«Папа, короли и народы»

В этой земле многообразных привилегий впредь, как и в минувшие времена, да даже больше, чем в минувшие времена, народ будет бояться Бога, почитать короля и ценить семейную Библию. Они будут впредь, еще более чем прежде, посылать во всякий уголок под небесами своих счастливых сыновей, несущих славное евангелие благословенного Бога и с быстротой ног спешащих возвестить всем людям путь спасения. В Англии, в Ирландии и в Шотландии; в каждом месте, где наша собственная кровь течет в венах сородичей; в каждом обширном государстве трансатлантического союза; в каждой процветающей колонии, носящей британское имя — да пребудут Церкви в единстве друг с другом, да растет народ в мудрости, в добродетели и в вере! Да явит это царство впредь пример законов, вечно улучшаемых под заквасочным влиянием царства непреложного, пример нравов, становящихся все более чистыми, и пример блаженного довольства, возрастающего год от года в домах, над каждым из которых будет витать исполненное более чем земного очарования домашнее блаженство, освященное у семейного алтаря! И да царствуют отдаленные потомки Виктории и Альберта в любви к Богу и в любви к человеку, как христианские государыни и государи над счастливым христианским народом, и из века в век да утверждается престол в праведности!

Боже, храни королеву!

ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ:

[485] См. Civiltá, VIII. i. 46.

[486] Цит. по: Le Concile du Vat. et le Mouvement Infaillibiliste, p. 62.

[487] Civiltá Cattolica, passim, особенно номер от 16 декабря 1876 г.

[488] VIII. i. 421.

[489] Итальянские газеты иногда называют общее число газет на Континенте, преданных Папе, равным 580, причем из них 258 издаются только в Германии.

[490] Revolution und Kirche, p. 5.

[491] В самый последний момент при пересмотре этой главы перед отправкой в печать, спустя месяцы после того, как она была написана, мы обнаруживаем, что итальянские и французские газеты полны звонких выражений, приписываемых епископу в пастырском послании, которые могут сойти за пример той работы, которую официальные лица, именуемые епископами, готовят для Европы. Он описывает свой вход в Ватикан, обнаружение им швейцарских гвардейцев и нравов другой эпохи и продолжает: «Пий IX по-прежнему остается королем, даже в глазах его врагов и его грабителей. Они вынуждены признать, что единство Италии не осуществлено, что светская власть должна быть восстановлена и что после некоторых глубоких потрясений, которые, быть może, похоронят не одну армию и не одну корону, среди наций от одного конца Европы до другого раздастся единый крик: Верните Рим его прежним господам; Рим принадлежит Папе, Рим принадлежит Богу».

[492] Discorsi, ii. p. 70. Заглавные буквы в «божественных местоимениях» принадлежат не нам.

[493] L'Emancipatore Cattolico: Napoli, Anno XVI, No. 14.

[494] Apologia, Appendix, p. 27.

[495] Ibid., p. 313.

ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ A

СИЛЛАБУС С КОНТРПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯМИ ШРАДЕРА

При чтении последнего в правой колонке сразу вырисовывается взгляд, утверждаемый Церковью

Syllabus of the Principal Errors of our Time, which are Stigmatized in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other Apostolical Letters of Our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius IX. [496]

Propositions of Father Schrader being in each case the logical contrary or contradictory of the propositions condemned; and therefore, being those which the Church would assert as opposed to those denied. Schrader says, "The contradictory, and not the contrary, is to be taken by the Catholic as the rule to guide his thoughts, words, and actions, as to the sense in which the several errors must be considered as being rejected, forbidden, and condemned according to the will and command of the Pope." Schrader himself, however, sometimes gives what is clearly not the contradictory but the contrary.

Sect. I.—Pantheism, Naturalism, and Rationalism Absolute.

Sect. I.—Pantheism, Naturalism, Absolute Rationalism.

(Note of Schrader.—Absolute rationalism is that error which holds that revelation is impossible.)

1. There exists no Divine

Power, Supreme Being, Wisdom and Providence distinct from the universe, and God is none other than nature, and is therefore mutable. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God. God is, therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence mind is the same thing with matter, necessity with liberty, true with false, good with evil, justice with injustice.

1. There is one most high, all-wise, all-provident, and divine Being, distinct from this universe of things; and God is not the same as nature, and therefore not subject to change. God does not actually come into existence in men and in the world. All is not God and has not the proper essence of God. God is not one and the same with the world, and hence mind is not the same as matter, necessity not the same as freedom, truth not the same as falsehood, good not the same as evil, nor righteousness the same as unrighteousness.

(Remark of Schrader.—But God is in man and in the world, because He is omnipresent.)

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied.—(All. Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862.)

2. All operation of God upon the world and upon man is not to be denied.

3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil; it is its own law to itself, and suffices by its natural force to secure the welfare of men and of nations.

