What is the Old Catholic Church?

As far as we can ascertain, the new party called 'Old Catholics,' still adhere to the Tridentine Canon of Scripture.

226 And where am I to find this teaching church? I must go to the priest. Is he infallibly right? No. But the bishop will watch over that. Is he infallibly right? No. But the Pope will watch over that. Is he infallibly right? It has been held so for three years; but the fact was so grossly opposed to the known history and teaching of former ages, that hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics have left him and have established a separate body-got a bishop and a settled constitution.

Half the respectable authorities of the Roman Catholic world resisted to the utmost, protested against the way in which the council was conducted and deprived of all true liberty and now forces others to hold it. But big words take wonderful effect on people's minds. Dr. Manning talks to us of the universal or Catholic church spread over the world. But let us get at the facts? We have, say, 140 millions of Roman Catholics in the world, but some 60 or 70 millions of Greeks, the oldest churches in existence, denounce them as false in doctrine and the papal authority to be wholly unfounded; and the chief doctrinal point of difference is a dogma repelled by the Greeks, which one of the greatest popes that ever lived declared ought not to be introduced into the creed, as indeed a general council had forbidden anything to be added; and this Pope put up silver tablets in the principal church at Rome that it might not be added. Rome has added it since. Dr. Manning knows this as well as I do. But further, nearly 100 millions of Protestants are outside. So that we have more than half professing Christendom outside (what I must say impudently calls itself) the Catholic church, a body denounced by the oldest churches, and so horribly corrupt that a very large part indeed of what was under its authority broke loose from it; and now, on the very point of infallible authority in interpretation, it is completely divided, and hundreds of thousands have left it because the vote was carried by oppression. We can understand this. Large numbers of respectable Roman Catholic prelates resisted the decree, from America, Ireland, France, Germany, etc., who presided over flocks numbering by millions; but there were crowds of prelates in Italy, some 130 in the Papal and Neapolitan states with some few millions of inhabitants, and a number of what are called bishops in partibus removable by the Pope, who made all resistance vain on the part of those who represented ten times their number. But it has cost the papacy another split off, which appeals to the ancient records and historical facts of the church such as none can deny. And note, all the professors of divinity of these seceders always taught what they hold and have acted on now. Where then was the church's teaching? And what am I to hold to be the church which teaches?-the Pope all alone, decreed to be infallible three years ago, who is certainly not the church? or is the Greek church, older than he? or the Protestants who appeal to Paul's teaching and Peter's, etc.? Where is this church?

On the other hand, Satan's anger against the very notion of such a company as "God's company gathered to Christ and in the Spirit" is made manifest by such pitiful tracts as — and others have been printing and circulating; and the same thing is going on on the Continent. In France there are three leading ecclesiastics broken out of the papal system by the late Ecumenical Council's decree of the infallibility of the Pope, yet they have set busily to work to rebuild what has been destroyed.

"I do not speak of the schisms which have dishonoured the church. In those unfortunate days the see of Rome was occupied by two competitors, and sometimes even by three. Which of these was the true pope? Resuming once more, again I say, if you decree the infallibility of the present bishop of Rome, you must establish the infallibility of all the preceding ones, without excluding any; but can you do that when history is there establishing with a clearness equal only to that of the sun, that the popes have erred in their teaching? Could you do it and maintain that avaricious, incestuous, murdering, simoniacal popes have been vicars of Jesus Christ? Oh! venerable brethren, to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas; it would be to throw dirt in His face. [Cries, 'Down from the pulpit, quick; shut the mouth of the heretic!]

