Newspaper Page Text
mh DAILY EVRrviSG TELEGRAPH PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1871.
THE NEW SCHISM
DR. DOLLIIR'S DECLMIITIO!!.
The Pope Hot Infallibl
The Bishop cf Munich's Reply.
The following h tfce letter p.ddrcKt'vl by Dr.
Dollinger, Dean of the Chapter of Vienna, to
the Archbishop of Munich acd Freeing, ia
explanation cf his position with reepect to
the decree of Papal infallibility:
Yonr Excellency has asked me in two l?Hr
in frnlain mv ivwtion vith respnet to thi
Ilonian decrees of July 18, 1S70, which havo
Lecn published by you.
It has transpired in tho circlo of your
Cathedral Chapter that it is your intention to
proceed against me with such penal inonsnroj
as are used only against such priests ft3 have
been guilty of gross moral crimes, and even
but seldom against these. This is to occur if
I do not, within a certain period, submit my
self to tho two now articles of faith, as to the
universal Allgcirall) power and infallibility
cf the Tope.
I learn at tho same timo that a council
meeting of the German bishops is to take
place shortly at Fulda.
In the year 1848, when a meeting of all the
German bishops was held at Wurzburg, the
honor of an invitation was extended to my
self, and I took part in the proceedings.
Your Excellency might perhaps arrange thit
I might be allowed in the meeting which is
about to take place, not this time to take part
in the proceedings, but to have an audience
for a few hours.
For I am prepared to prove before thi-3
meeting the following theses, which are of
decisive importance for the present situation
of the German Church, as well as for my per
sonal position:
First. The new Articles of Faith nro baaod
upon the text in tho Iloly Scriptures, St.
Matthew xvi, 18, and St. John xxi, 17, and as
far as infallibility is concerned, upon the text
St. Luke xxii, 32, with which the same, bibli
cally considered, must stand or fall. But we
are bound by a solemn oath, which I myself
have twico sworn, to accept and to explaia
the Iloly Scriptures not otherwise than ac
cording to the unanimous consent of tha
fathers. Tho fathers of the Church have (ill,
Without exception, explained tho texts ia
question- as bearing a totally different mean
ing to the new decrees, and especially in the
text St. Luke xxii, V2, have found anything
but an infallibility given to the Pope. There
fore, were I to accept with the decrees thii
explanation, without which every biblical
basis to the same is wanting, I should com
mit a perjury. And, as I have said, I am
preparod to prove this to the bishops in
council.
Second. In several episcopal pastorals and
notices which have lately appeared, tho asser
tion has been made, or the historical proof
sought, that the new doctrine now proceeding
from Home as to tho universal power of the
Pope over every single Christian, and as to
the Papal infallibility in decisions in the
Church on matters of faith from the begin
ning, through all time and forever, Has been
generally, or at least nearly generally, be
lieved and taught. I am ready to prove that
this assertion is based upon an entire miscon
ception of the traditions of tho Church for
the first thousand years, and upon an entire
distortion of her history. It is in direct con
tradiction to the plainest facts and testimo
nies. Third. I am ready to prove that the bishops
of the Latin countries, Spain, Italy, South
America, France, who formed the immense
majority at Home, were, with their clergy,
already led astray by the classbooks from
which they took their ideas during their semi
nary education; since tho proofs given in
these books are for the most part false, in
vented, or distorted. I shall prove this, first,
with the two principal end favorite works of
modern theological schools and seminaries,
"The Moral Philosophy of S. Alphonsus
Liguori" (And especially as regards the treatise
contained therein concerning the Pope), and
with "The Theology of the Jesuit Peroni;"
further, with the writings of the Arohbishop
of Cardoni sad of Bishop Ghilardi, which were
distributed in Iiomo during the Council; and,
finally, with "The Theology of the Vienesse
Theologian Schwetz. "
Fourth. I appeal to the fact, which I am
ready to prove in public, that two Ueneral
Councils and 6evertl Popes havo already de
cided in the fifteenth century, by solemn de
crees, issued by the Councils, repeatedly con
firmed by the Popes, the question as to the
extant of the Pope's power, and as t his in
fallibility, and that the deorees of the 18th of
July, 1870, are in the most glaring contradic
tion to these resolutions, and, therefore, can
not possibly be considered as binding.
Fifth. I believe that I shall be able to prove
that the new decrees are simply incompatible
with the oonstitnti ons of the States of Eu
rope, and especially with that of Bavaria; and
that I find it impossible for me, who am
bound by oath to this constitution, which I
have lately swurn on my admission to the
Chamber of the Councillors of State, to ac
cept the new deorees, and, as their necessary
consequence, the Bulls "Ucamand Sanctam"
and "Cum ex Apostolatus Officio," tho Sylla
bus of Pius IX, with bo many other Papal
declarations and laws, which are new to be
accepted as infallible decisions and are in
irreconcilable antagonism to the laws of the
country. I appeal on this subject to tho
opinion given by the legal faculty ia Munich,
and am ready to abide by the arbitration of
any German legal faculty which your Excel
lency may be pleased to name.
