Римско-католическая церковь

The sad state of the papacy on the eve of the 19th century. – Anti-religious movements in the last century. – Ideas of freethinkers. – The French Revolution and the Church. - Theophilanthropists. - Reaction in favor of the restoration of the Christian religion. – The position of the Roman Church in Germany. – Anti-papal movements in it. – Febronius and his ideas about the transformation of the church. – Church reform activities of the emperor. Joseph II in Austria. – Anti-papal movements in Italy. – The sad fate of the last pope of the last century. The end of the eighteenth century, when the storm of the revolutionary movement swept across Western Europe, overthrowing the old established customs and orders, was especially sad for the apparently strongest Western European institution, the papacy. It is known that the last pope of the 18th century, Pius VI, after the most severe insults and shocks, died on August 29, 1799 in a remote town in southern France - Valence in the position of an exile and captive. In his capital Rome, with the help of French arms, the revolution triumphed, and a statue was erected on the Tiber Bridge depicting the Goddess of Liberty, who trampled the papal tiara with her feet. This was supposed to serve as a harbinger of the fate that awaited the papacy in the coming new (19th) century. When the new century arrived, the Roman Church found itself without a head, and in the Jacobin clubs in Paris, revolutionaries blasphemously celebrated a funeral feast for the death of the papacy and its deeds, and with it Christianity. The situation of the Roman Church was terrible, and the onset of the 19th century was generally dark and threatening for it. To clarify the reasons for this sad situation, it is necessary to take a look at the mental and political movements that led to this situation. France was at the head of all the movements of the last century, and it was she who was the main culprit for the sad state of affairs. The clergy in it were extremely weakened and reduced in number by the guillotine and exile, and the Catholic faithful constantly trembled for their lives. Church property was confiscated, monasteries were closed, and the most influential class of the population turned away from Christianity and the church. Instead of edifying books and pastoral epistles, the most educated part of the French people read the works of philosophers, and these latter were filled with mockery and ridicule of Christianity in general and the Roman Church in particular. Montesquieu, in his Persian Letters, directed the arrows of his wit at “that old idol for whom incense was smoked out of simple habit,” at that “magician who wanted to make sovereigns think that three are one, that the bread they eat is not bread, and the wine they drink is not wine at all.” At the same time, he also directed his attacks at celibacy and monasteries, the confessional and the Inquisition, and mocked the doctrine of the Fall and the miraculous birth of the Lord. In his essay “The Spirit of Laws” he spoke about religious tolerance, but not about freedom of faith. “If in a certain state the government is so strong that it can admit or refuse the adoption of a new religion, then it should not be allowed; but since it has already penetrated, then it should be tolerated.” This is language that reminds us of old pagan Rome and the position it occupied in relation to the gods of foreign peoples: but that from such tolerance was by no means a big step towards violence against faith, as far as the Roman Church was looked at through the eyes of so-called philosophers, this is quite understandable. Voltaire and his like-minded people went even further in their expressions about the pope. At the same time, they did not have the “stupid and dangerous vanity” of putting the author’s name on their works, and under the cover of anonymity they were allowed to say everything. The notorious book “L’imposture sacerdotale,” which appeared anonymously in London in 1767, said: “The so-called Vicar of Christ is nothing more than a dangerous deceiver, a pestilence to states, an enemy of kings and the peace of the people.” Voltaire tried to convince the sovereigns that priests were the worst enemies of statehood; on the contrary, philosophers are its best support against the attacks of the clergy. Now, he thought, the time had come for the state to once again take back the power that the church had appropriated to itself in the Middle Ages; The Church should not be allowed to dominate civil society any longer. Voltaire picked up the old idea of ​​Boniface VIII that church and state power cannot stand side by side with equal rights, but only drew the completely opposite conclusion from this. Power and dominion do not belong to the church, but to the state. “How can one tolerate, he asked, two masters in one house, a landlord and a home teacher who receives a salary from the first?” Rousseau in this regard completely agreed with Voltaire, and in the eighth chapter of the 4th book of his notorious “Social Contract”, which talks about “civil religion”, he classifies the Roman Church, along with Lamanism and the Japanese religion, as strange religions that “give people two legislations, two sovereigns and a dual fatherland, impose on them responsibilities that are in contradiction with each other and make it impossible for people to be in the same time to be godly men and good citizens." Protestantism, in his opinion, is much better, but it is also disgusting, he thought, to the spirit of the public. The community of true Christians will never be a community of men. Christianity is entirely spiritual, has a heavenly and super-worldly character and has no favors towards this earth. If the state prospers, then the Christian cannot take part in the general welfare; if the state declines, then the Christian blesses the hand of God, which falls heavily on the people. Christianity easily leads to tyranny. It is only necessary to find among true Christians even one ambitious person, some Catiline, one hypocrite, like Cromwell, and he will turn their piety to his advantage. True Christians are born to be slaves. After this argument, which, like the general attacks of French philosophers, was directed not against the papacy only and the Church of Rome, but against the Christian religion in general, Rousseau proceeds to a more detailed explanation of what he calls civil religion. It is the interest of the state that every citizen should have a religion which will instill in him a love of duty; religious dogmas are indifferent to the state. On the contrary, there are certain “feelings of the public”, without which there can be neither a good citizen nor a reliable subject. However, these tenets of civil religion are more moral than religious in