Greek
bishoprics had existed since
the Apostolic times. When the Latin bishops could not reside
there, Rome gave them titles
in partibus infidelium, as
if the Apostolic Church
Innocent III. died in 1216.
His successors continued his work.
But the Greek Emperors of Nicea, on the verge
of being overcome by
the Latin Emperors of Constantinople, bethought themselves
to resume the policy
of their predecessors toward
the
Papacy.
At the entreaty of the
Emperor John Vataces, the Patriarch Germanus wrote to Pope
Gregory IX. (1232.) His letter was filled with the best sentiments.† He first calls upon Jesus Christ, the corner-stone which joins all nations
in one and the same Church; he
acknowledges the primacy of
the Bishop of Rome, and declares
that he has no desire to
contest it; and he adds: "Let us seek, with all possible
care, who have been the authors of the division. If we ourselves, then point out to us
the wrong we have committed and apply
the remedy; if the Latins,
then we cannot believe that it is your
determination to remain outside of the
Lord's heritage, through ignorance or criminal obstinacy. All acknowledge that the
division has sprung from different beliefs,
from abolishing canons and changing
the ritual
that has
come to us by tradition from our fathers. Now all
are witness that we
ask supplicatingly to be reunited in the truth,
after a profound examination to be made thereof, so that
we may no longer hear from either party
the imputation of schism."
After having drawn the picture of the woes which that imputation of schism
had drawn upon them from the
Crusaders, Germanus exclaims, "Is it this that St. Peter teaches when he
recommends the
* Fleury Hist.
Eccl. liv. ixxiii.
§ 32.
† See this letter Labbe’s collection of
Councils, vol. xi.; also in the Historian Matthew Parris.
pastors
to govern their flocks without violence or domination? I
know that each of us believes himself right,
and thinks that he is not mistaken. Well then,
let us appeal to Holy
Scripture and the Fathers."
Germanus wrote
in the same way to
the Cardinals who constituted the Pope's council. “Permit us," he writes to them; "to speak the truth;
division has come from the tyrannical
oppression that you exercise, and from the exactions
of the Roman Church, which is no mother, but a stepmother, and tramples upon
the other churches just in proportion as they humiliate themselves before
her. We are scandalized to see you exclusively attached
to the things of this
world, on all sides heaping up
gold and silver, and making kingdoms pay you tribute." Germanus then demands a thorough
examination of the
questions that divide the
Church; and to show the importance of such an examination,
he calls attention
to the fact that a large
number of nations agree
with him.
Gregory IX.* did not follow
Germanus upon the ground which this Patriarch had taken. He accuses the Greek Church of too much submission to the temporal power,
whereby
it had lost its liberty; but he does not
say wherein the liberty of the
Church lies. For every
Christian that liberty
consists in the right to preserve revealed
doctrine and Apostolic laws in their integrity. From this point
of view has not the Eastern
Church been always
more free than the Western? Whether
a Church sacrifice the truth to an Emperor or to a Pope- King, it is equally servile
in either case.
Is it not wonderful to hear the Papacy
talk thus of liberty to the Eastern
Church while in the very act of attempting her subjugation, and after it has enslaved the Church
of the West? Gregory IX.,
instead of accepting the discussion proposed by Germanus, promised to send him
two Dominicans and two Franciscans to explain to him his intentions and those of the Cardinals. These monks actually set out for
Nicea
in the following year, (A.D.
1233,) bearing a letter
to the Patriarch Germanus, in which the Pope compared the Greek schism to that of Samaria . It will be granted that the comparison was not very exact.
In fact, Rome was neither Jerusalem
law. These titles rather
belonged to the Eastern Church than to the Roman, which had altered
dogmas and Apostolic laws, while the other had piously preserved them. In
the same letter Gregory IX.
claims, as head of the Church,
the twofold power, spiritual and temporal;
he
even maintains that Jesus
Christ gave that power to St. Peter when he
said to him, “Put up
thy sword into the sheath."† This interpretation
of the text is worthy
of the opinion it was
cited to sustain. Gregory IX. concludes by attacking the use of leavened bread for the
Eucharist.
"That bread," be said, "typifies the corruptible body
of Jesus Christ, while the unleavened
bread represents his risen and glorious body." The four
Western monks were received at Nicea
with great honours. They conferred with the Greek clergy concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost; the report
is still extant that was made in the West.‡ In this report the monks claim to have had the advantage, as may well be imagined; but by
their own showing, they confounded substance with personality in the Trinity--the essential procession, with the temporary sending
of the Holy Spirit upon the
Church; they misquoted Scripture
and the Fathers; they could give no
reason for the addition made to the creed;
and they likened
that addition, irregularly made, and involving a new dogma, to the development that the œcumenical Council of
Constantinople had given to the creed
of the first œcumenical
Council
of Nicea.
As for the Eucharist, the discussion concerning it was quite insignificant. Before they retired, the monks declared
to the Emperor that, if the Greeks
wished to unite with the
*Greg. IX. Ep. in Labbe’s Collection of Councils,
vol. xi.
† Gospel acc.
to
St. John
‡ Ap. Raynald. ad Ann.
1233.
Roman Church,
they must subscribe to her doctrine and submit to the Pope's
authority. It appears, therefore, that they had not come to inquire what was the true doctrine,
and whether or not the Papal
authority was legitimate; union to them, as to the Pope, meant nothing but
submission. The Patriarch
Germanus did not understand it so; therefore
he called a council to examine the points of difference existing between
the Greeks and Latins.* That assembly was
held at Nymphæum. According to the account
of the Nuncios themselves, their only triumph
was in asking the Greeks
why they no longer submitted to the Pope,
after having formerly recognized his authority? If we may believe them,
the Greeks were very much embarrassed by this question, and kept silence. Such a remark is sufficient to show with how little
honesty
their account was composed. Certainly the most ignorant of the
Greeks knew that the Papal authority had never been recognized in the East. After long discussions
upon the procession of the Holy Spirit, and upon unleavened bread, the Emperor summoned the Nuncios and said to them, "To
arrive at peace, each side must make concessions; abandon your addition to the creed,
and we will approve of
your unleavened bread." The Nuncios
refused. "How then shall we
conclude peace?" asked the Emperor.