JjJI only ask two conditions for the confer
ence which I have proposed, or rather prayod
for the first, that my assertions, together
with any counter assertions, shall be recorded,
with a view to their subsequent publication;
the second, that a man of soientifio culture,
to be chosen by me, shall be allowed to bo
present at the conference.
Should this be unattainable before the Gor
man bishops in Fulda, I venture most re
spectfully to proffer another request, that it
xuay please your Excellency to form out of
the members of your Cathedral Chapter a
committee, before which I may plead my
cause in the way above mentioned. Sever!
of these venerable gentlemen are doctor,
and were formerly professors of theology and
at the same time my former scholars. I may
hope that it would be more agreeable to them
to treat with me in quiet argument, to con
fute me, if possible, with reasons and facts,
than to draw up, upon the seat of judgment,
criminal sentence against me, and to submit
the same to your Excellency to be fulminated,
as the saying is. If your Excellency will
consent to preside at this conference, and
will condopcend to correct any errors
iuto which I may have fallen In tho
citation and oxpl mutton of testimonies and
facts, I i-hull count it as a groat honor, and
the cause of truth can only profit theroby.
And when you place b- foro iue the prospsjt
of tho exorcise of jour pastoral po-ver, I uny
still hope tht you will prefer to employ iu
the find, ph'co toward me tho finost, mot
noble, nio'.t benevolext, r.nd mo-it Christlik'j
attribute in this po wit namely, to teacher'
office. Should I bo convinoed by testimo
nials ai.d f; o!s, I tsii;;f.f) myself to revoke
publicly all tbat I Lave written in this matter
and to confute- n.yfflf. In n-iy ca;;3 the re
sults must bo a Wni tngo-.i'? to tho Church
r.nd tho penoo of spirit. V jr itH n it iuys?lf
nlono who nni Aotiwrue-1; tho;nan.u of the
clergy, hundreds of thousands of the laity
think D3 I do, cad if, iaipossiiblo t3 ai
ccpt tho now i rtidos of faith.
I'p to this day not a single one, oven of
thoo vlio have signed ft declaration cf sub
mission, has said to mo that ho is really cou
vinced of tao truth of thoso theses. All my
frioiuls and asquwitaucrs confirm me in thiw
experience; "not a bingle porsou believes ia
it,'' is what I hear day by day fro;ii all lipi.
A coul' reneo such as I havo prop -)ad, find
the publication of the proco'idins, will in
any cfiso afford that doepijr iusight which so
many long for.
Perhaps jour Excellency wiil refer me to
tho Pastoral issued recently by yoursolf, as a
source from which Ian elraw sufficient in
struction and correction of my opinions; but
I must confe w that it has had exactly ihe
opposite efi'eot upon me, aud I am ready to
prove that there is there a long list of misun
derstood, distorted, mutilated, aud invented
testimonieM, which, taken together with the
suppression of the most important facts and
counterproofs, form a mott unreal picture of
the true tradition. It is certain that the per
son to whom your Excellency intrusted this
task elid not invent lheo falsifications,
but has borrowed them in good faith
from others (Cardoni, for instance), but
were it bis desire to defend his work at tho
proposed conference, he would find me ready
to prove my assertion in a few hours, or,
should I not succeed in doing so, to make
public apology to him. I would only ask for
ono condition in consideration of the import
once of the matter, viz., that the Government
be requested to allow a statesman, learned iu
historical and ecclesiastical matters, to attend
tho conference As the case is one of thi
highest importance for all governments, it
may bo assumed that this requobt would not
be ref ased.
There u no want of precedents in the past
history of tho Church whicu show that my
proposal is in accorduuee with tha principles
as well as with the praotico of the Church.
In the year 411, a conference of 280 Catholic
and 27i Bonatist bishops held throo sessions
under the presidency of the imperial officer
of State, Msrcidlinus, r.nd tiki disputed doc
trine was discussed, upm which the latter
decided in favor of the Catholic bishops. In
the year 1 13;5, Bohemian Culiilines appeared
at the Council of Basel, and a dacioe which
Lad been issued eighteen years before by tho
Synod of Coustauce, as to the Communion in
ono kind, 7as now submitted to new dis
cussion and examination, tho result being
that compromise (also acknowledged by
the Pupal chair) which wa? a most
important aud fundamental concessioa
to the Bohemians, and one differing widely
from the older decree. A still great sitnilurity
with the transaction proposed by myself is to
be found in tho conference, so celebrated ia
ron, of Evreux, end the Protestant Btalosuiau
and savant, Du Pletsis-Mornay, which took
place in the year 1000, at Fontainebleau,
under the auspices of King Henry IV. Hero
it was a question as to the proof that Moruay
had fa&ilied or incorrectly quoted a consid
erable number of authorities in his book
upon the Er.chn.rist. Henry himself presided,
end tho most eminent mon of both Churches
w ere present as witnesses. The conference
was interrupted after a few days, and after a
number of Moruay'a quotations had bten ex
amined, by the illness of the latter, but
caused, nevertheless, a remarkably favorable
effect for tho Catholio causo in the excited
minds of that period.