nature, and they should, if possible, be few and simple. They could well be limited to the faith of the famous “Savoyard vicar” (Rousseau), namely the faith in a Supreme Being, the immortality of the soul and conscience. It is the sovereign's business to establish these members of the faith. True, he cannot force anyone to believe in them; but he can remove those citizens who would not want to believe in them from his country, precisely as unsociable people,” and not as godless. But along with these dogmas, the state must adhere to the rule that any intolerance is by no means acceptable. “Anyone who says: “There is no salvation outside the church”! must be expelled from the state." While Voltaire and Rousseau, in their worldview, however, still allowed for a certain place for God, the materialists went even further. The staff of the Encyclopedia [which, from the middle of the 18th century, was published under the editorship of Diderot and d'Alembert] showed prudent restraint in those articles that could cause temptation for religious readers. Therefore, the article “Christianisme" also has the appearance that its author recognizes the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, while in other places of this notorious publication this dogma is unconditionally rejected. The article about the pope in its historical sections is critical in nature, in the canonical sections it is Gallican and is generally written from the point of view that the French church held in relation to Rome. On the contrary, for example, the article about modern Rome revealed extreme indifference towards Christian monuments and churches of the eternal city. The author of the main work of French materialism, “The System of Nature,” rebels against the idea of God and in all its forms more sharply than any of the Nevers of antiquity or in the materialist literature of modern times, at least in most of its phenomena. The author of this book considers religion to be the main source of human depravity and misery, which is why he pursues the deism and pantheism of his time as mercilessly as the positive dogmas of the church. Therefore, he rebels against any idea of ​​God, since he finds in man a mystical trait that can grasp even the simplest and most vague concept of God and, with the help of fantasy and poetry, form from it any cult 1. In the circle of French materialists, therefore, we see, in religious terms, the same thing as now in the so-called extreme left. From this point of view, all differences between the Roman Church and the Protestant confession of the Savoyard priest naturally disappear. Here a struggle was waged against the very need for God, and at the same time it was no longer considered significant how various religious parties tried to satisfy this need. These were the ideas of Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, and finally, the materialists and sensualists - ideas under the influence of which a deep rift occurred among French society and which, in fact, led to the great revolution. In its first period, it was intended to make only such changes in personal religious and church affairs that could prepare the transition to a new order. Church property was taken away, but the state took upon itself the responsibility to take care of the maintenance of the clergy and cover the costs of the cult. Monasteries and monastic orders were destroyed; but at the same time it was declared: “no one can be oppressed for the sake of his views, and even for the sake of his religious views, as long as he does not violate the legalized social order by spreading them.” Everyone was given freedom of worship, and civil marriage was introduced: for a long time there was even talk of a complete separation of the state from the church. This idea, however, was again abandoned in view of the difficulties associated with such a separation. Then it would have been necessary either to take away church property without any further conditions, which, however, would have resembled open robbery, or again to provide some property at the free disposal of the church, and this again seemed dangerous. There was even an intention to internally connect the clergy with the revolution, which was the actual goal of the so-called. "civil constitution". It was designed to bring the new division of the departments of the state into full compliance with the new division of episcopal dioceses: then, to provide the clergy with a certain national independence, to alienate it from Rome, without, however, violating the communion of faith with the pope. Bishops and priests were to receive a certain salary and be elected by the laity: bishops - by voters in the departmental councils, priests - by voters in the governing council council of separate districts, Jews and Protestants received the same right to election as Catholics. This radical innovation, in which the Catholic believer had to recognize something else and much more than a civil constitution for the clergy, met with lively opposition. But the opposition was broken when Mirabeau raised his voice, saying: “The people, whose priests stand in opposition, have reason to doubt how much longer they can remain useful citizens; the people cannot allow the care of souls to be provided to people who are enemies of their happiness.” This statement sounded like a kind of prophecy of more difficult times for the clergy, and such times were indeed soon to come. In order to bind the priests more closely to the revolution, it was decided that they should take an oath in which they not only promised loyalty to the civil rulers and laws, but also pledged to carry out with all their might the form of government adopted by the national assembly and approved by the king. Louis XVI for a long time resisted giving his consent to such a measure in relation to the clergy: in the new “civil constitution” he saw an encroachment on the sacrament of the priesthood, and with strained relations with Rome he was afraid for the salvation of his soul. Only after long deliberation did he give in, and in fact only after he had already drawn up a plan for his escape. Among the bishops and priests there were few who followed the example of Talleyrand and Gregoire, when the latter at the beginning of 1791 years, they took the said oath. The question of the oath divided the Roman Church of France into two parties, one of which was devoted to the pope, and the other to the revolution. When Avignon and Venessen, both of which had been papal property for a century, were taken away from the pope, irritation in Rome intensified; and when the pope began to pronounce curses and excommunications, the leaders of the revolution became even more bitter against the church and its ministers. They thought that they could completely do without Christianity. The