3. Human reason is not to be the arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil, without any regard to God. It is not a law to itself; and it is not sufficient, by its native powers, to provide for the welfare of man and of nations.

4. All the truths of religion are derived from the innate strength of human reason, whence reason is the master rule by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.

4. All the truths of religion do not flow from the natural force of human reason; therefore reason is not the highest rule by which men may arrive at the knowledge of truths of every kind.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to a continual and indefinite progress which corresponds with the progress of human reason.

5. Divine revelation is not imperfect, and therefore is not subject to a continual and unlimited progress which would respond to the progress of human reason.

6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and divine revelation not only does not benefit, but even injures the perfection of man.

6. The Christian faith is not contradictory to human reason; and the divine revelation not only is no hindrance to human perfection, but is serviceable to it.

7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the Sacred Scriptures are the fictions of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith are the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the two Testaments there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a mythical fiction.

7. The prophecies and miracles reported and related in Holy Scripture are no inventions of poets; and the mysteries of faith are not the sum of philosophical research. In the books of the two Testaments there are no mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ Himself is not a mythical fiction.

Sect. II.—Rationalism moderate.

Sect. II.—Moderate Rationalism.

(Note of Schrader.—Moderate rationalism is the error of those who do not hold revelation to be impossible, but would have it subjected to reason.)

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion, so theological systems must be treated in the same manner as philosophical ones.

8. As human reason may not be placed on a level with religion, theological studies are not to be treated exactly as philosophical ones.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are, without exception, the object of natural science or philosophy; and human reason, instructed solely by history, is able by its own natural strength and principles to arrive at the true knowledge of even the most abstruse dogmas, such dogmas being proposed as subject-matter for the reason.

9. All doctrines of the Christian religion are not, without distinction, subjects for natural science or for philosophy, and human reason cannot from its natural powers and principles arrive at the knowledge of all, even the most obscure, dogmas, if such dogmas be only proposed to reason as its object.

(Note of Author of the present work.—In this proposition Schrader omits one clause of the original—Historice tantum exculta. This is evidently a mere oversight. These words should come after "human reason.")

10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to submit himself to the authority which he shall have recognized as true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any authority.

10. Although the philosopher is one thing and philosophy another, the former has not only the right and the duty to subject himself to the authority which he recognizes as true, but also philosophy itself can and must submit to authority.

11. The Church not only ought never to animadvert upon philosophy,

but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving to philosophy the care of their correction.

11. The Church must not only sometimes proceed against philosophy, but she must not tolerate the errors of philosophy itself, and must not leave it to correct itself.

(Remark of Author of the present work.—"Animadvert" is the reproduction of the original word, not the English of it. The French renders it sévir, to act rigorously towards; the German, vorgehen gegen, to proceed against; the Italian, corregere, to correct, making it synonymous with "correct" in the last clause. Even the maddest theorist would hardly deny to the Church the right to "animadvert upon philosophy" to her heart's content.)

(Remark of Schrader.—The Church has the right and the duty of proceeding against false philosophy. She must not tolerate the errors of this philosophy, but must expose them to it, and demand from it that it put itself into harmony with revealed truth.)

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Congregations fetter the free progress of science.

12. Decrees of the Apostolic See, and of the Roman Congregations, do not hinder the free progress of science.

(Remark of Schrader.—Because the Apostolic See is appointed by God Himself as the teacher and defender of the truth.)

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of the age and the progress of science.

13. The method and the principles according to which the old scholastic doctors pursued the study of theology completely correspond with the wants of our time and with the progress of science.

(Remark of Schrader.—They have been frequently quoted by the Church with the highest expressions of praise, and have been earnestly recommended as the strongest shield of faith, and as formidable armour against its enemies, and have been productive of great utility and splendour to science, and perfectly correspond with the wants of all time and the progress of science.)

14. Philosophy must be treated of without any account being taken of supernatural revelation.—(Id., ibid.)

14. Philosophy must not be pursued without regard to supernatural revelation.

N.B.—To the rationalistic system belong in great part the errors of Antony Günther, condemned in

the letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, Eximiam tuam, June 15, 1847; and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, Dolore haud mediocri, April 30, 1860.

N.B.—The errors of Antony Günther for the most part were connected with a system of rationalism, which errors were rejected in a brief to the Archbishop of Cologne, Eximiam tuam, June 15, 1847; and in the brief to the Bishop of Breslau, Dolore haud mediocri, April 30, 1860.

Sect. III.—Indifferentism—Toleration.

Sect III.—Indifferentism and Latitudinarianism.

(Note of Author of the present work.—The original word is not toleration, but, as Schrader gives it, latitudinarianism.)

(Note of Schrader.—Latitudinarianism is that error which although it does not declare all religions to be alike good, yet does not hold the Catholic Church to be the only one which brings salvation.)

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

15. Every man is not entitled to embrace and to profess that religion which he may hold for the true one, led by the light of reason.