Most venerable Arohbishop, I loave en
tirely to your own judgment which form you
will give to a conference eo much desired by
myself, and certninly so welcome to multi
tudes of German Catholics, and what persons
you will invite to attend or oppose to me; in
your diocese there is certainly no want of
professional theologians who will be glal to
accept your invitation. The praotico of the
Church proves that a question of faith is
jtiot as much an affair of th9 laity as of the
clergy, and that the former may take part in
the scientific examination and establishment
of tho tradition a fact which both Popas
and theologians have acknowledged. And in
this case, which is a matter for historical
proof, I am gladly ready to submit to the
verdict of the most eminent historiaus of the
German nation and of the Catholic faith.
Such men as Ficker, lleumont, Holier, Ar
neth, Kampschulte, Cornelius, Lorenz, We
gele, AscLbach, may judge whether my
proofs bo critically and historically right or
not.
Your Excellency was pleased formerly to
honor my book on the "First Agos of the
Church Apohtolical'' with your approval, and
it was generally considered among German
Catholics to be a true picture of the time of
foundation. Even the Jesuitic-Ultrajuontaue
party let it pass without censure. But if the
new decrees contain the truth, then I have
laid myself open to the reproach of Laving
entirely misrepresented the history of the
Apostles. That entire section of my book
w hich concerns the constitution of tho earlier
Church, my description of the relation in
which Paul and the other Apostles stool to
Peter all is fundamentally wrong, and I
ought to condemn my on book, aud ojafoss
that I bavu neither understood Luke's acts of
the Apostles nor their own Epistles.
The new doctrine of the Vatioja invests
the Pope with entire plenary power (tvtam
jihnitudinan fttesta tin) over the whole
Church, as well as over every sinjjlu Uymta,
prit6t, or lifchop; a power which is to ropre
Eent at the same lime the truly episcopal,
and again the specifically Papd power
which is to include in itself everything con
cerning faith, morals, duty, discipline, which
shall reach every ono from the monarch to
the dny laborer, and can punish, com. and, and
foibid him. The wordiDg is so cirefully
arranged that no other position and authority
remains for tie bishops than that of Pual
cemmiuearies or delegates. Aai ia this mia
ner, as cvcy one acquainted with Church
bi'-tory und with the fntliers wiil c-mfu-w,
the epihoupscy of tho e-arly Chnroh is cssia
tia'Jy dissolved rnd aa apostolical institution
to which, according to the jcidgrneut of th
fLthere, the highest importance and autho
rity in Ihe Church is due, is subtilized to a
bodileba shadow.
For no one will think it possible that there
should exist two bishops in the same diocese,
ono of whom is at the same time Pope, the
other LtiDa simply a bishop and a Papal
vicar or dioccsnn eoiami-;sary is not a bishop,
is no successor of the apoRtlei; he may,
through tho powers conceded to him from
Home, be very mighty so long as his principal
allocs Lim to rulf, just iu tho same way as a
Jesuit or mcndt:ant friar to whom the Top-J
Las granted hbuudanco of privileges also poi-sef-ses
great power; aud I well know that such
an extension of their powers has been hold
out iu propped to tha bishops in Home; that
they bavu been told, "The moro irresistible
tbo Tope tho btrongor shall yo be, foj the rays
of tbo abundance of his power shall fall also
on ycu. mo ou-ivps ot lue miuority nave
penetrated
delusion ot Ui(so promise.',;
t bey auti
ers'jo l c:arly, ai tc3 "Analytical
' show, that as rooo as tho uni
versal ii.v 'oncy of the Pope should bo
rstablhl.ed they blight indeed continue to be
dignitaries of the Church, but no longer
true binhops. You yourself, venerable sir,
lock part in tho deputa'ion which made such
nrgeM courier representations to tae 1 ope
em the l.'th of July, 1870 representation
which Eisl'oo von Kotteler (Mayoncc) sought
to emphasizf by prostration! We kuow th it
those representations wero fruitless. The
sole convolution Liven to the bishops' mourn
ing the Ioks of their ecclesiastical dignity
was confined to tho declaration in tho decree
that tho Episcopal power is an ''ordinary"
one (i. ( , mpotctitax ordi'naria subddcgtla, as
tho lioiui.-h canonists are accustomed to ex
press it), and that tho Popo considers it to ba
Lis duty to support them, this being vouched
by a mutilated saying of Gregory tho Great,
by a passage which, if it, with others, had
been quoted in its entirety, would indeed
have proved to the world that this Popo of
tho seventh century put away from hiuislf
with tho deepest horror euedi a universal Epis
copacy ps has now boon established, consider
ing it a blasphemous usurpation.