"My venerable brethren, you cry out; but would it not be more dignified to weigh my reasons and my proofs in the balance of the sanctuary? Believe me, history cannot be made over again; it is there, and will remain to all eternity, to protest energetically against the dogma of papal infallibility. You may proclaim it unanimously; but one vote will be wanting, and that is mine! The true faithful, Monsignori, have their eyes on us, expecting from us a remedy for the innumerable evils which dishonour the church: will you deceive them in their hopes? What will not our responsibility before God be, if we let this solemn occasion pass which God has given us to heal the true faith? Let us seize it, my brethren; let us arm ourselves with a holy courage; let us make a violent and generous effort; let us turn to the teaching of the apostles, since without that we have only errors, darkness, and false traditions. Let us avail ourselves of our reason and of our intelligence to take the apostles and prophets as our only infallible masters with reference to the question of questions, 'What must I do to be saved?' When we have decided that, we shall have laid the foundation of our dogmatic system firm and immovable on the rock, lasting and incorruptible, of the divinely inspired holy scriptures. Full of confidence, we will go before the world, and, like the apostle Paul, in presence of the free-thinkers, we will 'know none other than Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.' We will conquer through the preaching of 'the folly of the cross,' as Paul conquered the learned men of Greece and Rome; and the Roman church will have its glorious '89. [Clamorous cries, 'Get down! Out with the Protestant, the Calvinist, the traitor of the church.'] Your cries, Monsignori, do not frighten me. If my words are hot, my head is cool. I am neither of Luther, nor of Calvin, nor of Paul, nor of Apollos, but of Christ. [Renewed cries, 'Anathema, anathema, to the apostate.'] Anathema! Monsignori, anathema!

"You know well that you are not protesting against me, but against the holy apostles under whose protection I should wish this Council to place the church. Ah! if covered with their winding-sheets they came out of their tombs, would they speak a language different from mine? What would you say to them when by their writings they tell you that the papacy had deviated from the gospel of the Son of God, which they have preached and confirmed in so generous a manner by their blood? Would you dare say to them, We prefer the teaching of our own popes, our Bellarmine, our Ignatius Loyola, to yours? No, no; a thousand times no; unless you have shut your ears that you may not hear, closed your eyes that you may not see, blunted your mind that you may not understand. Ah! if He who reigns above wishes to punish us, making His hand fall heavy on us, as He did on Pharaoh, He has no need to permit Garibaldi's soldiers to drive us away from the eternal city. He has only to let them make Pius IX. a god, as we have made a goddess of the blessed virgin. Stop, stop, venerable brethren, on the odious and ridiculous incline on which you have placed yourselves. Save the church from the shipwreck which threatens her, asking from the holy scriptures alone for the rule of faith which we ought to believe and to profess. I have spoken: may God help me!"

"Penetrated with the feelings of responsibility, of which God will demand of me an account, I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the writings of the Old and New Testament, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church. To resolve this grave question I have been obliged to ignore the present state of things, and to transport myself in mind, with the evangelical torch in my hand, to the days when there was neither Ultramontanism nor Gallicanism, and in which the church had for doctors St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John — doctors to whom no one can deny the divine authority without putting in doubt that which the holy Bible, which is here before me, teaches us, and this the Council of Trent has proclaimed as the rule of faith and of morals. I have then opened these sacred pages. Well! (shall I dare to say it?) I have found nothing either near or far which sanctions the opinion of the Ultramontanes. And still more, to my very great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist. You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme; you, Monsignor Fie, that I am mad. No, Monsignori, I do not blaspheme, and I am not mad. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment. Do not refuse me your attention, my venerable brethren, and with your murmuring and interruptions do not justify those who say, like Father Hyacinthe, that this Council is nothing, but that our votes have been from the beginning dictated by authority. If such were the case, this august assembly, on which the eyes of the whole world are turned, would fall into the most shameful discredit. If we wish to make it great, we must be free. I thank his Excellency Monsignor Dupanloup, for the sign of approbation which he makes with his head: this gives me courage, and I go on.

It seems right to say that Bishop Strossmayer wrote not long ago to the Francais, repudiating the speech at the Vatican Council against papal infallibility attributed to him in many home as well as foreign publications. He declares that he never uttered anything derogatory to the Roman see. If one did not know the casuistry of worldly religion, this might seem decisive against the thought of such a speech from him; but it is likely that, if delivered at all, it may have been so highly seasoned by others as to afford an occasion of denying its genuineness when the dogma was passed, and the heat of opposition gone. It is hard to suppose that Bishop Strossmayer said nothing like it in the face of the general rumour.