(Remark of Schrader.—But he must embrace the revealed truth in the Catholic religion.)

16. Men may in any religion find the way of eternal salvation, and obtain eternal salvation.

16. Men cannot find the way of eternal salvation, and obtain eternal blessedness, in the practice of every kind of religion.

(Remark of Schrader.—For it is to be held as of faith that out of the Apostolic Romish Church no one can be saved.)

17. The eternal salvation may at least be hoped for of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

17. The eternal salvation of all those who do not live in any way in the true Church of Christ is not to be hoped for.

(Remark of Schrader.—But only are we to admit that they who suffer from ignorance of the true religion are not held guilty on that account before God if their ignorance be invincible.)

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

18. Protestantism is not merely a different form of the same Christian faith; and it is not given to be equally well pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church.

(Remark of Schrader.— But it is a falling away from the full revealed truth.)

Sect. IV.—Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies.

Sect. IV.—Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Bible Societies, Liberal Clerical Associations.

Pests of this description are frequently rebuked in the severest terms in the Encyc. Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; All. Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849; Encyc. Noscitis et nobiscum, December 8 1849; All. Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854; Encyc. Quanto conficiamur mærore, August 10, 1863.

(Note of Schrader.—Liberal Catholic associations mean associations of Italian priests who are enthusiastic for a free Church in a free State. Such pests have often, and in the severest words, been condemned, as in the Epist. Encycl. Qui pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; in Alloc. Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849; in Epist. Encycl. Noscitis et nobiscum, Dec. 8, 1849; in Alloc. Singulari quadam, Dec. 9, 1854; in Epist. Encycl. Quanto conficiamur mærore, Aug. 10, 1863.)

Sect. V.—Errors concerning the Church and her Rights.

Sect. V.—Errors respecting the Church and her Rights.

19. The Church is not a true and perfect and entirely free association: she does not enjoy peculiar and perpetual rights conferred upon her by her Divine Founder, but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights and limits within which the Church may exercise authority.

19. The Church is a true and perfect society, entirely free, and possesses her proper and permanent rights granted to her by her divine Founder, and it does not belong to the State to define what are the rights of the Church, and what are the limits within which she can exercise them.

20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

20. The Church may use her authority without the permission or consent of the State.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.

21. The Church has the power dogmatically to decide that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.

22. The obligation which binds Catholic teachers and authors applies only to those things which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of the faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

22. The obligation which completely binds Catholic teachers and authors must not be limited only to subjects which are propounded to all, to be believed as articles of faith by an infallible utterance of the Church.

23. The Roman Pontiffs and Œcumenical Councils have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,

and have even committed errors in defining matters of faith and morals.

23. The Pope of Rome and the General Councils have not exceeded the limits of their power. They have not usurped the rights of princes, and in defining doctrines of faith and morals they have not erred.

24. The Church has not the power of availing herself of force or of any direct or indirect temporal power.

24. The Church has the power to use external force. She has also a direct and an indirect temporal power.

(Remark of Schrader.—Not minds merely are subject to the power of the Church.)

25. In addition to the authority inherent in the Episcopate, further temporal power is granted to it by the civil authority either expressly or tacitly, which power is on that account also revocable by the civil authority whenever it pleases.

25. Beyond the power inherent in the Episcopate no other temporal power has been conceded to it by the State either expressly or tacitly, and therefore not any power which the government of the State can at its pleasure withdraw.

26. The Church has not the natural and legitimate right of acquisition and possession.

26. The Church has an innate and legitimate right of acquisition and possession.

27. The ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff ought to be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs.

27. The ordained servants of the Church and the Roman Pontiff are by no means to be excluded from all control and dominion over temporal affairs.

28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating even their apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

28. Bishops themselves may publish apostolical letters without permission of the government of the State.

(Remark of Author of the present work.—Apostolic Letters mean Papal not episcopal manifestoes; therefore the expression "their apostolic letters" is not clear, and is not in the Latin.)

29. Dispensations granted by the Roman Pontiff must be considered null, unless they have been requested by the civil government.

29. Graces granted by the Pope are not to be regarded as invalid if they are not requested by the government of the State.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derives its origin from civil law.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons has not its origin in civil law.

(Remark of Schrader.—But has its root in the proper rights of the Church granted her by God.)

31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of the clergy, ought by all means to be abolished even without the concurrence and against the protest of the Holy See.

31. Spiritual jurisdiction for temporal causes of the clergy, both civil and criminal, is not, by any means, to be abolished, and not without consulting the Apostolic See or against its protest.

(Remark of Schrader.—For it is founded in the proper right of the Church, and can be handed over to the temporal tribunals only through the express consent of the Pope.)

32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military service may be abolished without violation either of natural right or of equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a community constituted upon principles of liberal government.

32. The abolition of the exemption of the clergy and students for the priesthood from military service cannot take place without a violation of natural right and of justice; and the progress of the State does not demand its abolition, especially in a State which is constituted with a free government.