"Thus," replied the Nuncios: "You shall believe
and teach that the Eucharist can be consecrated only in unleavened bread;
you shall burn all the books
in which a different doctrine
is taught; you shall believe and teach that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Son
as well as from the Father,
and shall burn all the books that
teach the contrary. The Pope
and the Roman Church will
not abate one iota of their
belief; the only concession that can be made to you is,
not to oblige you to chaunt the creed with the Latin
addition. Such was the substance of the reply of the Nuncios. The Emperor was
much
annoyed at it, and at the last session
of the council the two
parties separated, mutually
anathematizing each other. No
other result could have been
anticipated.
About thirty years after this Council, (A.D. 1269,) Michael Palæologus reëntered
which
he sent to Michael Palæologus by four Franciscans.† According to the same Pope,
Michael was guilty of the division existing
between the churches, because if he chose to use
his power, he could force all the Greek clergy to subscribe to the demands of the
Pope. To use that power, he said, in forcing
the Greek clergy was
the only mode of securing his empire
against the enterprises of the Latins.
Thus, according to Clement IV., interest, brute force, and threats were the true means of obtaining unity. Michael Palæologus was particularly in danger of an
invasion on the part of
Charles, King of Sicily. Remembering that Clement IV. had written to him that the only mode of
protecting himself against
the Latins was to unite
the churches, he wrote to Gregory
X. to express to him his own good intentions in this
respect.
* Raynald. ad
Ann. 1233; Wading. Annal. Min. ad
Ann. 1233.
† Raynald Annal. Eccl.;
Labbe’s Collection of
Councils, vol. ix.; Wading. Annal. min.;
Pachymeros, Hist.
Orient. book v.
It is not our purpose to give a detailed
account of the relations between
Gregory and Michael. We need only say that
the latter acted solely from political motives; that he abused
his imperial power to persuade
some of the bishops to favour his projects; that he persecuted those who resisted him; that some bishops, who were traitors from interested motives, made
all the concessions that the Pope
demanded; that their course was
disavowed by the rest, notwithstanding the dreadful persecutions that this disavowal drew upon them; in fine, that
reunion, instead of being
established by those intrigues
and acts of violence, only became more
difficult than ever.
Such is, in substance, the history of
what took place at the second Council
of Lyons (1274) in regard to the reunion
of the churches, and of what
took place in the Greek Church
after the Council.
It is all political, and has no religious character. Gregory X. declared peace
at Lyons upon the basis laid down by Clement IV.
But this union was only made with Michael Palæologus and a few
men
without principles. The Church of the
East had no share in it. Rome herself
was so persuaded of this, that Martin
IV. excommunicated Michael
Palæologus for having, tricked
the Pope under pretext of reunion, (1281.) Andronicus, who
succeeded Michael, (1283,)
renounced a policy in which there was
so little truth.
But it was
resumed by John Palæologus for the
Council of Florence.
In the interval
between these two
assemblies of Lyons and Florence , several
parleys took place between the Popes and
the Emperors, but they resulted
in nothing, because
the Eastern Church, instead
of drawing nearer to the Church of Rome, was increasing the distance between
them in proportion as the Papacy became more proud
and exacting.
Still, John Palæologus; succeeded, by using all his authority, in persuading a few
bishops to attend the Council of Florence.
There were two distinct periods in that assembly that of the doctrinal expositions, and
that of the concessions.
By the doctrinal exposition it was made apparent that the Eastern Church differed
from the Roman upon many
fundamental points,
and that she maintained her doctrine against Papal innovations, because that doctrine had been bequeathed to her by the
Apostles and the ancient Fathers.
The concessions were inconsistent with the doctrinal exposition. Why? Because the Pope and the Emperor of
the East used all the resources of their
despotic power to overcome
the resistance of the
Greeks; because the Pope, in spite of his
formal engagements, left to perish with hunger those
Greeks who did not yield to his demands, while
at the same time the
Emperor of the East rendered their return to their country
an impossibility; because the Papacy was able to gain over some ambitious men, whose treachery it rewarded with a cardinal's hat and
other honours. But the Papacy
did not succeed,
for all that, in obtaining from the Council of Florence any distinct recognition of its
pretended sovereignty. For that
assembly, even while it proclaimed that sovereignty of divine right, inserted
in its decree one clause which
annulled it, and declared it a sacrilegious usurpation.
In fact that sovereignty can only be an usurpation if we seek to determine its character by a reference to the œcumenical councils.
Thus was iniquity false to
herself in that famous assembly, which was nothing more than a conspiracy against
sound doctrine, which, under the name of a union, promulgated
only a mendacious compromise, broken
before it was concluded; the abettors of which
were anathematized by the
Eastern Church; of which
the Church of the
West, represented in a great
majority by the Council of Basle,
condemned the principal author,
Pope Eugene, as a heretic, a schismatic, and a rebel to the church.
Since the sad
drama of Florence the Papacy has
not attempted to subjugate
the
Eastern Church.
It has preferred to endeavour to disorganize her, little by little, in order
gradually to attain to her enslavement. Its policy has been to pay an outward
respect to the Eastern ritual and doctrine; to profit by every circumstance particularly by all conflicts
between nationalities, to insinuate itself
and lend its authority as a support
and a safeguard to
national rights; to be contented, at first, with a vague and indeterminate recognition of that authority, and then, by all
manner of hypocrisy and deceit, to strengthen that authority, in
order to turn it afterward
against the doctrines and ritual for which
at first it feigned respect.
This explains the contradictory bulls
issued by the Popes on the subject
of the united of all churches. The united Greeks
of the East and of Russia , the united Armenians, the united Bulgarians, the united
Maronites, etc., etc.
If, as we hope, we should ever publish a special work on the points of difference
between the Eastern and Roman Churches Lyons and of Florence ; in all the relations between the Popes and the Emperors of
Constantinople, since the establishment of the
Latin kingdoms of the
East; and in the
contradictory bulls that have emanated from Rome from that time to our
own.
Our
object in the present work has been only to prove:
First. That the Papacy, from and after the ninth
century, attempted to impose, in the
name
of God, upon the universal Church,
a yoke unknown to the first eight centuries.
Secondly. That this ambition called
forth a legitimate opposition on the part of the
Eastern Church.
Thirdly. That the Papacy
was the first cause of
the division.
Fourthly. That the Papacy
strengthened and perpetuated this division by its innovations, and especially by maintaining as a dogma the unlawful sovereignty that it had assumed.