heads of the revolutionary party, as Roland wrote to the king, “found their gospel in the declaration of human rights, and the new constitution became for them a kind of religion for which they were ready to die.” Even women, like Charlotte Corday, were against all positive religion. Actually, the turning point in the history of the revolution, as far as the church was concerned, was the end of 1791. After the overthrow of state power, it was not far from the rejection of all public Christian worship. Blow after blow quickly followed: the persecution of priests who refused the oath, the abolition of salaries for the clergy, the most cruel coercion in matters of faith, even outright persecution of Christians. But Christianity was rooted much deeper among the French people than was thought in the salons of Paris. The great uprising in the Vendée with its “Roman Catholic army” was caused mainly by the hostility of the revolution towards the church, and only on the second line by its attitude towards state power; and in Paris itself the Church had much more power than the freethinkers claimed. On May 9, 1793, Dutard wrote to Garat: “Religion still retains its power over the population in Paris. This morning, before my door, a priest in his vestments was carrying the sacrament to a sick man. You would be surprised to see how the very people who persecuted the ministers of the church came running from all sides, men and women, old and young, to kneel in veneration of St. I will give you gifts." Despite all the declamations against Christianity, even the Jacobin club did not dare to remove the wooden cross, which in front of everyone hung over one of the stands in the hall. The celebration of church holidays continued after the ban. Even after the order "to close all buildings known as churches" was issued on November 23, Sunday and holiday services were held in many places, especially in southern and western France. The veneration of Sunday penetrated so deeply into people's life that it was not easy to eradicate it, and the division of the month into decades [ten-day weeks] also found two opponents in material terms: a beard and a clean shirt 2 . Everywhere there were priests who had not taken the oath, who secretly baptized children and accepted confessions, and Gregoire tells how many expressed to him their grief and displeasure against all this atheism. They often resorted to the strangest detours just to satisfy their religious needs. So one lady held a ball, and in a small room, to the side of the dance salon, sat a priest who took confession from some of the guests. The Saturnalia of the so-called cult of reason, as well as the theatrical “festival of the Supreme Being” on the Field of Mars, aroused only disgust and annoyance in all serious people; and Catholics, who took part in Roman Catholic worship with sincere feeling, naturally could not find pleasure in such theatrical effects. As soon as freedom of worship was again declared at the beginning of 1795, parishes were quickly formed everywhere, where only the people themselves could erect their own places of worship and reward church ministers. And when, finally, in May 1795, permission was given to perform worship “in those buildings that were originally assigned to it,” the houses of worship in Paris were overcrowded, and most of the shops and shops remained closed on Sunday. When, on June 21, the Church of St. Gervasia, it immediately became overflowing with people. Even the official report of the sermons preached on this occasion had to admit: “they were based on the best principles and breathed that soft and eloquent philosophy which is capable of consoling in the misfortunes of the past and returning minds to those ideas of peace and order which are the only foundations of the happiness of states.” Under the directory, there was already open opposition to the extremes of freethinking. Although the directory firmly adhered to the rule that the republic should not provide assistance to any cult, whatever it may be, the previously issued prohibition on contributing to the maintenance of religious services with monetary contributions was now given the following form: “No one can be forced to bear expenses for any cult.” At the same time, it was decided that “no one should be prevented from performing the divine service he himself has chosen.” The religious feeling that had been forcibly suppressed for so long soon made itself known very eloquently, and the directory itself was amazed when it saw the fruits of its free-thinking measures. One freethinker traveler wrote with annoyance towards the end of 1795: “In the department of Vienne the ringing of bells is heard everywhere; all churches are open; masses, vespers and all this stupid stuff doesn’t end.” As a result, the directory decided to resort to new measures. She paid special attention to schools in order to divert children from any positive religious influence and educate them in the spirit of revolution. Further, it was forbidden to perform any kind of liturgical celebrations outside houses of worship, and no one dared to openly appear in spiritual attire or with liturgical vessels. The new time calculation was carried out with a more strict sequence; finally the persecution began again. Just as the national convention, through the idolization of reason in the form of a harlot and the celebration of the Supreme Being, attempted to create a new worship, so the directory attempted to create something similar with the help of the so-called theophylanthropes. Theophidanthropism was a new attempt to implement Rousseau's idea, and since it enjoyed favor from above, it soon became widespread. The apostle of this new religion was one of the members of the directory, La Reveilliere-Lepo. Philanthropists “revered” a Supreme Being who rewards virtue and punishes untruth. In honor of this Being, hymns were sung in their assemblies and speeches were made in which the conscientious performance of human and civic duties was instilled. The old faith, as a result of renewed police regulations, had to take refuge again: but with all its benevolence, the directory was not able to infuse the spirit of life into this stillborn theophilanthropism. A report on the introduction of theophilanthropic worship into all the churches of Paris said: “Meetings, meanwhile, are attended less and less. This cult does not promise lasting existence. Strong and prolonged mental tension tires the worker: he wants to have fun; monotonous speeches lull him to sleep.” When La Reveilliere-Lepo complained to the former bishop of Autun, the gifted Talleyrand, about the weakness of the influence of the new religion, he answered him: “Jesus Christ was crucified for his religion and was resurrected. You should do something similar for your religion.” In