(Note of Author of the present work.—Most English translations make this apply not to students for the priesthood, but only to the clergy. The word in the original is not clerus, but clericus, which certainly in Rome means not only clergyman, but also one in training for the clerical office.)

(Remark of Schrader.—The abolition of the personal exemption of from military service violates not only natural right and justice, but also the rights of the Church. The progress of the State does not only not demand it, but is opposed to it; and the more freely a society is constituted, so much the more must it respect the personal exemption of the clergy and the student for the priesthood from the military service.)

33. It does not appertain exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdiction by any right proper and inherent, to direct the teaching of theological subjects.

33. It belongs exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that of proper and innate right, to control theological studies.

34. The doctrine of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereignty acting in the Universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages only.

34. The doctrine which compares the Roman Pontiff to a free prince employing his own power in the Church, is not a doctrine which prevailed only in the middle ages.

(Remark of Schrader.—But is one which corresponds with the constitution of the Church, and therefore must prevail in all times.)

35. There would be no obstacle to the sentence of a General Council or the act of all the universal peoples transferring the

pontifical sovereignty from the Bishop and city of Rome to some other bishopric and some other city.

35. There are grounds which forbid that either through the decisions of a General Council or the act of all nations the pontificate should be withdrawn from the Bishop of Rome, and handed over to another bishop or another city.

(Remark of Schrader.—Neither through the decision of a General Council, nor through the deed of all nations, can it be overthrown that the pontificate is given to the Bishop of Rome and to the city of Rome.)

36. The definition of a National Council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil power can settle an affair as decided by such National Council.

36. The decision of a National Council does admit of further discussion; and the government of a State cannot submit any matter to this decision.

(Remark of Schrader.—The decision of a National Council requires in order to its validity the consent and confirmation of the Holy See; and the government of the State cannot appeal to the decision of a National Council as the ultimate tribunal, but must appeal to that of the See of Rome.)

37. National Churches can be established after being withdrawn and separated from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

37. No National Churches can be erected which are withdrawn from the authority of the Pope of Rome, and fully separated from him.

(Remark of Schrader.—National Churches which are withdrawn from the authority of the Pope of Rome, and fully separated from him, cannot be set up; because that is no less than rending and breaking up the unity of the Catholic Church, and because the power and manner of this unity imperatively require that as the members are connected with the head, so all believers upon earth must be united with, and joined to, the Roman Pontiff, who is the viceregent of Christ upon earth.)

38. Many Roman Pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.

38. The excessive and arbitrary acts of the Roman Pontiffs have had no part in bringing about the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.

Sect. VI.—Errors about Civil Society, considered both in itself and in its relation to the Church.

Sect. VI.—Errors relating to Civil Society, both in itself and in its relations with the Church.

39. The State is the origin and source of all rights, and possesses rights which are not circumscribed by any limits.

39. The State does not possess as the origin and fountain of all rights an unbounded right.

(Remark of Schrader.—The State is not the origin and fountain of all rights, and hence does not possess any unbounded right.)

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the wellbeing and interests of society.

40. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is not contrary to the welfare and advantage of human society.

(Remark of Schrader.—But even helpful to it.)

41. The civil government, even when exercised by an infidel sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of exequatur, but also that of the (so-called) appellatio ab abusu. ["Appel comme d'abus."]

41. The State has not a direct and positive nor an indirect and negative right in religious things, and still less when its power is wielded by an unbelieving prince. It has neither the right of exequatur nor the right of appellatio which is called ab abusu.

42. In the case of conflicting laws between the two powers, the civil law ought to prevail.

42. In case of conflict between the laws of the two powers, the temporal law does not prevail.

43. The lay power has the authority to rescind, declare, and render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protests.

43. The temporal authority has not the power to revoke solemn treaties commonly called concordats, which have been made with the Holy See in respect to the exercise of the rights of ecclesiastical immunity without its consent or against its opposition, nor the right to declare or make them void.

(Note of Author of the present work.—It is noteworthy that while in Rome the doctrine of concordats, as taught by Tarquini and in the pages of the Civiltá, was that they were not bipartite treaties, but laws issued by the Pontiff at the instance of the temporal prince, in Austria and Germany, Schrader and Bishop Martin (see his Katechismus des Kirchenrechts), in order to uphold concordats, taught that they were solemn treaties.)

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters related to religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it possesses power to decree in the matter of administering the Divine Sacraments and as to the dispositions necessary for their reception.

44. The authority of the State cannot interfere in matters of religion or morals, or of spiritual government. It cannot therefore judge of the admonitions which chief pastors of the Church in pursuance of their office issue as a rule for the guidance of consciences. Also it cannot decide upon the administration of the Holy Sacraments nor the dispositions necessary to their reception of them.

45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian States are educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of the teachers.

