THE " OLD CATHOLICS."
THE proceedings of the " Old Catholic " Congress in Munich seem to make it quite evident that the promoters of the anti-Infallibility movement will fall between two stools. They are too Catholic for the party of movement, and too Pro- testant for the party of obedience. They are too religious for the politicians of progress, and too political for the devotees of religion. Their chief, Dr. Dellinger, if we may trust the very interesting and apparently authentic account of his views given by one of the most recent of the American " inter- viewers, is himself utterly opposed to any surrender of Roman Catholic "doctrine," at least on those subjects on which the present Pope has not modified the faith of the Church. The Old Catholics have indeed rejected all the dogmas intro- duced during the Pontificate of Pius IX., and Herr Schulte was careful to show that this implied a repudiation of the definition concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, no less than concerning, the Infallibility of the Pope when teaching doctrine ex cathedrd. But we do not understand that even on the former head the Old Catholics have rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as heretical, but only that they have rejected the authority for it, the Papal decision, and with it the authority for the Syllabus. Dr. Malinger himself is said to profess the greatest zeal for the most distinctive doctrine of Roman Catholicism, Transsubstantiation, and certainly there is no further sign of any doctrinal inroad on the dogmatic creed which Catholics would have professed as binding upon them before the present Pope's Pontificate, except this curious and unexplained para- graph in their declaration :—" Pursuing the desired reforms and the path of science and progressive Christian culture, we look forward to a gradual reunion with the other Christian Confessions, especially with the Protestant Churches and the Episcopal Churches of England and America." We regard this paragraph as probably emanating from the political sec- tion of the party, and as accepted by such men as Dr. Dellinger only for the sake of compromise, and because it is so vague that it may mean anything or nothing. The "gradual reunion" may take place only on condition of these Protestant Churches and Episcopal Churches of England and America accepting the Roman Catholic doctrines,—as Dr. Malinger probably intends the paragraph to be understood,—or it may (much more probably) take place in consequence of the gradual decay of the dogmatic faith of the " Old Catholic party, and their assimilation to the looser and less definite creeds of our own Churches and Sects. But there can be little doubt that this paragraph would never have boon assented to at all by Dr. Malinger and the con- servative section of the Munich Congress, if it had not left the process by which the " gradual reunion " was to come about, absolutely undefined. As far as we can apprehend Dr. Millinger's position, he is a theologian who has hitherto be- lieved in the authority of the Church, because his own learned researches had led him to agree with her interpretations of doctrine up to the time when the question as to the centre of her Infallibility came up for discussion. And he still wishes to hold fast to all conclusions to which his own learned researches had previously led him, while repudiating this last dogma, on which his re- searches have led him to a quite different conclusion. Now, that is not the kind of position on which,—we do not say merely a Church,—but even a party can be founded, Either Dr. Malinger and his friends must go farther, and accept the principle of private judgment, after which they may, of course, retain individually some points of Catholic doc- trine, but will have no sort of guarantee for holding together in a single mass at all,—they would most likely be soon divided, even as the Protestants are divided, among fifty differ- ent theologies,—or if they are to hold together, it must be on some principle such as the Puseyites have tried to set up,— deference to the first four Councils,—respect for the authority of the Fathers up to a certain contury,—or whatever it may be they can agree upon. It is clear that, as they reject the authority of a Council of Roman Catholic Bishops, and have no possible means of ascertaining that which has been suggested on their behalf as the proper sanction of true doctrine,—the opinion of all " the faithful,"—laity as well as clergy—(besides, that in their present circumstances it would not only be practi- cally, but theoretically impossible for them to say who " the faithful " are),—they cannot appeal to any living infallible
authority whatever, and can only fix, like the Puseyites, on some arbitrary period during which the faith of the Church shall be supposed to have remained pure.
In short, we take the yield of the meeting of the Munich Congress to be this, that, except that the Old Catholics recognize " the Church of Utrecht,"---a Church which, though otherwise Catholic, rejects the authority of the Pope, and has been somewhat vaguely accused of Jansenist ten- dencies,—as orthodox and not Jansenist,—the Old Catholics still seem to think Jansenism a heresy,—they have no notion what their Church authority is to be, or whether it is to be at all, but are still less prepared to throw off the idea of Church authority altogether. Clearly this is not a party to move the world or break up a powerful Church. They will do something, without quite knowing it, to swell the general stream of tend- ency towards relying on private judgment. They will provide a sort of temporary shelter for doubting Catholics who are hesitating between the strong ties of their old faith and the strong influence of their new difficulties. They
will set an example of revolt. They will consider- ably comfort political Catholics who prefer the authority of the State to the authority of the Church. They will furnish an excuse for men anxious to avow their growing alienation from the Church, but who have hitherto hesitated to speak out, either from their dislike to be reckoned " converts," or reluctance to confess a general loss of con- fidence in their old creed. All this they may do. Every schism is, of course, a blow to the Church from which the schism proceeds, and especially when it is led by a conservative, learned, reluctant man like Dr. Malinger.
But the now party will never be popular, and will hardly hold together even for a year or two. It does not suffi- ciently know its own mind, still less its own faith. It is composite,—the learning it contains being apparently very con- servative; and the enthusiasm it contains being very radical. Even the State, though in both Bavaria and Prussia it un- doubtedly favours the new party, seems unable to foster it into a movement in any degree like the movement of the Reformation. The King of Bavaria does not press the quarrel with any earnestness. Prince Bismarck, who perhaps does, is Protestant himself and has no influence with the Catholics. The " Old Catholics " will be protected, but they will not apparently gain fervent disciples among the statesmen who pro- tect them, and so will probably sink into a new variety of sect. There is neither sufficient religious force nor sufficient political force in the movement to shake the world. There is no sign of any great appeal to the conscience on the one
side, or to the principle of liberty on the other. The movement has been tame in its origin and is tamer in its progress. The Roman Church has much to fear from modern Science, and much from modern democratic enthusiasm, but little or nothing from the " Old Catholics," who are aged in policy as well as name. There is no evidence that Young Catholicism will throw in its lot with the Old, and after all, it is that religion which gains hold of the youth of a people, and not of its age, which has the future in its hands.
Previous page