Fifthly. That by establishing a Papal Church
in the very bosom of the
Catholic Church of the East,
it made a true schism
of that division, by setting up one
altar against another altar, and an illegitimate episcopacy against an Apostolic episcopacy.
We have proved
all these points
by unanswerable facts. It is therefore
with justice that we turn
back upon the Papacy itself
that accusation of schism of which it is so lavish
toward those who refuse to recognize
its autocracy, and who
stand up in the name of
GOD and Catholic tradition
against its usurpations and sacrilegious enterprises.
We say now to every honest man: On the
one side you have
heard Scripture interpreted according
to the Catholic tradition; you have
heard the Œcumenical Councils and the
Fathers of the Church;
you have heard the Bishops of Rome of the
first eight centuries.
On the other side you
have heard the Popes subsequent to the eighth century.
Can you say that the doctrines of the
one and of the
other are identical? Are you not compelled to acknowledge that there are concerning
the Papacy two contradictory doctrines: the divine doctrine, preserved during eight centuries even in the bosom of
the Roman Church--a
doctrine which condemns every idea of autocracy or sovereignty in the Church of Jesus Christ; and the Papal
doctrine, which makes of that
autocracy an essential
and fundamental dogma of the
Church, a dogma without
which the Church
cannot exist?
Which is the doctrine that every Christian
must prefer? That of GOD, or
that of the
Pope? That of
the Church, or that of the
Court of Rome?
You must choose between
the two. Are you in
favour of the divine
doctrine, preserved by the Church ? Then you are
a Catholic Christian. Are you in favour of the doctrine
of the Papacy? Then you are
a Papist, but you
are not a Catholic. This name only belongs
to those, who, in their faith, follow Catholic
tradition,. That
tradition contradicts the Papal system; hence you
cannot be a Catholic and accept
this system. It is high time to cease playing upon
words and to speak distinctly; be a Papist if you
will, but do not then call yourself a Catholic.
Would you be a Catholic? Be no longer a Papist.
There is no possible
compromise;for
Catholic and Papist
are words which mutually deny each other.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE AUTHOR.
THE nature of
the questions discussed in the following
work would ordinarily lift them
above all personal considerations and require that the argument be left to take care of itself
in the honest vindication of Catholic truth. There attaches to the present treatise, however, an interest quite separated from its merits as
an argument, in its identification with the history of a
man
of whose remarkable career
and labors it is one of
the most valuable fruits. It is
believed, therefore, that it can scarcely fail to derive
additional force from the account which it is
proper here to give of the
author.
Réné-Francois Guettée was born at Blois, on the banks of the
Loire, in the Department of the Loire et Cher, on the
first of December, 1816,
of worthy parentage, but with no
other inheritance than a good
name
and fair opportunities for education. Self- devoted
from the beginning to the Church,
his studies were pursued
regularly and entirely in his native city.
From a very early age his rnind seems to have revolted
against the wearisome routine that ruled the system of instruction, under which the seminarist becomes a mere receptacle in quantity
and quality of the knowledge judged
by the Church of Rome to be the needful
preparation for the instruments of
her despotic rule. Guettée, without
comprehending then the
evil results of such a system, felt on its restraints and insufficiency. His mind, in its ardent
desire for knowledge and its rapid acquisition,
worked out of the prescribed limits
with an instinctive appropriation of the whole domain of truth, and read and studied in secret.
He consecrated to study the time devoted
by others to amusement, and thus stored his mind with
knowledge both varied and accurate. But such
predilections, never viewed
with favor
by the Church
of Rome, disquieted Guettée’s professors,
and marked him as an independentt
young man, a character always
regarded with jealousy and suspicion. All possible obstacles were accordingly
thrown in his way and
had not his scrupulous regularity of conduct and
unquestionable piety counterbalanced these unfavorable
impressions, he might have found difficulty in obtaining orders.
At the
age of twenty-one M. Guettée was admitted to the sub-diaconate; at twenty-
two he was made deacon, and at twenty-three years he was advanced to the priesthood, receiving his ordination on the
twenty-first day of
December, 1839, at
the hands of Mgr. de Sausin, Bishop
of Blois. He began at once the faithful exercise
of his ministry,
first as vicar, then as curé. Mgr. de
Sausin was succeeded in the see of Blois
by Mgr. Fabre des Essarts, a man of liberal mind and of
strong Gallican predilections. He
soon perceived in the young
curé qualities that inspired him with warm interest
in his welfare. M. Guettée studies,
directed by a mind unshackled by prejudice, spurred by an ardent love of truth
and insatiable thirst
for knowledge, had led him, soon
before his ordination to the priesthood, to conceive the idea of writing
a History of the Church of France. To this work he
gave himself with characteristic ardor immediately after his ordination. Having
been appointed in 1841
to the cure of a small parish distant about twelve
miles from Blois,
where the duties left him the
larger portion
of his time for
study, he frequently rose at daybreak,
and walked to the city for
the purpose of studying in the public
library, which is very rich in religious
literature, and where be found
all the great historical collections and monuments of learning in France.
After devoting six hours
to close study, he returned on foot
to the solitude of his own chamber, where a large
part of the night
was consumed in work
upon the materials he had gathered. Absorbed thus between the cares of his
ministry and his literary labors,
he at
length attracted
the notice of his bishops
who remarked that he never presented himself at the episcopal palace, although coming frequently to the episcopal city. He accordingly sent to him a request to know
the subject of his laborious study at the library; and having
learned the
truth, asked
to see the manuscript of the
first volume, then nearly completed.
This he caused to be carefully
examined by his
Vicar-General, M. Guettée, the most learned the diocese,
whose report was of the most flattering character. Mgr. des Essarts
thereupon resolved to encourage the young writer and give him every facility
for his work M. Guettée was accordingly transferred to another parish very near the episcopal city, and where the charge of the
ministry upon his
time was equally light. The episcopal library was placed at his service and the emoluments of
his post enabled him to go
from time to time to Paris
for such researches in the great libraries as became necessary.