45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth of a Christian State are educated, excepting episcopal seminaries in some particulars, cannot and must not be given to the State, even so that no right of any other authority to interfere in the discipline of the school, in the arrangement of studies, in the conferring of degrees, or in the choice and approval of teachers can be recognized.

(Remark of Schrader.—The supreme direction of public schools in which the youth of a Christian State are educated pertains to the Church. It is her duty to watch over all public and private schools, so that in the entire school system, but especially in what relates to religion, teachers may be appointed and books may be employed which shall be free from every suspicion of error; and that thus masters and mistresses of the most approved rectitude may be chosen for the schools of the children and youth in the earliest years. The Church would act against the commands of her Divine Founder, and would be unfaithful to her most important duty committed to her by God, to care for the salvation of the souls of all men, if she gave up or interrupted her wholesome ruling influence over the primary schools, and she would be compelled to warn all believers and to declare to them that schools out of which the authority

of the Church is driven, are schools hostile to the Church, and cannot be attended with good conscience.)

46. Further, even in clerical seminaries, the mode of study to be adopted must be submitted to the civil authority.

46. The direction of studies in clerical seminaries is in no way in the hands of the State authority.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to the children of all classes, and, generally, all public institutes intended for the instruction in letters and philosophy and for conducting the education of the young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, government, and interference, and should be completely subjected to the civil and political power in conformity with the will of rulers and the prevalent opinions of the age.

47. The best mode of regulating a State does not demand that the national schools, which are open to all classes of the community, and generally public institutions destined for the higher scientific instruction, and the education of youth, should be withdrawn from all ecclesiastical authority, and completely handed over to the direction of the temporal and political authority, and should be conducted according to the pleasure of the government and the standard of current opinion.

(Remark of Schrader.—Such a corrupting method of instruction separated from the Catholic faith and the influence of the Church already exists, and is of great disadvantage to individuals and society in respect to learned and scientific instruction, and to the education of youth in public schools and institutions destined for the higher classes of society. But still greater evils and disadvantages spring out of this method if it is introduced into the national schools; and all efforts and attempts to exclude the influence of the Church from national schools emanate from a spirit extremely hostile to the Church, as from all the efforts to extinguish the light of our most holy faith among the people.)

48. This system of instructing youth, which consists in separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and in teaching it exclusively the knowledge of natural things and the earthly ends of social life alone, may be perfectly approved by Catholics.

48. Catholic men cannot put up with a kind of education of youth which is entirely separated from the Catholic faith and the authority of the Church, and which keeps exclusively in view the knowledge of natural things and the ends of earthly social life as the great object.

(Remark of Schrader.—An instruction of youth which imparts only the knowledge of natural things, and keeps in view only the ends of earthly social life, cannot lead youths to necessary salvation, but must draw them away from it.)

49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of religion and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with each other and with the Roman Pontiff.

49. The State authority is not allowed to hinder bishops and believers from holding free communication with the See of Rome.

50. The lay authority possesses as inherent in itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take possession of their dioceses before having received canonical institution and the apostolical letters of the Holy See.

50. The temporal authority has not the right of itself to present bishops, and cannot demand of them that they shall enter upon the administration of their dioceses before they have received canonical institution and the apostolic letters from the Holy See.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which relate to bishops' sees and the institution of bishops

51. The temporal government has not the right to withdraw from bishops the exercise of their pastoral office, and it is bound in whatever relates to the episcopate and the appointment of bishops to obey the Pope of Rome.

52. The government has of itself the right to alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession both of men and women; and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.

52. The government cannot of its own right alter the age prescribed by the Church for the taking of vows, whether by men or by women. Nor can it forbid religious orders to admit any one to the taking of vows without its permission.

53. The laws for the protection of religious establishments and securing their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, the civil government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit the religious life which they have undertaken, and to break their vows. The government may also extinguish religious orders, collegiate churches, and simple benefices, even those belonging to

private patronage, and submit their goods and revenues to the administration and disposal of the civil power.

53. Those laws may not be abolished which relate to the protection of religious orders, and to their rights and duties; and the government of the State cannot grant support to all who forsake their chosen condition in any order, and wish to break their solemn vows. Also it cannot abolish houses belonging to the orders, the collegiate churches, or their endowments, even when they are subject to a right of patronage, and cannot hand over their property to the administration and discretion of the State.

(Remark of Schrader.—Those laws which relate to the protection of religious orders, to their rights and to their duties, must not be abolished, but every government must far rather grant protection to the religious orders. If the government of the State grants support to those who forsake their chosen condition in any order, and wish to break their solemn vows, it acts against the spirit and the will of the Church. If they do away with the houses of the orders, their collegiate churches, or private endowments, even though they are subject to rights of patronage, and if they hand over their property to the administration and discretion of the State, they thereby rob the Church of her legitimate property, and they fall under the greater excommunication, as also under the other censures and pains which have been established by the Apostolic Constitutions, the Holy Canons, and the Decrees of General Councils, in particular of the Council of Trent. Sec. 22, cap, ii., against the violators and desecrators, and against the usurpers of the rights of the Apostolic See.)