Nor has there been any lack of prayers,
representations, and warnings beforo and
during tho Council. You yourself, vanerablo
sir, took part in the same by your signature,
The bishops cf tho minority havo doclared in
an addroKO to the Popo, on the 12th of Janu
ary, sb'tied by yourself, that "the declarations
r.nd acts of the Fathers of the Church, the
true documents of history, the Catholic educa
tional pystem itself, presented the most
seriouu difficulties in opposition to tho procla
mation cf the doctrine of infallibility." They
were, as they themselves SRid, afraid even to
discuss tbv;o diilioulties, and prayod tho Pope
to relieve them from tho necessity of such a
discussion i. ., to rclinquisnhisiufullibiiity
But when the I'ope insisted that tho Council
should occupy itself therewith, the German
bishops demanded on tho 11th of March ex
haustive conferences on the question of in
fallibility, to bo conducted by deputations
chosen from both sides. These wero not
granted, and they had to content themselves
with speeches in the Aula, where any regular
discussion was au impossibility,
As to the indispensability and urgent need
of eu?h conferences I would only quote hero
one instance. A considerable number of
Italian bishops demanded in a since-printed
address that Penal infallibility should bo
raised to a dogma of faith, becauso two men,
both Italians and both the pride of their
ration Thomas Aquinas and Alphousus
Liguori, these shining lights of the Church
has thus taught. Now, it was well known
and proved by me, as well as by Gratry, that
Thomas had been deceived by a long series of
invented testimonies, as, indeed, he bases his
teaching in this instance almost exolusively
upon such falsificatioHS and never upon
genuine passages of the 1 athors or CounaiU.
writings ia sufficient to convince
any practised thoologiau that his deal
lngs witn ttismeu passages are sua worso
than those of Thomas. My exposure of the
fraud to which the latter had succumbed had
created great sensation in ltomo. T ne author
of a pamphlet published there, aud directed
ogainst myself, Fays that a great cry had been
raised on the subject round about him. It
ought, therefore, to have been indispensably
necessary to examine closely into tho mttar
It is true that such an examination, carefully
and thoroughly begun, would have led very
far; it would havo resulted iu the proof that
the theory of Papal infallibility Lad been in
troduced into the Church solely by a series of
calculated inventions aud falsifications, and
had then been spread and maintained by
force, by the suppression of other teaching
and by tho many means and artifices wkich
are at the disposal of tho ruling power.
All exertions, representations, and peti
tions, theu, were truitless; nothing was con
ceded, and yet tho example of the so-often
quoteel Council of Florence was before their
eyes, when the assertion of the Greeks, that
falsified passages of the 1 ethers wore laid be
fore them, led to examinations and discus
sions lasting many months and carried
on with the grcatct care. It is
assuredly known to your Excellenoy that the
most careful and ripe consideration of tradi
tion has invariably been required of any true
(Ecumenical Council about to issue dogoiatio
resolutions. How great the contrast in this
respect between Trent and that which o
curred in Home in 1-701 Certainly the treatise
of Archbishop Cardoni, which was accepted
at once by the preparatory committee, and
which was to do considered by the assembled
bishop.) as a proof, could not have supported
examination lor ouc single hot'.r.
In tho whole history of the Church I only
know of one General Council in which, as iu
this last, those in power prevented any
thorough discussion of the tradition, and this
was the Second of Epheius, in the year 4i;;
these, in the so-called Synod of Thieves
(liaubersynode), this was done by force and
by tumultuous tyranny. In the Vatican
Council the order of proceeding imposed on
the assembly, tho Papal Committee, aud the
will of the majority, sufferod no regular aid
critical examination to be made. Such an
examination would assuredly have brought to
light many awkward and unpleasant matters,
but it w ould have preserved the Church from
a state of confusion which must appear pitia
ble to yourself. If you notwithstanding
assert that the Vatican assembly was
entirely freej you take the word "free" in
a sense which theological circles do not
generally attach to it. A council is only then
theologically freo when free examination and
discussion of all objections and difficulties
has taken place, when exceptions have been
admitted arid examine! ia accordance with the
rulos for ascertaining the tradition. That not
even the most modust beginning was made
in this direction that, indeed, the immense
majority of the bishops from Latin countries
wanted either the will or the power to distin
guish truth from falsehood, right from wrong,
is proved by the pmp hlets which appeared
in Italy and were distributed in Koine for
instncee, those f,t tho Dominican Bishop of
Mondori, Ghilardi; and further, by the fajt
that hundreds of these Lihops could without
blushing rest their case upon the unassailable
authority of Alphonsus Liguori.
It is well known that the Jesuits, when they
had conceived the plan of establishing Papal
absolutism in Church and btate, in eduoation
and administration, as a dogma, invented the
so-called "Sacriacio deU'inttsllctto," and as-
nured their cdhercnts and disciples yes, even
persuaded many, and among them many
Mshops that tho most benutitul act of adora
tion of tho Almighty and the most noble
Christian heroism consist in this that man,
renouncing his own spiritual light of self-
gamed nnderstandinq and diHcoinmunt,shoul 1
throw himself with bliud faith into tho arms of
our unerring Topsl magistracy, as the sole sure
source of religions knowledge. And this re-
ligiouB order has indeed had preat .success in
raising in the eyes of numbers intellectual
indolenco to the dignity of a religious sacri
fice full of merit, aud has even moved men,
whoso culture would Lave enabled them to
enter vpon a historical examination, to
abandon the same. But as far as we miy
judge from their pastorals the German
t lhhops have not yet descended to this point
of delusion. They still concede- to human
knowledge,to human search and examination,
a noht to exist aud a sphere of activity.