addition, theophilanthropism in the eyes of some leaders of that time constituted a transition to a truly republican cult, which should consist of laws being read and explained in churches. There was no shortage of zealous attempts to make the decimal holidays national holidays, but the directory rejected the project, by virtue of which it was supposed to force citizens “to be sure to attend national holidays with their wives and children, to observe the republican days of rest (days of decades), both for themselves and for their children, workers and ministers.” They limited themselves to supporting the civil religion through the persecution of the Christian religion, and at the same time complaints were heard that the adherents of the throne and altar were increasingly multiplying, and the ringing of bells was beginning to be heard more and more. Meanwhile, in August 1797, a church meeting could already have taken place in the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, at which fifty bishops and many priests were present. Bishop Lekoz, who opened this meeting with a sermon, spoke in it about the trials he had experienced and the scenes he witnessed: “Ordinary citizens trembled with joy when they heard the name of Jesus Christ. At one glance at the image of the Crucified One, their faces began to shine with joy, after they had been covered with sadness for so long.” On the contrary, ten-day services often ended in seductive and disgusting antics. Especially the so-called consecration of marriages, which took place in the “churches of peace,” often ended in scandals. When one black man married a white woman, the orchestra played a well-known opera melody with the words: “ebony and ivory, oh, how good they look - and the audience shouted “bravo.” Even the republican newspapers were not silent about this disgrace and said: “superstitious France behaved more decently than this one living by reason.” Bonaparte, with his insightful mind, immediately saw the influence Christianity had on the people, and therefore decided to enter into friendly relations with the pope. His friends had the intention of turning the decade holidays into Bonaparte holidays. One official wrote: “If only we had more ten days! Then I would have more often the opportunity to encourage some, strengthen others in the blind trust that we are all obliged to place in Bonaparte." But the first consul had a more penetrating mind than his obliging officials. Therefore, the conclusion of a concordat with France was one of the first and most important tasks that had to be resolved by the new pope, whose election the cardinals were busy on the eve of the 19th century. Germany, of course, did not have to withstand such severe storms as France; however, silence did not prevail there either. Gallicanism, which sought ecclesiastical independence, had long since penetrated abroad and infected the highest German hierarchy. When the electors met in 1741 to elect an emperor, they also intended to complain about the excessive claims of Rome. Elector Franz Georg stood for this cause, but most of the electors were against him, because such a phenomenon could serve as a temptation in the eyes of Protestants. The representative of the Elector of Trier expressed the desire that there would be a learned theologian familiar with history who would be able to put in the proper light the difference between the spiritual power of the pope and the excessive claims of the Roman Curia and draw the correct boundary between spiritual and temporal power.” This desire was fulfilled twenty-two years later when the named bishop, John-Nicholas Gontheim, under the name of Justin Febronius, published his remarkable essay on the position of the church and the legal power of the Roman bishop 3 . In his youth, Gontheim was a student of the famous Louvain canonist Van Espen, who was in contact with the Parisian circle of Port Royal and maintained contacts even with the Jansenists. Actually, the basis of his work is the Gallican system, only transplanted onto German soil: it was he who defended the rights of bishops and the state against papal autocracy. He demanded from the popes that they draw proper boundaries for their powers: but Febronius himself did not believe that they would ever agree to fulfill such a demand. Therefore, sovereigns must get down to business and protect the rights of their local churches. At the Council of Trent, the question of whether bishops receive their authority directly from God or from the pope was not resolved. Febronius shares the first view and expects that if, with the help of the sovereigns, it received universal recognition, and at the same time all papal claims were rejected, then the Roman Church would again regain its former attractiveness to the people. Bishops, he says, must not forget that they are the successors of the apostles, and must again demand for themselves the rights taken from them by the pope. Doctors of Divinity and Canon Law must overthrow the entrenched false doctrine of judicial supremacy and papal infallibility. The papal system must be replaced by the episcopal system, and the absolutism of the false papal decretals must be overthrown. In the beginning, the church was by no means a monarchy. The apostles were equal among themselves, and Peter was only among his equals. Bishops have their rights directly from Christ; the popes received their primacy solely as a result of transferring to themselves the rights taken away from the church. The doctrine that the pope represents the entire church is completely false; the true representative of the church is the ecumenical council. Bishops have the right of self-government as the heirs of the authority that was originally granted to the apostles to govern the church. This ancient order must be restored again. But how? It must be made clear to both the people and the priests where the pope's claims originate, and how groundless they are. Church councils should be convened, and best of all an ecumenical council, or at least a local council; in turn, the Roman Catholic princes must also assemble to put a limit once and for all to the power and dominion of the pope. When this work of Febronius was published, the energetic Clement XIII was sitting on the papal throne, who passionately wanted to play the role of a medieval pope. The book was immediately condemned, and every effort was made to prevent its distribution; in Rome itself, those who subscribed to the book were even condemned to the galleys. All this, however, did not prevent it from being read everywhere, and it was translated into several languages. Then all the monastic orders began to move, and almost each of them came out with their own special refutation of it. But Febronius also did not remain in debt. Despite his advanced