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in litigated questions of jurisdiction.

54. Kings and princes are neither excluded from the jurisdiction of the Church, nor do they stand higher than the Church in determining questions of jurisdiction.

(Remark of Schrader.—But as members of the Church they are subject to the decision of the pastors, and especially of the chief pastors. Princes should much rather remember that the kingly power has not been delivered to them only for the government of the world, but especially for the protection of the Church, and what is done by them for the welfare of the Church is done for their kingdom and for its peace.)

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and State from the Church.

55. The Church is neither to be separated from the State, nor the State from the Church.

Sect. VII.—Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics.

Sect. VII.—Errors relating to Natural and Christian Ethics.

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and there is no necessity that human laws should be conformable to the law of nature and receive their sanction from God.

56. Moral laws need a divine sanction, and it is necessary that human laws should be brought into accord with natural right, and should receive their binding force from God.

57. Knowledge of philosophical things, and morals, and civil laws, may, and must be, independent of divine and ecclesiastical authority.

57. Philosophy and philosophical ethics, as well as civil laws, should not and must not deviate from divine revelation, and from the authority of the Church.

58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all moral teaching and moral excellence ought to be made to consist in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and in the enjoyment of pleasure.

58. Other powers are to be acknowledged besides those found in matter, and the discipline and comeliness of manners should not be placed in the accumulation and multiplication of riches of every kind, and in the enjoyment of pleasures.

(Remark of Schrader.—There are other powers to acknowledge, belonging to a higher mental order than those which are found in matter, and also morality and propriety is destroyed in the mere accumulation and multiplication of riches, and the indulgence of evil lusts according to the words of the Scripture—"If ye live after the flesh ye shall die, but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live.")

59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are vain words, and all human acts have the force of right.

59. Right does not consist in the material fact. The duties of men are no empty name, and all human facts have not the force of right.

60. Authority is nothing else but the result of numerical superiority and material force.

60. Authority is something more than numbers and the sum of material forces.

(Remark of Schrader.—Otherwise fools would form the highest authority, for it is said of them in the Scripture that their number is infinite.)

61. An unjust act being successful inflicts no injury upon the sanctity of right.

61. Unrighteousness, even when attended by good fortune, tarnishes the sacredness of right.

62. The principle of non-intervention ought to be proclaimed and adhered to.

62. The so-called principle of non-intervention is not to be proclaimed and not to be observed.

(Remark of Schrader.—For it is a fatal principle, and opposed to the spirit of love and order.)

63. It is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate princes; nay more, to rise in insurrection against them.

63. Obedience must not be denied to legitimate princes, much less must they be rebelled against.

(Remark of Schrader.—For it is written, "Be subject to every human creature for God's sake; whether to the king, who is the highest, or to his lieutenants as such, who are appointed by him;" and he who sets himself against the ruler with force, he resists the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive condemnation.)

64. The violation of a solemn oath, nay, any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blameable, but quite lawful, and worthy of the highest praise when done for the love of one's country.

64. The breach of every oath and every godless and shameful action in contradiction to the eternal laws are not only worthy of condemnation, but also are eternally to be reprobated, and are not praiseworthy even when they are done out of love to one's native country.

(Remark of Schrader.—But by such criminal and perverted reasonings all propriety, virtue, and righteousness are entirely destroyed, and the evil conduct of the thief and assassin is defended and recommended with unheard-of impudence.)

Sect. VIII.—Errors concerning Christian Marriage.

Sect. VIII.—Errors relating to Christian Marriage.

65. It cannot be by any means tolerated to maintain that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

65. It is not to be in any way denied that Christ has elevated marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

(Remark of Schrader.—Many proofs can be brought forward that Christ did elevate marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.)

66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the contract and separable from it, the sacrament itself only consists

in the nuptial benediction.

66. The sacrament of marriage is not something simply accessory to the contract, and to be separated from it, and the sacrament does not lie simply and only in the benediction of the marriage.

67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be pronounced by the civil authority.

67. By natural law the marriage bond is indissoluble, and in no case can divorce in the proper sense be legally pronounced by the temporal authority.

(Remark of Schrader.—Christian marriage is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord. Therefore it belongs altogether to the ecclesiastical authority to decide upon anything which in any way regards marriage.)

68. The Church has not the power of laying down what are diriment impediments to marriage. The civil authority does possess such a power, and can abolish impediments that may exist to marriage.

68. The Church has the authority to set up impediments invalidating marriage, but this does not belong to the temporal power, neither does it belong to the latter to annul impediments already existing.

69. In the later ages, the Church, when she laid down certain impediments as diriment to marriage, did so not of her own authority, but by a right borrowed from the civil power.