Thus M. Guettée passed
several years in the successful prosecution of his great work. In 1847 Mgr. Fabre des-Essarts
proposed to his own publisher to begin the publication of the History of the Church of France no sooner had the first volume appeared than the author received from a large number of the
French bishops letters of the warmest commendation;
while on the other hand there
was formed against him in his own
diocese a hostile party, composed of
priests immediately surrounding
the bishop, who were rendered
jealous by the marks of
episcopal favor lavished upon the
new writer, and of the
directors of the seminaries, who could not forgive one who
had shown so little reverence for their narrow prescriptions, and who
owed so little to them. The bitterness of this
party could only acquire intensity in
the steady
progress of our author in the path of distinction. In 1849 M. Guettée, with the
approbation of the Bishop
resigned his cure,
and came to Blois to accept
the editorial charge of
a political journal which bad been offered to him by
the authorities of the department.
After the public excitement caused by the proclamation of
the Republic in 1848 had somewhat subsided, the sincere democrats of the country
who did not sever
the cause of order
from that of liberty, felt the necessity of creating such organs of a true democracy
as should enlighten the people upon their duties as well as
upon the question of their
rights. With this aim was founded Le Republicain de Loire et Cher, and some surprise was caused
at seeing the editorship of the journal confided
to a priest by democrats, who had
until then passed for enemies of
the clergy and of the Church.
The confidence of his
friends was; fully
justified in the influence which M.
Guettée obtained for
this journal by his earnest defense of the
principles to which it was devoted, founding and strengthening them upon the authority
of the Gospel, and showing them to be in harmony with the principles of revealed religion.
By this service
be attached more firmly to him the regard
of the Bishop of Blois, who then conceived the design of drawing the Abbé into closer relations with himself by
giving him a residence in the episcopal palace; but before this plan could be executed
the Bishop was prostrated by
the disease that was
destined to remove him from life in the following
year. M. l'Abbe
Garapin, a vicar-general, an intelligent and learned
man in the episcopal
administration of Blois,
who, like the Bishop,
felt a strong regard for M.
Guettée, informed him secretly of the
Bishop's kind intentions, but counselled him to decline
them and thereby escape the machinations of his enemies in the administration, who would be certain, as soon as the Bishop's approaching death should put the power
into their hands, to signalize it by
driving him from the palace.
M. Guettée followed
this friendly advice, and having, resigned the charge of the journal
he had edited for eighteen months, because
by this change
of régime he could no
longer edit it with independence, and seeing his friend the Bishop
at the point of death, be resolved to quit the diocese of Blois, and demand permission to establish himself at Paris, where he might enjoy more facilities for the
completion of his
History of the Church of France. Knowing that the first vicar-gencral would very joyfully seize the opportunity of ridding, the diocese
of one for whom be cherished so cordial a dislike, he asked and readily
obtained a full letter of credit certifying to his learning and piety.
Thus furnished, M. Guettée arrived
in Paris, and made no other
request of the archiepiscopal administration there than to be authorized to say mass within the diocese,
attaching himself at the same time to an ecclesiastical college
as professor. Mgr. Sibour, then Archbishop of Paris, having
been apprised of the
residence of M. Guettée in the capital, invited him to present
himself at the episcopal palace,
and offered him a chaplaincy with such
warmth of manner that he did not feel at liberty to refuse so evident a desire to serve him. In 1851 six volumes of the History
of the Church of France had already been
published, and the author
had received for it the approbation of more
than forty of the French bishops. This success
caused great uneasiness to the ultramontane
party. M. Guettée, it appeared, while so treating his great subject as to win
the high suffrages just referred
to, manifested so sincere a love of truth
that his work became dangerous to a party
with whom this was no recommendation. The design was
immediately formed of gaining over the author, and accordingly Mgr. Gousset, Archbishop of Rheims, who was at the head of the ultramontane party, made overtures to him, intimating that honors
and ecclesiastical preferment would
not be tardy in rewarding
his unreserved devotion
to the ultramontane doctrines.
But this dignitary quickly saw that
he, had to deal with one who could not be brought to traffic with his convictions, nor be intimidated by threats. From this moment began that war against him which issued
in his present entire withdrawal from communion with the Church of Rome
as a branch of the
Catholic church schismatical in position and corrupted in doctrine. This alienation, however, was gradual, the fruit of his
growing convictions and deeper
insight into the principles of the
complicated and powerful
system with which now he had to grapple. The struggle called for all
the resources of this
thoroughly balanced
and severely disciplined mind, as
well as of his extensive learning. He saw at
first far less clearly than did the ultramontane party,
the steady divergence of his views from the Papal
doctrine. The Gallican
tone that pervaded
more and more his History of the
Church of France proceeded not from a deliberate point of
view from which he wrote,
but was the scrupulous and truthful rendering
of history by his honest
mind, the impartial and logical use of the materials
out of which his history
was to be made. To such a mind,
therefore, the forced
revelation of this divergence from the doctrines of a party who for that reason solely demanded his retractation and unquestioning submission,
could only increase
the dissidence, and so it
proved. The first seven volumes of the History.
approved by more
than forty bishops, and six of them
published under the direction and with the sanction of the Bishop of Blois, were placed
in the Index of books prohibited by the court of Rome. Mgr. Sibour gave his approbation to the resistance made at once by M. Guettée to this decree.
The author was
immediately attacked with great violence by the Univers and other Jesuit journals, and defended himself with great spirit and ability,
all his replies being first
submitted to Mgr. Sibour and approved by
him.
During this struggle the eighth and ninth volumes of the History
appeared. Mr. Sibour charged
one of his vicars-general, M. l'Abbé
Lequeux, with the mission of submitting them to the “Congregation of
the Index," with the request that its objections might be made known
to the author before they were censured. The author had furnished M. Lequeux with letters
bearing a similar petition. This
ecclesiastic had himself suffered by the
censure of the Congregation, passed upon his Manual of
Cannon -Law, a classic of many years'
standing in the seminaries. He
had submitted, and was on his way to
Rome for the purpose of learning the objections of the Congregation and correcting his work. But he obtained
no satisfaction either
for himself or for M. Guettée, whose two new volumes were placed arbitrarily in the Index without
a word of explanation
as to the grounds
of censure. Thus M. Guettée was
baffled in his many respectful and patient
endeavors to obtain the desired
communication with the Congregation at Rome. He
resolved, therefore, to pursue his work without concerning himself about censures
so tyrannical and unreasonable. But matters were about to change their aspect at the
archiepiscopal palace.