They themselves appeal to history, as does
the pastoral which has appeared uudor your
nnme.
Iu a pastoral letter which has just been
sent to me Bishop Lot bar von Kubed in Frei
burg says, on pno ! "J 'era the Pope receive
cow revelations? Cuii ho create nev articles
of faith? Certainly not. lie can only de
clare that a doctrine is contained in the Holy
Scriptures and in tradition; therefore, is ro-
vcaltd by God, and must bo believed of all.
I do not eloilbt that yonr Excelloncy and all
other German bishops are fully agreed with
these words. But the question is, then, in
the present confused state of the Church
sin ply a historical one, which is to bo treated
anel decided upon according to tho means iu
our power, and to tho rules which are appli
cable to every historic search, to even-dis
covery of past facts that is to say, of such as
belong to history. There are in this case no
special or fcecret sources of which the Popes
alone havo the right or power to avail them
selves. Both Pope and bishops iuustin tbiscuse
necessanlj-, if I may use the expression, place
themselves under the common law l. e., if
their resolutions are to endure they must
adopt'that course; must initiate that exami
nation of witnesses with the requisite sifting
and critical proof of evidence which alone,
in the judgment of all men of capacity in
historical matters, is able to give ns truth
and certainty. There were, therefore, and
remain yet, two questions to bo answered in
accordance with this course. Firstly, is it
the truth that tho three sayings of Christ
respecting Peter were understood from tho
beginning through all centuries in the whole
Church in tho seueo which is now given to
them Lamely, that of an infallibility and
boundless universal power granted thereby to
the Topes ? Secondly, is it true that the
ecclesiastical tradition of all men in the writ
ings of the fathers and the facts of history
prove tho general acknowledgment of this
double right of the Pope ?
If theso questions must bo answered in tho
neg!ive it is not permissible to appeal, as
Bishop von Kubel and others do, to the assist
ance of the Holy Ghost, as promised to tho
Pope, and to the obedience of faith due on
this account to him; for what we are to ex
amine into historically is just whether this
assistance has been promised to him. And
where has this boen done? Not in the Coun
cil, for there, as Cardoni's principal treatise
proves, even falsifications were not shunned,
and an entirely unreal picture of tradition has
been given and a suppression of the most
striking facts and counter testimonies. And it
is precisely this which 1 am ready to prove.
And here I beg your Excellency to considar
luat mo Uoctrlno wmuU wo Mrs now to atlopi
lorms Dy its own nature, and by the decU
ration of the Pope himself, by the confession
of all infalhbilists, a fundamental article of
faith that it is a eiuestion of the reqnez fl.lei,
of the rule which must decide what is to be
believed and what is not. In future evory
Catholic Christian could only answer the
query why he believes this or that as follows
"I believe or deny it because the infallible
Popo has commanded mo to believo or to
deny it." Nor can this first principle of
faith, as the Holy Scriptures necessarily
snouid most clearly show, ever hare boen
doubtful in the Church it must at every date
and among every people have governed the
whole Church like a brightly shining star
must have been placed in the front of ail in
struction; and we all wait for an explanation
how it is to be cleared up that only after
lo;w years the Uhurch tas started the idea of
making an article of faith of a doctrine
which the Pope calls, in a letter addressed to
your Excellency on the 23th of October,
"ipsum fundament ale principium Catholici.o
fidei ao doctrinio." How can it have been
possible that the Popes should have, durin
centuries past, exempted whole oountries,
whole schools of theology, from belief in this
"fundamental article of faith? And, may I
add, how is it that your Excellency yourself
strove so long and so persistently against the
enunciation of this dogma ? Because it was
not opportune, yon say. Bat can it ever have
been "inopportune" to give to believers the
key of the whole temple of faith, to anuouueo
to them the fundamental article on which all
the rest depend? "We stand all of ns gidly
before a chasm which opened before us on
tho ISth cf July last.
lie who wishes to measure the immense
range of these resolutions may bo urgently
recommended t compare thoroughly ths
third chapter of the deorees in Couuoil with
the fourth, and to realize for himself what a
fijste m of universal government and spiritual
dictation stands hero before ns. It is the
plenary power over the whole Church as over
each separate member, such as the Popes
have claimed tor themselves since Gregory
11, such as is pronounced in the numerous
bulls since the bull "Unam sanotam," which
is from henceforth to be believed and acknow
ledged in his life by every Catholio. If his
power is boun'ciless, incalculable, it can, as
Incoaent III said, strike at sin everywhere;
can punish every man, allows of no appeal, is
sovereign and arbitrary, for, accordin,' to
Bonifacius VIII, the Pope "carries all rights
in the shrine of his bosom." As he has
now become infallible be can in one moaieut,
with one little word "orbi" (that is, that he
addresses himse-lf to the whole Church), make
every thebis, every elootrine, every demaud an
unerring and irrefragible article of faith.