69. The Church has not only in later centuries begun to set up impediments invalidating marriage, and she has done so out of her own rights, and not out of rights lent to her by the temporal authority.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which pronounce censure of anathema against those who deny the Church the right of laying down what are diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic, or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent which pronounce an anathema upon those who dare to deny the right of the Church to set up impediments invalidating marriage are dogmatic in their nature, and are not to be understood as of a borrowed power.

71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the said Council, under penalty of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has appointed another form, and decrees that this new form shall effectuate a valid marriage.

71. The Tridentine form is binding under penalty of invalidity, even where the law of the State has prescribed another form and makes the validity of marriage dependent upon it.

(Remark of Schrader.—The State law is invalid.)

72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of chastity pronounced at Ordination annuls marriage.

72. Boniface VIII. has not been the first to declare that a vow of chastity taken in ordination renders marriage null.

73. A merely civil contract may among Christians constitute a true marriage, and it is false either that the marriage contract between Christians must always be a sacrament, or that the contract s null if the sacrament be excluded.

73. No true marriage can exist between Christians by force of a civil contract, and it is true that either the contract of marriage between Christians is always a sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament has been excluded.

(Remark of Schrader.—And thus, therefore, every connection entered upon between man and woman among Christians, by virtue of a civil law, and without the sacrament, is nothing else than a shameful and corrupt concubinage condemned by the Church. Therefore the marriage tie can never be separated from the sacrament.)

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil jurisdiction.

74. Matrimonial causes and causes arising from betrothals, from their nature do not belong to the temporal jurisdiction.

N.B.—Two other errors may tend in this direction upon the abolition of the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted; the first in the Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; the second in the Letters Apostolical Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851.

Sect. IX.—Errors regarding the Civil Power of the Sovereign.

Sect. IX.—Errors relating to the Temporal Principality of the Roman Pontiff.

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.

75. There is no contention among the sons of the Christian and Catholic Church in regard to the compatibility of the temporal dominion with the spiritual.

(Remark of Schrader.—Because they are persuaded of it.)

76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church.

76. The abolition of the temporal dominion possessed by the Apostolic See would not at all contribute to the freedom and to the happiness of the Church.

(Remark of Schrader.—The happiness and the welfare of the Church

will be much more compromised, if not annihilated, since it is through a special decree of Divine Providence that after the division of the Roman Empire into several kingdoms and various territories, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the government and care of the whole Church is entrusted by the Lord Christ, received the temporal power, certainly for this reason, that he might possess that entire freedom for the government of the Church, and the preservation of her unity which is demanded for the fulfilment of his high apostolic functions.)

N.B.—Besides these errors, explicitly noted, very many others are rebuked by the certain doctrine which all Catholics are bound most firmly to hold touching the temporal sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff. These doctrines are clearly stated in the Allocutions Quantis quantumque, April 20, 1849, and "Si semper antea, May 20, 1850; Letters Apost. Quam Cattolica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860; Allocutions Novos, September 28, 1860; Jamdudum, March 18, 1861, and Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862.

N.B.—Besides these expressly stated errors, many are implicitly rejected, through the statement and assertion of the doctrine which Catholics must hold with respect to the temporal dominion of the Pope of Rome. This doctrine is clearly set forth in the Allocutions of April 20, 1849; May 20, 1850; in the Letters Apostolic of September 28, 1860; March 18, 1861; and June 9, 1862.

Sect. X.—Errors having reference to Modern Liberalism.

Sect. X.—Errors relating to Modern Liberalism.

77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

77. In our time, it is still essential that the Catholic religion should be held as the only State religion, to the exclusion of all other forms of religion.

(Remarks of Schrader.—The Pope also demands in those States in which only Catholics reside, the domination of the Catholic religion alone, to the exclusion of every other form of religion, and therefore has he in the Allocution of July 26, 1856, reclaimed against the violation of the first article of the Spanish Concordat; in which the exclusive dominion of the Catholic religion in Spain had been stipulated; and he rejected the law by which freedom of worship had been introduced, and declared it for null and void.)

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by the law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the free exercise of their own worship.

78. Therefore it was not well that in certain Catholic lands immigrants should be guaranteed the free exercise of their religion.

79. Moreover it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of worship and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting their opinions and their ideas conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the pest of indifferentism.

79. It is true that freedom of worship granted by the States, and permission given to every one to publish all manner of opinions and views, leads easily to the corruption of manners and of sentiments among the nations, and to the diffusion of the bane of indifference.

(Remark of Schrader.—Through the unbridled freedom of thought, speech and writing morals are deeply sunken, says Pius IX in his Encyclical of November 9, 1864. The holy religion has fallen into contempt, and the majesty of divine worship is despised; the authority of the Apostolic See attacked, and the authority of the Church contested and laden with shameful fetters. The rights of bishops are trampled under foot, the holiness of marriage is violated, every authority of government is shaken, and thus many other damages arise both to Church and State.)