In the course of the year 1854, the
bishops were called to Rome to be
present at the promulgation of the
new dogma of the
Immaculate Conception. Mgr. Sibour was not invited. He had addressed to Rome a paper
in which he proved that this dogma,
or belief, was not definable, because
it was not taught either
in Holy Scripture, or by Catholic
tradition. To punish him for
this act he was not included among the bishops
invited. Deeply mortified at this omission, he wrote to the Pope touching
it, and in a manner so submissive
that he was at once rewarded
with an invitation couched in the most gracious
terms. The character of Mgr.
Sibour was well understood at Rome as
that of a weak and ambitious man,
full of vanity and without fixed
convictions, who could
be won by flatteries and bought
with promises. He was, therefore, received with studied politeness and lodged in the Vatican.
His namesake and friend, M. Sibour
, curé of the church
of St. Thomas Aquinas
in Paris, was made Bishop of Tripoli in partibus,
and his friend,
M. L'Abbé Darboy, the present Archbishop of Paris, was
appointed Prothonotaire Apostolique. For himself he received
the promise of
a cardinal’s hat. In return for these kindnesses he was constrained to sacrifice his Gallican friends among the clergy of Paris, and the promise made to that effect
was well
kept. M. L'Abbé
Lequeux, his vicar-general, found
himself dismissed to his old place among
the Canons of Notre Dame; M. L'Abbé
Laborde was persecuted and finally found no better refuge than the hospital, where he soon after died; M. L'Abbé Prompsault,
who had been for nearly thirty years chaplain of the
Hospice of les Quinze Vingt, was
deprived of his position, left without resources, and subsequently died in the hospital not long after.
Finally, forgetful or
regardless of all the encouragement he had given to M. L’Abbé
Guettée in his resistance to the
action of the Congregation of the Index, and of
his repeated proofs of regard and
confidence, he withdrew
his support, deprived
him of his place, and reduced him, like the others, to poverty. Here, however, he found
a less submissive spirit
roused by the injustice and tyranny of this act. M. Guettée printed a letter
to Mgr. Sibour which proved a home- thrust
to this vacillating prelate. It recounted all the facts of
his past relations with the Archbishop his patient endeavors to be at peace with the court
of Rome, his offers
of every reasonable submission,
and earnest application directly to the Congregation of the Index,
and afterward to Mgr.
Sibour himself, to have his obnoxious work examined by a commission;
how this was refused when proceeding from himself as an overture
of conciliation, but was subsequently suggested by the Archbishop himself in the form of
a menace, to induce the
Abbé Guettée to withdraw
from Paris voluntarily, and save himself from the threatened
censure and disability; that he declined the latter course and opened himself and his work
with every facility
to the scrutiny of his judges. He set
forth the action
of the Council of Rochelle in 1853--the same which
proposed to censure Bossuet--which attacked the eighth volume of the History of the Church of France, and did not spare even the Abbé's
personal character; that when he
had prepared his defense and asked permission of the
Archbishop to publish it, lest it should
be seized as the pretext
for depriving him of
his functions, he was
answered that before such permission
could be accorded
he must resign those functions in the diocese of Paris; that he refused
to do this, and that by
agreement certain copies of his
defense were deposited with the Archbishop, and an agreement made that it should
not be published that though
this defense was not
made the occasion of his
premeditated removal,
the pretext
for a measure so determined upon was soon after made out of
a petty difference of a personal
kind between himself and a confrére, without any regard
to the importance or the justice of the case; that Mgr.
Sibour finally deprived him of the
poor office of hospital chaplain, with the evident design of
withdrawing from him such means of
subsistence as
alone prevented his quitting Paris.
This letter, addressed
to Mgr. Sibour, protesting against his action and fully exposing the motives that could alone
have operated to these persecutions, was printed and a copy sent to
the Archbishop before it was
published. Under the impression, however,
that it had been
published, the Archbishop
immediately replied by depriving the Abbé of the permission to say
mass
in Paris, thus completing the disability cast upon
him, But upon the Abbé's informing him that the letter had not been published, that it was designed as a defense of himself, not as
an attack upon the administration of the
diocese, and offering
to deposit the edition of the letter at the archiepiscopal palace, to avoid the evils of publicity, Mgr. Sibour next
day sent a very kind note to M.
Guettée, expressing himself touched by the
terms of his response, restoring to him the authority to celebrate mass, accepting the deposit of the copies of his printed letter, and desiring to see him to give him further
proof of his satisfaction. At a personal interview the same evening, Mgr. Sibour promised him shortly new ecclesiastical functions.
It would seem, however,
that the Archbishop's eyes were beginning to be opened toward Rome. His submission and absolute conversion had so satisfied that court that it was in
no haste to confer the promised cardinal's hat; and Mgr. Sibour feeling that he had been amused with words,
repented of his acts of
injustice and was meditating some reparation, of which his gentler
disposition toward M. Guettée was a sign, when these better intentions
were arrested
by the tragic death
he so suddenly met at the hand of
the assassin Verger, in the
church of St. Etienne du Mont.
His successor, Cardinal Morlot, was a
man of political ideas and aspirations, astute
and scheming, who never lost sight of the
importance or neglected the means of maintaining
the best relations with the powerful. He made every needful
concession to the successive governments in France,
and at the same time concilitated Rome, feeding
its insatiable greed of riches by sending large sums of money
for its necessities. Such a
man could have no thoughts to bestow upon the trivial
work of repairing the wrongs
of his predecessor. On
the contrary, he was not
long in showing himself yet more severe against M.
Guettée, and at the
close of the
year 1855 finally refused
to renew his permission
to say mass in Paris.
From this moment began the war
in earnest which ended in the separation of our author from the
Church
of Rome. After having in vain endeavored to procure from the Archbishop
in writing the refusal
to sanction the continuance of his
ministry in the diocese of Paris--a refusal that was
prudently communicated to him verbally
by the proper official--he published his appeal to the
Pope against the decision as a gross
violation of canon law, and another to the government,
as an abuse of authority and an invasion of
his civil-ecelesiastical
rights. These appeals, firm in their language and unanswerable in their facts and arguments, were not published with any hope of answer or justice, but for
the purpose of exposing clearly
the outrageous violation by
his adversary of the ancient
liberties of the Gallican Church,
and the arbitrary and despotic character
of the whole proceeding. He did not imagine
that the Pope would ever be permitted to hear of
his wrongs, or if he were, that he would listen to them at the expense of his own friends and of
the principles upon which the power
of the Papacy is built. Nor was it to be expected
that the State
would embroil itself with an individual conflict with the Church upon a
question of canon law. Thus
M. l'Abbé Guettée, innocent
of the smallest offense
against good morals, and with a character free from all taint,
without any ecclesiastical censure
resting upon him, or any proceedings directed against him, was deprived of the exercise of his ministry,
with the evident purpose of
driving him from Paris,
where his enlightened views
caused too much inconvenience to the ultramontane party.