Against him there can be maintained no
right, no personal or corporate freedom; or,
as" the canonists 6ay, the tribunal of Goi aud
that of the Pope are one and the same. This
Bjstem bears its Itomish origiu on its fore
head, and will never be able to penetrate in
Germanic countries. As a Christian, as a
theologian, as a historian, as a citizen, I
cannot accept this doctrine. Not as a Chris
tian; for it is irreconcilable with the Bpirit of
the Gospel and with tha plain words of
Christ and of the Apostles; it purposes just
that establishment of the kingdom of this
world which Christ rejected; it olaiuas that
rnle over all communions which Peter forbids
to all and to himself. Not as a theologian;
for tha whole tradition of the Church ia iu
ii reconcilable opposition to it. Not as a his
torian can I accept it; for as such I know that
the persistent endeavor to realize this theory
of a kingdom of the world has cost Europe
rivers of blood, hos confounded and degraded
whole countries, has shaken the beautiful
organio architecture of the elder Church, and
has begotten, fed, and sustained the worst
abuses in the Church.
Finolij-, as a citizen, I must put it away
from me, because by the claims on the sub
mission of States and monarchs, and of the
whole political order under the Tapal power,
and by tho exceptional position which it
claims for the clergy, it lays the foundation
of endless, ruinous dispute between Stat and
Church, between clergy and laity. For I
cannot conceal from myself that this doc
trine, the results of which were tho ruin of
tho old German kingdom, would, if govern
ing the Catholic part of the German nation,
at emce lay the seed of incurable decay in the
n?w kingdom which has just been built up.
Accept, etc., I. yon Dollinger.
Munich, March 28, 1871.
Fodtornl Letter of the Are liMthop of Mn
nlrli to Ills Arc lull m-exc Iu Antwcr to
Dr. Poll Intel's Dcclnrntlon Agnlunt the
Iiimllll.llllj- of the Poic-I)r. Dnlllur
F luc id AVKlioiit llic l'ule of the CUuri li.
Tho following letter has been addressed by
the Archbishop of Munich to the priests and
Cock of Lis diocese:
Gregorius, by tho graco of God and tho
Holy Apobtoiio See, Aichbishop of Munich,
Prelate of the Household and Councillor to
His Holiness, tto , to tho venerablo clergy
and archdiocese, salvation and blessing in the
Lord:
Dr. von Dollinger, Dean of tho Chapter
and Professor of Theology, addressed to us,
on Mnrch 20, a declaration stating his posi
tion to the (Ecumenical Council and its reso
lutions, which he, at the same time, handed
to the Ang9burg Augcmeine Ztxtung for pub
lication. It was pecordingly published in tho
extra supplement of said paper of March 31.
ILis open declaration compels ns, the vener
able clergy and the faithful of our arch
diocese, to publicly and emphatically draw
attention to tho principal errors containod in
this deplorable document and to place its
author without the pale cf the lloman
Catholic Church, in case he should persist
in those heresies, ihe author demands.
First. That he should be permitted to
prove in an assembly of bishops and theolo-
gists that the decrees of faith of tho fourth
sitting of the (Ecumenical Council were
neither contained in the Holy Scriptures, as
understood by the fathers of the Church, nor
in the writings handed down according to
their true history; that the latter have, in
fact, been falsified by forged or mutilatod
documents, and that these same documents
are in flagrant contradiction with tho more
ancient ecclesiastical decision. But the author
has overlooked that there is no question be
fore ns which is yet to be decided, and
therefore carefully to be examined. Tho
eiuestion has already boen decided. A
General Council, legally convened, volun
tarily assembled and directed by tho Head of
the Church, has, alter caretui examination,
explained, formulated, and defined this arti
cle of faith. Every Catholio Christian knows
at present what the Church prescribes to bo
lieve. The Church which Jesus Christ has
promised to the end of the world cannot bid
ns believe anything else than the revelation
of God Himself. Whoever, therefore, op
poses the declaration of the Church opposes
God. "He who will not hear the Church let
him be unto thee as a heathen and a publi
can. Matthew xvin, 17.
Second. The author asserts that a purely
historical question was here only in the case,
-wkioU ouuld solely t ronoWed by tho rnung
means and rules as apply to the research of
any other historical fact. By this means the
Church is placed under historic examina
tion. The decisions of the Church are sub
mitted to the judgment of the last historical
wnter.her divinely ordained office to instruct
is set abide and all the Catholio truths placed
nnder controversy. Let science take np the
Catholio teachings of faith and examine them
by all human means, and they will stand proof
against all contradiction. Let the soienoe of
infidelity revolt against Goi and His revela
tion, ogainst tho Church and her decrees of
faith, it will never be able to shake the rock
upon which the Lord has built His Church.