80. The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

80. The Roman Pontiff cannot be reconciled to modern civilization and progress, or compromise with them.

(Remark of Schrader.—For those who defend the righteousness and the rights of our holy religion do rightfully demand that the unchangeable and immovable principles of eternal righteousness shall be observed entire and unimpaired, and that the power of our salutary and divine religion shall be upheld. The faithful shall be led in the sure way of salvation, and not upon the downward road of destruction. The Holy See is the highest support, protector, and pastor of the faithful. Therefore it cannot connect itself with liberalism, and with modern civilization, without the most serious violation of conscience, and without the greatest universal scandal.)

ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ:

[496] Для перевода из католического источника мы используем издание, выпущенное в редакции Weekly Register.

ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ B

ОТНОШЕНИЕ ЦЕРКВИ К КРЕЩЕНЫМ И ОСОБЕННО К ЕРЕТИКАМ

Следующие отрывки из фундаментального труда Филлипса указывают на догматы Рима по этому вопросу в более умеренном аспекте их недавних проявлений. Все они содержатся во втором томе Kirchenrecht, и мы приводим страницу с каждой отдельной цитатой —

С. 435. «В силу высшей власти, дарованной ей, Церковь действительно обладает господством над теми, кто находится вне [некрещеными]; но над ними она выносит приговор не в том же смысле, как над теми, кто через дверь крещения вошел в Церковь и через это таинство получил неизгладимый знак принадлежности к царству Христа. Последние принесли в крещении присягу на верность; они поклялись в fidelitas и homagium, в клятве личной верующей верности [fidelitas] и вассальной клятве (Lehnseid), верного и активного служения с теми талантами, которые были дарованы им на правах феода (Zu Lehen).»

С. 436. «Ни один человек не освобожден от этого послушания — все они вверены Церкви, чтобы быть ведомыми и воспитываемыми для небес; для всех поэтому, без исключения, Церковь является властью, установленной Богом. Возможность достичь своей высшей цели — прославления Бога, которую человек из-за непослушания утратил, — Христос вернул ему снова; но эта цель может быть достигнута только на пути послушания. Непослушание божественному Слову, отвержение или сомнение даже в одной-единственной из возвещенных Церковью божественных истин вновь ввергает отдельное человеческое существо на путь погибели, на который вступили наши прародители к собственной погибели и погибели своего потомства, когда они вместо того, чтобы верить просто и ясно возвещенному Слову, избрали другое его толкование, более приятное им самим.»

С. 438. «Отсюда в особенности тяжко согрешают перед Богом те, кто либо прямо отбрасывает от себя веру Церкви, либо принимает ее лишь постольку, поскольку она кажется им правильной в соответствии с выборкой [из ее догматов], которую они сделали; либо же те, кто разрывает узы единства Церкви настолько, что объявляют себя свободными от повиновения законной власти, которая поставлена над ними в ней Богом. Таким образом мы подходим к разговору о трех церковных преступлениях — вероотступничестве, ереси и схизме.»

С. 440. «Что касается вероотступничества, представляющего собой полное отвержение христианской веры и падение в иудаизм, язычество или ислам, то здесь следует лишь отметить, что с точки зрения Церкви оно равносильно преступлению оскорбления величества Божия. Вероотступник должен быть принужден силой вернуться в Церковь, и более мягкий приговор может быть вынесен ему только в том случае, если он был вынужден отречься от своей веры неверными.»

С. 441. «В отличие от полного отвержения христианской веры, ересь предполагает преднамеренный выбор ряда догматов из числа тех, в которые люди должны верить во всей их полноте, и ограничение веры такими избранными доктринами, которых человек все еще придерживается; в общем случае к этому добавляется принятие ложных статей веры. В этом более широком смысле еретиками называют всех тех, кто принимает лишь отдельные доктрины Церкви; но мы должны различать таковых. Мы должны отделять заблуждение от ереси. Любой человек может впасть в заблуждение относительно того или иного догмата Церкви против своей воли, по простоте, по незнанию или из-за того, что его учили неправильно. Такое заблуждение рассудка называется "материальной ересью"; но подлинная ересь, именуемая "формальной ересью", имеет свое седалище в воле. Последняя состоит в том, что к заблуждению добавляется упорство воли, которая не желает от него отказаться. Если кто-либо провозглашает учение, а затем узнает, что Церковь учит иначе, и таким образом обнаруживает, что заблуждался, он не впадает в ересь, если лишь прекращает защищать высказанное им учение и подчиняется учению Церкви. С другой стороны, тот, кто знает, что Церковь учит иначе, и все же утверждает, что нечто является статьей веры, коей оно не является, или, напротив, что нечто не является статьей веры, коей оно является, и делает это вопреки тому факту, что Церковь изложила правду по этому вопросу, тем самым надменно предпочитает собственное суждение суждению Церкви; и через это упорство, составляющее отличительный признак ереси, он становится еретиком в строгом смысле слова.