age, he tirelessly responded to the objections of his opponents, and two popes went to their graves without having the opportunity to punish the anonymous author. When Pius VI finally found out who wrote this book, he used all his strength and efforts to force the elderly Gontheim to renounce his opinions. First of all, the Elector's confessor in Trier, a clever Jesuit, managed to undermine the position that Gontheim occupied as a trusted adviser to the Elector. Then he persuaded the elector himself to advise Gontheim to renounce his opinions, and Gontheim, under the influence of the elector, sent a written explanation to the pope in 1787, in which he expressed his respect for the Roman throne. The pope, however, was not satisfied with this, and finally forced a renunciation from Gontheim, which sounded more definite and, apparently, was drawn up in Rome. It was, of course, a great pleasure for the pope and his associates to achieve such a renunciation on the part of an eighty-year-old man; but in any case, it was no longer possible to destroy the effect that was produced by Febronius’s writing. His ideas became the common property of all educated Catholics, and even cantonists, like Pereira in Portugal and Stattler in Ingolstadt 4 , accepted these ideas. Moreover, several years later the church princes of Germany took advantage of these ideas in their general opposition to the pope. The reason for the clash between German church dignitaries and the papal throne was the following circumstance. Since the Reformation, the pope began to appoint nuncios to many places in Germany (for example, Vienna, Cologne) and Switzerland (Lucerne) in order to be able to better conduct the fight against Protestantism. Especially the nuncio in Vienna was “personified by the idea of ​​counter-reformation.” These nuncios were representatives of the pope, although they were provided with unequal powers in different places. In the establishment of these nunciatures, local bishops saw an encroachment on their power, and when in 1785 it was planned to establish a new nunciature in Vienna, they protested. True, in Bavaria there was no special local bishop who could feel an encroachment on his power; but in ecclesiastical terms this region was subordinated to the Archbishop of Salzburg and the Elector of Mainz. These high church dignitaries, who held Febronian views, came to the conviction that in establishing the new nunciature, the main goal was actually nothing more than the desire to undermine their influence in Bavaria, the then elector of which was completely in the hands of the local Jesuits. Therefore, they sent a request to Rome regarding the limits of the powers of the new nuncio, and when the answer did not satisfy them, they drew up the so-called Emsky punctuation (August 25, 1786). At the congress in Ems, the Electors of Mainz, Trier and Cologne, together with the Archbishop of Salzburg, signed a letter stating that although they see in the pope the primacy of the church, they do not want to recognize in him the importance that the popes have assigned to themselves, especially due to the false Isidorean decretals. Further, they demanded that the emperor convene a council, or in any way whatsoever give the bishops the opportunity to little by little eliminate the invading error and again properly restore the order of church government. These demands, carried out consistently, would lead to the complete abolition of papal primacy in its medieval form; and therefore it was easy to foresee that in Rome they would be met with decisive resistance. The new nuncio in Cologne, 25 years later the so famous Cardinal Pacca, received orders to open a campaign against the Em rebels. Soon after his arrival, a new university was opened at Bonn, and it was looked upon as a solemn declaration of war on the Roman throne. A few years after this, a district synod was convened in Mainz, at which, among other things, it was intended to partially abolish celibacy, so that in the future only confessors would be obligated to it; Questions were further raised about educational institutions in monasteries, about the use of the vernacular language in worship, about restrictions on the cult of saints, and finally about the reading of Holy Scripture and the abolition of the existing prohibition in this regard. However, Pakka, despite his youth, was at the height of his position and was not afraid of anything like that. Immediately after taking office, he wrote to the entire clergy of Mainz, Trier and Cologne: “It has come to the attention of the pope that some archbishops have allowed themselves to exceed their authority, and they have autocratically distributed certain dispensations belonging to the pope, especially regarding marriage among relatives. Children from such marriages, concluded without papal consent, should be considered born of incest.” The archbishops made an objection and brought a complaint to the emperor, who stood on their side; but still the pope won a victory over this form of Febronianism. It was more and more discovered that the church dignitaries in Ems were guided in their actions not so much by the desire to eliminate the religious temptation caused by papal claims, but rather by the archbishop's lust for power, which is why they did not find proper sympathy and support. The first to rebel against “punctuation” was the bishop of Speyer, and then the rest of the bishops came to him: all the bishops preferred to stand directly under the authority of the pope than under the authority of their metropolitans. Some of the sovereigns, especially the Elector of Bavaria, also took the side of the pope, so that the archbishops were left alone. In November 1789, at the behest of the Curia, a work was published, compiled by a former Jesuit, in which not only the highest authority in the church was attributed to the pope and the principles underlying the Ems punctuation were rejected, but also the apostolic maxim: “God must be obeyed more than men,” was applied to all those cases in which the will of the pope collided with the laws of the country. But this work coincided with the explosion of the French Revolution, and under the influence of this world event, the Ems punctuation fell into oblivion. The revolution, meanwhile, contributed to the widespread dissemination of a special order that seriously threatened the Roman Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits, namely the Order of the Illuminati, which became widely known. The founder of this order was the canonist and moral philosopher Adam Weishaupt in Ingolstadt. He was raised by the Jesuits, but soon succumbed to the influence of the mental trend that surged from France, which boasted the euphonious name of enlightenment. He saw the Jesuits as the worst enemies of this enlightenment, and