Third. The author declares that the de
crees of July 18, 1870, are in contradiction
with the Constitutions of European States,
but particularly w ith that of Bavaria; that
this article of belief has wrought the ruin of
the old German Empire, and would, if pre
vailing vith the Komun Catholio portion of
the German nation, plant the germs of a
lingering and inourable malady into the Con
stitution of the new German Empire. Against
this entirely erroneous theory and hateful
accusation we protest with a loud voice aud
declare it an unfounded charge against the
Catholic Church, her Head, her Bishops, and
all her members, who will never cease "to
render nnto Cresar the things that are Cicsar's,
and nnto God the things that are God's."
Dearest members of the diocece, the views
ard judgments alleged in this document, of
which we have enly pointed out to you the
most notable ones, have since the convoca
tion of the (Ecumenical Council been circu
lated in many books and newspapers; it must
be confessed with sorrow that this dooament
has given the highest probability to the long
cntertajced sad supposition that the author of
this declaration is the spiritual head of the
wholo movement against the GSouruenical
Council which has caused so much confusion
in the minds and consciences of Christians.
The equally numerous writings disproving
this heresy found, bias! no ear with those cir
cles hostile to the Church. Now, however,
the open opposition of a man, who has hith
erto deservedly filled high positious in tho
Church and State, has given the matter the
aspect of a formal revolt against the Catholio
Church.
Dear brethren, we are well conscious of
our duties as chief pastor of the diocese, and
have, therefore, not delayed in addressing to
yon these grave and warning pastoral words,
and in takirig the now neoessary measures.
The further steps which we shall be obliged
to take will be in no less degree governed
by a single view of the dangers threatening
tee Church in Gormauy aud love for the
erring brother. "We shall not break the
bruised reed or quench the smoking
flax." Matthew xii, 20. Wo shall,
however, know how to protect our
dear flock from error anJ teioptatioa.
To the venerable priests of our archdiooese
we exclaim, with Panl, "Oh, Timothy, keep
that w hich is committed to thy trust, avoiding
profane and vain babblings and oppositions
of science falsely bo called." Timothy xviii,
20, 21. Pray, however, my dearest brethren,
for the salvation of the author, jeopardized
by that unfortunate declaration; pray for the
holy Church, partioidfitly in our dear German
and Bavarian Futt erlaud; pray for your sor
rowful pastor, who blesses you iu the nama of
the Father, the fcon, aud the Holy Ghost.
Amen.
The present pastoral letter is to be com
municated from tho pulpit aooording to the
wants of the faithful. tQaEoouics,
Archbishop of Munioh.
Munich, Easter Sunday ot the year 1871.
OITY ORDINANCES.
"p ESOLUTION
To Lay Water-pipe on Celeste, Amelia.
and other Hrects.
Resolved, Itv the Select and Common Coun
cils tf the City of Philadelphia. That tho Chief
Encincer of the Water Department be and is
hereby authorized to lay water-pipe on the
following tureeu:
Celeste and Amelia streets, from Seventh to
Elchth street.
Bixth street, from Mifflin to McKeao
Ptrcet.
p Seventh street, from Moore to McKoan
street.
And Mifflin, Amelia, Hodman, and Dudley
flreetp, from Sixth to Seventh etrect, In tha
First waid.
June street, from Seventh to Eighth street, in
the Fourth ward.
Terrace street, from Grape to Mechanic
street.
(irnpo street, from Wood to Eclair street. 1
Fleruinfr. and ISclair streets, from Grape
to Cotton street, In the Twenty-first ward.
Union street, from Uaverford avenue to Aspen
street.
Afpen and Atlantic streets, from Thirty-fifth
to Thirty-sixth 6ircet, iu tho Twenty-fourth
ward.
Chadwlck red Seventeenth st eets, from Reed
to Dickerson street: and Dlekcrron street, from
Bancroft to Seventeenth street, in the Twenty
sixth ward.
Carlisle street, from Monument Cemetery to
Siisqut hanna avenue.
Norris stieet, from Carlisle to Broad
street.
On Broad street, from Westmoreland
street to Tioga street, in the Twenty-eighth
ward.
And Harvard street, between Oxford
and Jefferson streets, in the Tvveuty-ninth
waid.
HENRY HUIIN,
Fresldcnt of Coinmou Council.
Attest
llOHERT BETIIIZLL,
Assistant Clerk of Select Council.
SAMUEL W. CATTEhL,
President of Select Council.
Approved this twenty-fifth day of April, Anno
Domini one thousand eight huudred and seventy-one
(A. D. 1S71).
DANIEL M. FOX,
4 27 It Mayor of Philadelphia.
AN ORDINANCE
To Maker an Appropriation to Pay
a Bill for Advertising In 1S70.
Section 1. The Select and Common Councils
of the City of Philadelphia do ordain, That the
sum of three hundred and twelve dollars and
sixty cents he aud the same is hereby appro
priated out of item 5 of the appropriation to
the Clerks of Couucils for 1871, approved
December 31, 1870, to pay a bill for adver
tising ordinances, etc., in "The Press" in the
year 1S70.
nENRY IIUHN,
President of Common Council.