It was not till 18th July, 1870, that Rome learned that its Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra (Latin, cathedrã seat), which means speaking from the chair or seat, that is the throne in the Consistory, when the ecclesiastical court of cardinals and bishops are officially gathered together. With great pomp this pronouncement was made from the Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX, the 257th occupant of the Papal Chair. If the present pope is infallible, how is it that not all his predecessors were? There was a time when three rival popes claimed the papal chair, and spent their time and energy in cursing each other. That did not look like infallibility.

XXI. Rome, in 1869-70. Infallibility of the pope declared.

"But why look for such remote proofs? Has not our holy father here present, in his bull which gave the rules for this Council, in the event of his dying while it was sitting, revoked all that in past times may be contrary to it, even when that proceeds from the decisions of his predecessors? And certainly, if Pius IX. has spoken ex cathedra, it is not when, from the depths of his sepulchre, he imposes his will on the sovereigns of the church. I should never finish, my venerable brethren, if I were to put before your eyes the contradictions of the popes in their teaching. If then you proclaim the infallibility of the actual pope, you must either prove, that which is impossible, that the popes never contradicted each other, or else you must declare that the Holy Spirit has revealed to you that the infallibility of the papacy only dates from 1870. Are you bold enough to do this? Perhaps the people may be indifferent, and pass by theological questions which they do not understand, and of which they do not see the importance; but though they are indifferent to principles, they are not so to facts. Do not then deceive yourselves. If you decree the dogma of papal infallibility, the Protestants, our adversaries, will mount in the breach, the more bold that they have history on their side, whilst we have only our own denial against them. What can we say to them when they show up all the bishops of Rome from the days of Luke to his holiness Pius IX.? Ah! if they had all been like Pius IX., we should triumph on the whole line; but alas! it is not so. [Cries of 'Silence, silence; enough, enough.'] Do not cry out, Monsignori! To fear history is to own yourself conquered; and, moreover, if you made the whole waters of the Tiber pass over it, you would not cancel a single page. Let me speak, and I will be as short as it is possible on this most important subject. Pope Vigilius (538) purchased the papacy from Belisarius, lieutenant of the Emperor Justinian. It is true that he broke his promise and never paid for it. Is this a canonical mode of binding on the tiara? The second Council of Chalcedon had formally condemned it. In one of its canons you read 'that the bishop who obtains his episcopate by money shall lose it and be degraded.' Pope Eugenius III. (IV. in original) (1145) imitated Vigilius. St. Bernard, the bright star of his age, reproves the pope, saying to him, 'Can you show me in this great city of Rome any one who would receive you as pope if they have not received gold or silver for it?'

"Therefore, to resume, I establish — 1, That Jesus has given to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter. 2, That the apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the church. 3, That St. Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were pope. 4, That the Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized the high position which the Bishop of Rome occupied in the church on account of Rome, only accorded to him a pre-eminence of honour, never of power or of jurisdiction. 5, That the holy fathers, in the famous passage,' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' never understood that the church was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) that is, on the confession of the faith of the apostle. I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter, and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only by confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate. [Voices — 'Silence, impudent Protestant! silence!'] No, I am not an impudent Protestant.

"History is neither Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Calvinistic, nor Lutheran, nor Arminian, nor schismatic Greek nor Ultramontane. She is what she is — that is, something stronger than all confessions of faith of the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Write against it, if you dare! but you cannot destroy it, any more than taking a brick out of the Coliseum would make it fall. If I have said anything which history proves to be false, show it to me by history, and without a moment's hesitation I will make an honourable apology; but be patient, and you will see that I have not said all that I would or could; and even were the funeral pile waiting for me in the place of St. Peter's, I should not be silent, and I am obliged to go on. Monsignor Dupanloup, in his celebrated Observations on this Council of the Vatican, has said, and with reason, that if we declared Pius IX. infallible, we must necessarily, and from natural logic, be obliged to hold that all his predecessors were also infallible.