therefore decided to found an alliance that could serve as a countermine against Jesuitism. This union, founded by him on May 1, 1796, took as its model the Jesuit Order, as well as Masonic lodges. Its members gave themselves the name “Illuminati” because they wanted to defend the cause of light against the darkness of superstition, and as insignia of the order they used the letters R.M.S.V. (per me caeci vident, i.e., the blind see through me). “To give dominance to reason” - that, in Weishaupt’s own expression, was the goal of this union, and they tried to achieve this goal through the fight against absolutism and through the eradication of superstition and religious prejudices everywhere. Members of the various degrees of the order were also initiated into the secrets of “enlightenment” and brought up, like the pupils of the Jesuits, in the dogmas of the Roman Church, and at the same time the same unconditional obedience to the authorities was required of them as in the Jesuit order, and the system of espionage was developed in the same way. Therefore, Weishaupt is aptly called the Loyola of the “German Enlightenment.” In the lower grades it was suggested to read books that could serve to educate the heart. In the field of poetry, reading was supposed to consist of fables and instructive poems; but next to them it was also recommended to read the works of Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plutarch, Adam Smith, Basedow. Helvetius and others. In the higher grades, members were primarily concerned with civic and religious education. Along with Weishaupt’s own writings, which revealed his strong dependence on Rousseau, they had to study “religious books” such as the “System of Nature” and the works of Helvetius. The Illuminati also spread outside the Roman Church, so that, for example, they had their adherents in Denmark and even in Sweden. Baron Knigge, the author of the famous essay on "Dealing with People", was an active leader of both the Freemasons and the Illuminati. Duke Karl August of Weimar belonged to the order under the name "Aeschylus", Ferdinand of Brunswick - under the name "Arona". Such persons as Schlosser and Pestallozzi undoubtedly also belonged to the order, and there is evidence from that time which makes it highly probable that Herder and Goethe also belonged to this order. But the strong spread of the order naturally led to opposition to him from his opponents. Weishaupt was deposed as “an arrogant, notorious chief of lodges,” and even a prize was placed on his head. However, he found refuge with the Duke of Gotha, with whom he lived until his death, which followed only in 1830. A few years after he fled from Ingolstadt, the order weakened, but not before completing its immediate task, namely uniting all the enemies of the Jesuits in united activity against them. This activity, however, was short-lived; but it continued long enough to make evident the fact that most of these enemies were then to be found in the ranks of the rationalists, as well as the other fact that rationalism was reaping a rich harvest also within the Roman church. Both the Febronian principle and the principle of “enlightenment” found supporters and leaders even on Roman Catholic thrones. Emperor Joseph II, being co-emperor with his mother, decided to visit his royal brother-in-law at Versailles in order to personally become acquainted with the main representatives of the intellectual movements of Europe at that time. He traveled, however, in strict incognito, lived in a hotel and did not take any part in court celebrations. But when he returned, it soon became clear what fruits his journey had brought him. After visiting France, he began to act towards his mother as a man of a new era, and between mother and son it often came to a difference of opinion. When he became the sole and unlimited ruler, he granted his subjects complete freedom of the press, issuing a law according to which it was forbidden to publish only such works that “related in an outrageous manner to religion and good morals or to the state and local authorities.” He gave permission to openly criticize everyone and everyone, from the sovereign to the very last person in the state; and it is clear that it was not long before pamphlets appeared in large numbers, in which both the emperor and religion were criticized. Joseph took religion under his protection; but he left his own personality to be criticized by these “greyhound writers” as they pleased. Those of the clergy who were not happy with his church laws, and the supporters of “enlightenment”, with whom he was not particularly friendly, made the most vehement attacks on him. However, more important than the law on the press was the Edict of Tolerance of October 15, 1781. By virtue of this edict, Protestants (and at the same time hundreds of Protestant families were found in places) received permission to build houses of worship, but without towers and bells, and without entrance doors from the street. At the same time it was announced that Protestants throughout Joseph's dominions, by special imperial permission, could enjoy access to public positions, academic degrees, and full rights of citizenship and property. The previously associated obligation to raise all children in the Roman Catholic faith, which had previously been associated with mixed marriages, was limited, but mutual tolerance was generally proposed. The papal bull with its curse on all those whom the Roman Church calls heretics was excluded from the collection of church laws, 700 monasteries were closed and their estates were turned over to the cause of public education and charity. Only those monks and nuns who were engaged in teaching or caring for the sick could remain in their rank; the admission of newcomers was prohibited, and the latter were placed under strict supervision. German Bibles and German church singing were introduced, and with lively zeal Joseph II seized on the idea of ​​opposing Rome to a free German national church. Further, it was forbidden to issue papal bulls and district messages in the monarchy of the emperor without special permission each time. Even for burial, a new order was established: corpses were ordered to be buried not in coffins, but in tags, precisely because the previous custom of burial in coffins entailed the useless destruction of the forest. The rest of Europe heard with surprise about the emperor's countless church reforms, and Frederick II mockingly called Joseph "my brother the sacristan." In Rome, on the contrary, the Viennese news aroused anger and horror. Pope Pius VI even decided to personally intervene in the matter and, in a personal meeting with the emperor, try to lead him astray. He ordered a report to Vienna that he had the intention of personally visiting Emperor Joseph