It is unnecessary to say that the scheme failed, or to follow the controversy that
ensued upon this open rupture. It had the natural result of disclosing more clearly than ever
to M. Guettée the principles of the
Church of Rome and the despotic usurpation of the Papacy. The energy
and industry with which he answered the attacks upon him
developed his views, defined his objections and thoroughly awakened
the latent protest
of his
enlightened conscience against
the pretensions of Rome. He became finally
the watchful and
open antagonist of the Papacy, and shortly
after found himself the editor
of the Review called l'Observateur Catholique, which had, and still has, for its object the resistance of Papal usurpations and corruptions in the Church by the
principles of primitive truth and a pure
Catholicity. He has published
successively a History of the Jesuits, in three volumes; the Memoirs et Journal de l'Abbé Le Dieu sur la Vie et
les Ouvraqes de Bossuet, in four
volumes; also a refutation of Renan's Vie de
Jesus. His latest and most important work is
the Papauté Schismatique, now
presented in English. Six years
ago he founded, in conjunction with the Rev. Archpriest Wassilieff, titular
head of the Russo-Greek Church in France, and
especially attached to the Russian
Church in Paris, l'Union
Chrétienne, a weekly
publication in quarto form, having for its
specific object the diffusion of information upon
the principles of the primitive Church
as those of a true Catholicity, upon which the non-Roman branches
of the Church should
be recalled to a renewal
of their outward unity, and thus a resistless influence be opposed
to the invasions of the
Papal principle and the corruptions it has
introduced into the primitive faith. It is natural that such
a consecration of his labor and such
associations, should have led M. Guettée into close and increasingly devoted
relations with the Oriental Church, and especially with the Orthodox
Church of Russia. His views ceasing to be Roman and Papal
only because more intensely Catholic, he sought a home in the East,
where the Papal power could never seat itself, and especially in the Orthodox Russian Church, where its pretensions are held in abhorrence.
All that is venerable, pure, and
Catholic in the faith and form of the
Church of Christ,
our author believes he has found in the Russo-Greek branch, and he has
therefore attached himself warmly to it, making it the
platform for his earnest
and pure-minded labors for the
restoration of visible unity. He
is in turn held in high esteem
by the authorities
and learned men of
the Russian Church, and has recently received
from it the high and rare honor of a
doctorate in theology. His labors for union are warmly appreciated and encouraged there
as they are everywhere by all who understand them. M. Guettée is no enthusiast; he is fully aware of the
difficulties and magnitude
of the work to which his life is consecrated, and looks for no marked progress or flattering results to show themselves in his lifetime, but is content
to sow wide and deep the seeds of truth, leaving
them to germinate and become fruitful in God's good time. He has a warm and intelligent appreciation of our American branch
of the Church, and looks
to its activity in the great endeavor as of the highest importance, believing
that her catholic
character and free and mobile
structure peculiarly mark her as
a powerful instrument to promote the interests of the
Catholic faith. M. Guettée has in preparation
a work of much interest and importance,
designed to bring into a single view the harmonies and differences
of the various
branches of the Catholic
Church. It forms a careful survey of the ground, and is likely to become a valuable
help to an enlightened view of the work of unity, to which the providence of God seems to be directing all Christian minds. This new
production of M. Guettée will be translated without delay, and published simultaneously in French, Russian, and English.
INDEX
A
Acacius, his contest with Rome, 84-86.
Adrian I., the first Pope,
114-117.
—— The False Decretals, published
during the reign
of, 115, et seq., note.
Adrian II. claims to be Autocrat
of the Church, 138-142. Agapitus at Constantinople, 88.
Alcuin opposes the addition Filioque, 149.
Ambrose of Milan, his doctrine unfavourable to the Papal authority, 74-75. Appeals to Rome, nature of,
32.
Athanasius of Alexandria, affair of, unfavoumble to Papal authority, 50-53. Augustine of Hippo, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 9, 75-78. Aurelian, Emperor,
decision of, alleged in proof of Papal authority, 34.
Authority, Papal, condemned by the
Word of GOD, 7-16.
Avitus of Vienne, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 30, 40. B
Baptism of heretics, discussion upon the, 25.
Basil of Cæsarea, his doctrine opposed to the Papacy, 73.
—— of Thessalonica, letter of, to the Pope
upon the means of ending the division between the churches, 161.
Bulgarians converted
by Photius, 302.
—— Ignatius endeavours to preserve his jurisdiction over the, 142, et
seq.
—— Why they applied to Rome, 302,
303.
—— Answer of Pope Nicholas to the, 136-137, et seq. C
Centre of authority in the Church,
37.
Chief, Christ the, of the
Church, 7, et seq. (See
Head.) Chrysostom, affair of John, unfavourable to the Papacy, 56-59.
—— Doctrine of John, opposed to the Papacy, 66-71. Clement of Rome, letter of, 17-19.
Council of Antioch, Canon of, explaining a text of
St. Irenæus, 25.
—— of
Constantinople deposes Ignatius and recognizes Photius, 129-129.
—— falsely called by
the Romans the eighth
œcumenical, 139, et seq.
—— acts of, not
authentic, 141, note.
—— opposed
to the so-called eighth œcumenical, 144, et seq.
—— Acts of, authentic, 146, note.
—— of
Jerusalem, 11.
Council of Nicea,
(first œcumenical,) contrary
to papal authority, 36-38.
—— of
Constantinople, (second œcumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 38.
—— of
Ephesus, (third œcumenical,) contrary
to Papal authority, 40.
—— of
Chalcedon, (fourth œcumenical,) contrary
to Papal authority, 38-40.
—— œcumenical,
(fifth,) opposed to Papal authority, 89-90.
———— (sixth,) opposed to Papal authority, 109-111.
———— (seventh,) opposed to Papal authority, 114, 117-118.
—— of
Sardica, opposed to Papal authority, 51-53.
—— in Trullo, opposed to Papal authority, 111.