Attest
Benjamin II. Haikes,
Clerk of Select Council.
SAMUEL W. CAT TELL,
President of Select Council.
Approved this twenty-fifth day of April,
Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and
seventy-one (A. D. 1871).
DANIEL M. FOX.
4 27 It Mayor of Philadelphia.
RESOLUTION
Of Instruction to tho City Solicitor.
Resolved, By tho Select and Common Councils
of the City of Philadelphia, That the City
Solicitor be and he is hereby authorized aud
instructed to take all necessary proceedings to
stop the erection of telegraph poles on Fifteenth
street, between Chesnut and Market streets, or
other streets; and also to cause the immediate
removal of all those lately erected on that part
of Fifteenth street.
HENRY IIUITN,
President of Common Council.
Attest
Robert Bkthell,
Assistant Clerk of Select Council.
SAMUEL W. CATTELL,
President of Select Council.
Approved this twenty-fifth day of April,
Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and
seventy-one (A. D. 1871).
DANIEL M. FOX,
4 27 It Mayor of Ph Uadelphia.
LEGAL NOTICES.
IN THE ORrHANSOOURT FOll TUB CITY
AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA.
Estate of CHK1STINE B1DDLE, tleceased.
The Auditor appointed by the Court to audit, settle,
and ailjust the account of CL'iMKNT KIDDLE,
THOMAS A. HIDDLE, and ALEXANDER BID.
DLK, trostees of a sum of fCd,ooo, set aside under
the provisions of the will and codicils of (JUK1S
TINU. JtlDPLE, deceased, and to report distribu
tion or the balance In the bands of the account
ants, will meet ti e parties Interested for the pur
pose ol bis appointment, on WEDNESDAY, May
8. lsTt, at ia o'clock M., at his omca, No. 131 a,
Fll'TU Street, In the City of Philadelphia.
UEOKUE M. CUNAKItOE,
i gothstpst Auditor.
IN THE C.UKT OF COM MO IT PLEAS FOR
THE CITY AND COUNT VT OF PHILADEL
PHIA. In Diveree, December Term, No. 85.
AKTULIt 11. WOODWARD vs. MELISSA T. WOOD
WARD. To Melissa T. Woodward, the above-named re
spondent : Please take notice that i ra'e has been
entered In the above cade, returnable SATURDAY,
May 6th, A. D. 1871, at 11 o cIock A. M., to show
cause why a divorce a vinculo matrimonii should not
be granted. I trsonal service having failed on ac
cooiit of jour absence.
JOHN O. BULLITT,
No. 82 S. THIRD Street, Philadelphia,
4 20 thru2vv Attorney ft r Libellant.
IN TF1E COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOiTthS
CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA.
Dec. Term, 1S69. No. 3. Ill Divorce.
MARGARET S. OHI EFKN3TEIN va. EDMUND
aniEFENSTElN.
To Edmund Crleieustelu, Respondent:
l'leese take notice that the Court has granted a
rule on you to show cause why a divorce a vinculo
ltmtitmoiiit Blioulit not be dcorcf d In the above case.
Returnable oe SATURDAY, May C, A. D. 1971, at 11
o'clock A. M. Peignnal service having failed on
account of your absence.
JOHN O. BULLITT,
:No 82 South THIRD Street, Philadelphia,
4 S ttt Attorney for Libellant,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLES FOR TUB
CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA.
March Term, 1S71. No. 14. In Divorce.
WILLIAM HENRY STEEL vs. JObEPUlME JANE
STEEL.
To JOSEPHINE JANE STEBL, Respondent:
Please take notice that testimony will be takea In
above cntl'leU cause on behalf of the libellant oa
THURSDAY, May 11, 1871, at 8 o'clock P. M., at
my cilice, No. tB WALNUT Street. Philadelphia,
Pa., before F. CARROLL RREWSTER, Jr.. Ed(j.,
the examiner appointed by the Court to take ana
report the same. HENRY C. TERRY,
4 18 15t Attorney for Libellant.
INSTATE OF JOHN KOMMKL, DEC EASE X
l AU per so us indebted to this eBiat will make
payment and those having claims apalnat the samo
will pre si nt litem without delay to tuo uuderalgued,
to vhoui Letters Testamentary have been duly
giaiiUd.
JOHN ROMMEL, Ja.,)
J. M. ROMMEL, VExecntora.
M' I XI A M M
rtlladelphln, March iS, 1S71.
3 23tht
CROOERIES, ETO.
JONDON 11KOWN STOUT ANI
SCOTCH ALB.
Is class ar t stone, by the cask or dozen,
4LKKKT O. l!OI!!'ttT9,
Dealer hi Fine rrwertea,
earner ELEVENTH ana VINK 8UL
Q A R A C A S CHOCOLATE,
Imported and for sale by
DALLETT k SON, -44
lm No. I2y b. FRONT btfeet.