at his residence. Joseph was extremely surprised by this proposed trip of the pope, and politely tried to decline its implementation. He felt that the pope would now be a strange guest in the imperial Hofburg. The cardinals also did not advise the pope to undertake this journey, reminding him that since the Council of Constance, none of the successors of St. Peter did not set foot on German soil. But dad insisted on his own and hit the road. The Catholics all along the route greeted him with great jubilation, and the Emperor Joseph, who also welcomed him cordially, himself brought him into Vienna. In the wing of the imperial castle, the pope was provided with a magnificently decorated room, but only one door led into this room, which was under strict guard. The German bishops received an imperial order not to come to Vienna; but the people flocked from all sides to receive a blessing from the pope. Many, unable to find accommodation in the city, remained on ships and boats on the Danube, and for some time they even feared that there might be a shortage of provisions. So great was the desire of the Austrian population to see the “vicar of Christ.” Several times every day, the pope had to give a blessing to large crowds of people from the balcony of the castle, and high-ranking visitors received an audience every day to be able to kiss the fisherman's ring on the pope's hand. On Easter Day, Pius VI celebrated in the Cathedral of St. Stephen's solemn liturgy, and after lunch that same day appeared on the porch of the Jesuit church in front of a crowd of almost 50,000 people with the triple crown on his head. Even the enemies of the church were touched at the sight of such reverence of the people for the pope; but the emperor did not move enough to cancel the church laws he had issued. His closest adviser, minister Prince Kaunitz, flatterer of the Marquise of Pompadour and admirer of Voltaire, was a man without any religion: the only thing that disturbed him in his philosophical peace was the thought of death, so it was even directly forbidden to utter the word “death” in his presence. When his old friend, Baron Binder, died, the news of this was conveyed to him with the words: “On ne trouve plus le baron Binder” (Baron Binder is no longer found), and those around him had to constantly resort to all sorts of twists and turns in order to avoid this ominous word for him. Kaunitz saw with annoyance that he was still not the most popular person in the eyes of the Viennese, and he took revenge for this by not fulfilling the most ordinary signs of respect towards the pope. Pius VI was extremely astonished when the Roman Catholic minister shook his hand firmly instead of kissing it respectfully. Probably, Kaunitz should also be credited with the fact that the pope achieved nothing with this journey. As soon as negotiations were discussed, Joseph asked the pope to put his proposals in writing, because he knew too little theology and church law to discuss such things orally, and therefore he must talk about them with his advisers. Having achieved nothing during his four-week stay in Vienna, Dad set off on his way back. The emperor accompanied him to Mariabrunn, and before parting they performed a common prayer in the monastery church; But already on the same day, imperial officials arrived there to close the monastery. With this, Kaunitz wanted to take revenge for the weakness and lack of independence of his emperor. The abortive visit was followed by a very lively correspondence between the Curia and the Austrian government. Emperor Joseph personally went to Rome, but not to bow before the pope and carry out his will; on the contrary, he definitely expressed to the Spanish envoy that he had the intention of achieving greater independence for the Church of Austria. Let them call him a schismatic - it means absolutely nothing to him: he is not afraid of the Peruns of the Vatican. The Spanish envoy, however, cooled these ideas in him, proving to him that such a break with the pope was impossible on the basis of Roman Catholicism, that it would only arouse fanaticism among the peoples of Austria. Joseph agreed with this diplomatic consideration, and instead of the expected break between the emperor and the pope, the best agreement took place. Later, when fortune proved unfavorable to his arms, when the Dutch broke away from him, when ferment and discontent appeared throughout Austria, he repealed most of his laws. Only the abolition of serfdom and the Edict of Tolerance remained in force. In his will, Joseph asked for forgiveness from all those to whom he had not done complete justice, and asked everyone not to forget that “the monarch on his throne is the same man as any poor man in his hut, and that both are subject to the same errors.” Joseph's younger brother and successor on the imperial throne, Leopold II, ruled Tuscany for a quarter of a century before inheriting Austria. When Joseph began his church reforms, his brother followed in his footsteps. In Tuscany, better arrangements were given for the education of the clergy, and priests were charged with the duty of taking greater care of the religious education of the people. However, Leopold did not want to limit himself to these reforms, and intended in particular to undermine the dominant influence of Rome. In 1786, he made a proposal to the bishops of his region, by virtue of which it was necessary to convene councils every two years, and their main task was: improvements in the liturgical order and in school affairs, then repulse the claims of the pope. Only a handful of bishops agreed with this plan of the Grand Duke: the most prominent of them was Scipio Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia. He was essentially a Jansenist, and if the government inspired the clergy to adhere to the teachings of the bl. Augustine and explore St. Scripture under the leadership of the Jansenist Quesnel, then no doubt it was at his insistence. Scipio Ricci happily seized on the idea of ​​councils and soon convened a council in Pistoia. In the fall of 1786, up to 300 clergy gathered in the Church of St. Leopold, and, contrary to all customs, they were given the right to speak openly and freely about everything. The council had a decidedly Jansonistic tint, and immediately adopted four so-called Gallican propositions. He approved the position that the church does not have the right to introduce new dogmas, and regarding the infallibility of the church, he stated that it is conditioned by fidelity to Holy Scripture and ancient tradition; finally decided to eliminate the various abuses that had invaded the divine service. Grand Duke Leopold was delighted with the readiness with which this council accepted all his plans, but he had to experience great disappointment when, from the