Councils, the œcumenical,
were neither convoked
nor presided over, nor confirmed by the
Bishops of Rome, 40, 49, 90, 108, et seq., 117-118. Crusades, the,
ill-planned by the
Papacy, 155.
Cyprian, controversy of, upon the baptism of heretics, 25-26.
—— doctrine of, contrary to Papal authority, 24, 28-31, 35, 61, et seq.
Cyril of Alexandria, doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy,
72-73. Church of Africa, opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 76.
D
Decretals, (see False Decretals.)
Dispensation, what is a, according to the Church of Constantinople and according to the court
of Rome, 157.
Division, character of the, between the Eastern
and Western Churches, 5, et seq.
Donatists, the affair of the,
unfavourable to Papal authority, 53-56.
Dionysius
of Alexandria, his doctrine
concerning the Roman primacy, 26, 28.
—— his
alleged appeal to Rome, 33.
E
Easter, discussion concerning, 19-21.
Empire, (Latin,) foundation of, at Constantinople, 163-164.
—— Fall of, 168.
Epiphanius, his doctrine contrary
to the Papacy, 65.
Eusebius of Cæsarea, testimony of,
against Papal authority, 60-61.
—— upon
the first œcumenical councils,
41.
—— upon
the discussion concerning the baptism of heretics, 25.
—— upon
the discussion concerning Easter, 21.
—— upon
the Letter of St. Clement of
Rome, 17-18.
—— upon
the affair of Dionysius of Alexandria,
32
—— upon
the affair of Origen, 32.
Eustathius, the Patriarch, his overtures to the court
of Rome, 157. Excommunications, nature of the,
of the Bishops of Rome In the
first centuries, 29.
F
False Decretals, the basis of the Papacy,
115, et seq., note. Filioque, addition of, to the Creed,
148, et seq.
Firmilian, his doctrine concerning the Roman primacy, 26-28.
Florence, Council of, and the false union
proclaimed there,
169-170.
Frankic Bishops of the eighth century opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 119, 121, 137. Fathers, doctrine of the,
contrary to Papal authority, 10, note, 11, note 59-60, 80, (See their
names.)
G
Gelasius of Rome, erroneous doctrine
of, 86-87.
Germanus, letter of
the Patriarch, to Pope Gregory IX, 167.
—— to the Cardinals, 167.
—— assembles the Council
of Nymphæum, 168.
Greeks,
(united,) policy of Rome in respect to the, 165, 166, 169.
Gregory
IX, his singular accusations against the Eastern Church, and his doctrine
concerning
Papal
prerogatives, 166.
Gregory
X. and Michael Palæologus, 168.
Gregory
Nazianzen, text of, upon the Church of
Constantinople, 25.
—— doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy,
71.
Gregory
of Nyssa, doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy,
72. Gregory of Syracuse and Ignatius
of Constantinople, 122.
Gregory the Great, Bishop
of Rome, opposed to Papal authority, 90-104. H
Hilary of Poitiers, doctrine of, unfavourale to the Papay,
64. Hippolytus of Ostia, doctrine
of, unfavourable to Papal authority, 29. Honorius, Bishop of Rome, his heresy, 105.
—— condemned after his death by the
sixth œcumenical Council
and by the Bishop of
Rome himself, 110.
Head, or caput,
meaning of the word, 52-53.
—— change
in its meaning, and its official origin,
104. I
Iconoclasts, matter of the,
a proof against Papal authority, 112. Ignatius of
Constantinople deposed, 122, 128, 129..
—— his appeal
to Rome, 129, 134.
—— doubtful authenticity of his appeal papers,
134, note.
—— reinstated by the Council of Constantinople, called
by Romanists the eighth
œcumenical, 139, et seq.
—— his silence
during that council,
141.
—— threatened by Adrian
II., 141.
—————— John VIII., 142, 143.
—— reconciled to Photius, 145-146.
Innocent III., Letters of Pope,
to the Patriarchs and Eastern Emperors, and his doctrine
on the pretended rights of the
Roman see, 163-164, 165.
—— excuses the crimes of the
Crusaders because of their devotion to the see of
Rome, 164.
—— endeavours to establish firmly the Latin Empire of Constantinople, 164.
—— the real author of the
schism between the two
Churches, 164-165.
—— doctrine of, concerning the prerogatives of the
see of Constantinople, 165
Irenæus
admonishes Pope Victor, 20.
—— Text of, touching the primacy of
the Roman Church, 21-25.
J
Jager, (Abbé,) draws his information regarding Photius from Stylien,
155, note.
—— calling himself the historian of Photius is guilty of an absurdity for the
sake of insulting Photius,
131, note.
Jager, (Abbé,) indirectly acknowledges the changes which took place during the ninth
century in the authority of the
Bishop of Rome, 135.
—— errours
of this pretended historian, 136, note, 137, note, 138,
note, 143, note, 144-145,
note,
151, note, 156, note, 156, note.
John Camaterus, Patriarch, Letter of to Innocent III, 161.
John the Faster,
Bishop of Constantinople, his title of œcumenical, 90-104. John, (St.,) text of, relative to St. Peter,
13.
John
VIII., threatens Ignatius
with deposition, 142-143.
—— claims the right
to depose the Greek Bishops and clergy of Bulgaria, 143
—— his legates
recognize Photius as legitimate Patriarch, 143.
—— Letters of, modified, 144-145, et seq.
—— letter of, against the addition Filioque, 153.
Jerome, doctrine
of, opposed to Papal authority, 80-82. L
Lambs and sheep, 13, 14.
Latin Empire, foundation of, at Constantinople, 164.
—— Fall of, 168.
Leo VI., Emperor, violates church discipline, 156
—— is condemned by the
Patriarch of Constantinople, 156-157.
—— absolved by the Court of Rome, 156-157.
Leo I., Bishop of Rome, doctrine
of, opposed to Papal authority, 38-40, 65-66. Leo III, opposed to the addition Filioque, 149.
Leo IX., Pope, his relations with Constantinople, and his doctrine
concerning her rights, 157-160.
Luke, (St,,) Texts of, relating to St. Peter,
12-13
Lyons, Second Council of, and
the pretended reunion
of the Churches, 152. M
Macarius, Monseigneur, his treatise upon
the
Procession of the Holy
Spirit, 148-151,
notes.
Maimbourg, (Father,) a Jesuit, indirectly admits the change that took piece during the ninth
century in the authority of the Bishops of Rome, 126.
Matthew, (St.,) Text of, "Thou art Peter," etc., 8-12.
Michael Cerularius. His protest against the Roman innovations, 157-159.
—— excommunicated by the
legates of Leo IX., 159.
—— general character of his protest,
160.
Monothelites, matter of the,
a proof against
the Papal authority, 104-111. Morosini, (Thomas,) first Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, 164-165.
N
Negotiations between
Rome and Constantinople, why they
were useless, 160-161
Nicholas, Patriarch, his relations with the court
of Rome, 156-157
Nicholas I, Pope of Rome, 121.
—— strengthens the new
Institution of the Papacy,
126.
—— new
doctrine contained in his letters,
127, et seq., 133,
et seq., 135, et seq., 137 et
seq.
—— declares against
the council that deposed Ignatus, and recognized
Photius, 134.
—— autocratic pretensions of, 131, et seq.
Nicholas I. deposes Photius, 134.
—— is anathematized by the
Council of Constantinople, 137, et seq.
—— his reply
to the Bulgarians, 136.
—— applies to the Western Bishops to reply to the protest of Photius, 152. Novatians, matter of
the, unfavourable to Papal authority, 34-35.
Nymphæum, Council
of, discussions between the Greeks and the Latins respecting the addition Filioque, 167-168.
O
Object of this
work, 5, et seq.
Œcumenical,
title of, 90-104.
Optatus of Melevia his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 79, 82. Origen, his pretended appeal
to Rome, 32.
—— his doctrine
opposed to the Papacy,
73.
P
Palæologus, (Michael,) his policy toward Rome, 168.
———— (John,) his policy,
169.
Papal authority contrary to God's
Word, 7-16. Papacy, origin of
the, 114.
—— first pretensions to the, condemned, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30.
—— opinions against the: (see Fathers.)
Ambrose of Milan, 73-75. Augustine, (St.,) 75-78. Avitus of
Vienne, 30. Basil of Cæsarea, 73.
Chrysostom, (St. John,) 66-71. Council of Nicea,
36-38.
—— Constantinople, 38.
—— Ephesus,
40.
—— Chalcedon, 37-40.
—— Fifth Œcumenical, 89, 90.
—— Sixth “ 109-111.
—— Seventh “ 114, 117-118.
—— Sardica, 51-53.
—— in Trullo,
111-112.
Cyprian, (St.,) 24, 28-31, 35, 61, et seq.
Cyril of Alexandria, 72-73. Dionysius of Alexandria
26-28. Epiphanius, 65.
Eusebius, 60-61. Firmillan, 26-28.
Gregory
Nazianzen, 71-72. Gregory of Nyssa,
71-73. Gregory the Great, 90-104. Hilary of Poitiers, 64.
Hippolytus of Ostia, 29, note.
Jerome, 80-82.
Optatus, 79. Origen, 73.
Tarasius, Bishop of
Constantinople, 113-114. Tertullian, 24, 28, 30-32, 61.
Theodore Studites, 119-120. Paul of Samosata, affair
of, 33.
Paul, (St.,) doctrine of concerning the Church,
7, 11. Photius, his election
and character, 122, 123, et seq., 130..
—— slandered by Stylien, according to the Emperor's order,
155.
—— Biographers of, 122-124.
—— first letter
of, to Pope Nicholas, 123, et seq.
—— second letter
of, 129.
—— Injustice of the
accusations brought
against, 134-135,
note.
—— exiled by the
Emperor Basil, 138.
—— arbitrarily condemned, 139, et seq.
—— reinstated by a legitimate council, 144.
—— apology of, 145, et seq.
—— reconciled with Ignatius, 145-146.
—— protest of, against the Roman Innovations, 150, et seq.
—— again arbitrarily deposed by the Pope, 154, et seq.
—— exiled a second time, 155.
—— death of, 156,
Peter, (St.,) doctrine
of concerning the Church,
8
Policy of the
Eastern Emperors
toward the court of Rome, 160, 161, 166. Polycrates, answer of, to Victor, 20.
Primacy of Peter
according to Scripture, 14-16. R
Rock, Jesus Christ the, of the Church,
8, et seq.
Rome and Constantinople, antagonism between, 83-89, 113, 147.
Rome, first attempts of the
Bishops of, to increase their authority, 85, 86, 87, 106, 107, 113,
117,
120.
—— its rupture
with the Empire of
the East, 113.
—— radical change in the doctrine of, In the ninth century, concerning the authority of its bishop, 121.
—— Council of, against Photius, 138.
—— innovations of, 147-148.
—— variations of,
relative to the addition Filioque,
153.
—— false
policy of, 155. S
Sheep and lambs, 13-14.
Summary of
this work, and consequences which flow from it, 170.
Sardica, Council of, opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 51, 53. Stylien, an enemy and calumniator of Photius, 155, 156.
T
Tarasius, Bishop of
Constantinople, opposed to Papal authority, 114. Tertullian, doctrine of, opposed
to Papal authority, 24, 29,
30-31. Theodore Studites, opposed
to Papal authority, 119.
Three Chapters, matter of the,
a proof against Papal
authority, 88-90. U
Union,
conditions of, according to the envoys
of Gregory IX. to the Council of Nymphæum,
167-168.
Union,
the political, decreed
at the second Council of Lyons, 169.
—— second, decreed
at Florence, 169.
Urban IV., (Pope,) causes a Crusade
to be preached against the Greeks, 168. V
Victor, Bishop
of Rome, admonished by Polycrates of Ephesus, 19-20.
———————— by Irenæous of Lyons,
20, 21.
Vigillus, Bishop of
Rome, falls into errour and submits to the sixth
œcumenical council, 202-
88-89. W
West, the Popes contribute to the establishment of a new Roman empire in t
Posts
![The Rainbow Swastika [a warning about paganism masquerading as Judaism - ed. note]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJX47NwAhWdSEiYp-166MRnas9KZK7elpBviCaY7Xoxib7COsDS1RWIEzSLScNzliWLqCsS0jg5bUTKXO78tINlIUBKzM9nFge4ZDfoG5Iuce-cvtVzEOXtVC94GO9S2rUAzan1J3rR8s/s220/trshdr.jpg){kind=small}
No comments:
Post a Comment