impression made by this council, he drew a conclusion about the prevailing mood in the ecclesiastical spheres of his country. The following year he summoned all the Tuscan bishops to a general council at the Pitti Palace in Florence; but at this council Ricci found himself almost alone, because the new council opposed any changes. The Grand Duke, however, did not want to give up his reform plans. But soon afterwards he was called to the imperial throne, and, in accordance with the order of succession to the throne, had to lay down the Tuscan crown. In Tuscany, he left a regency, to which he inspired: “in church affairs or in general in important matters, never show compliance with the Roman court.” But the new government took a different path, and after Leopold's death soon followed, Scipione Ricci's many enemies gained the upper hand. The Bishop of Pistoia was forced to abdicate his office; then he was arrested, and the pope, in a solemn bull, condemned the 85 provisions that were adopted by the Council of Pistoia, and. of course, first of all, the sympathy he expressed for Gallicanism. Although the soon-following Battle of Marengo opened the prison doors for Spizio Ricci, he was left alone only after he openly acknowledged the papal verdict over the Council of Pistoia. This he did, no doubt, with a tacit reservation, and only under the pressure that the government put on him: “because then there were completely different times than in the days of Leopold.” And here too the pope gained the upper hand over some of his opponents. But the violent suppression of Febronianism was by no means equivalent to its complete eradication. The Febronian movement, however, was nothing in comparison with the revolution, and to the great fear of the pope, the ideas of the revolution became widespread in Italy. There was great unrest in the country. Freethinkers and the church stood against each other, both the nobility and the citizens opposed the adherents of the monarchy, and the popular spirit began to be aroused against the foreign ruler. The so-called ministerial reforms, which were conceived in the spirit of French philosophers, were put into effect on the Italian Peninsula to a large extent. In Lombardy, which was under Austrian rule, Minister Firmian acted in the spirit of Joseph II and Leopold II; Parma had in the person of Don Philip and Minister Tilly, Tuscany in the person of Rinuccini, Pallavicini and Giani, persons who were more or less under the influence of French philosophers. Many other influential people were also brought up under the influence of the new philosophy, and the Italian free states, without paying attention to Christianity and the church, simply sought material prosperity. The moral depravity which in France had penetrated from the upper classes to the lower ones was also noticeable in Italy. During the transformation of universities, which took place after the expulsion of the Jesuits, they almost entirely passed into the hands of freethinkers, and from them came strong opposition to any influence of the church. When Pompey, Herculaneum and Paestum again saw the light of day, then, just as three centuries ago during the time of humanism, paganism again rose from its tomb, and the discovery of many papyrus scrolls containing the works of Greek thinkers again had the same effect as those Eastern Roman book treasures that, after the fall of Constantinople, penetrated into the West. At the end of the last century, ancient influences were felt everywhere, both in the then character of architecture, and in the style of furniture and in the cut of clothes. Despite all the pope’s peruns, the Freemasons spread widely throughout Italy, and the Illuminati order also counted many adherents on the other side of the Alps. Works with the most harsh attacks against the pope and the church appeared in huge numbers; the papacy was portrayed in them as the greatest disaster for humanity and as a brake on all education and enlightenment. The philosopher and political economist Genovesi, a student of Locke and Leibniz, advocated completely excluding theology from the university in Naples and taking its place with history and physics. Italy in the eighteenth century was not left behind in its contributions to world literature, and especially in those areas where new paths were then being blazed. Unfortunately, the Italians followed the prevailing taste in the field of art. They no longer had any interest, no desire to rise inwardly through the contemplation of beauty; everyone just wanted to have fun. The influence of Paris spoiled the taste of the Italians. Italy created no more: everything was a simple imitation. Although Italy in almost every respect showed a certain originality in its innovations, the impetus for this new movement was not at all native. It did not begin until France laid its strong hand on it. The French had long been looking for an excuse to overthrow the pope, and found one when Pius VI introduced a new military organization. With these military changes the papacy did not have any external enemies in mind, and even after their introduction the papal army could only be of value as a police corps, which at most was sufficient to suppress internal unrest. This was immediately revealed during his first encounter with the French. When in 1797 Bonaparte, having already won several victories in northern Italy, moved to central Italy, the papal army was unable to stop the movements of his troops. The French were moving through Romagna; they took Ancona and reached Tolentino, where the papal army (February 19, 1797) was forced to make peace. Under this peace treaty, the pope ceded not only Avignon and Venessen to the French. but also three legations: Bologna, Ferrara and Romagna. Next, he had to agree to the occupation of Ancona by the French garrison, pay 30,000,000 francs in war losses and, in addition, cede many artistic treasures. It was a cruel world, and yet, considering the prevailing mood in France, quite bearable. Bonaparte acted against the wishes of the Directory when he left the pope alone in Rome and, on his own responsibility, wrote to Cardinal Mattei, the pope’s representative, that “the successor of St. Peter, as the highest minister of religion, will at all times find protection from him for himself and the church.” But at the same time, he instructed the French envoy at the papal court, Joseph Bonaparte, to support the revolutionary ferment in Rome 5. He was ordered “not to interfere with the plans of those who considered it more in keeping with the spirit of the times to end the papal government, but rather to promote them”; in a word, he was to encourage the Roman people to take the leap towards freedom, which they were apparently already ready to take. And the order was fulfilled. On December 28, 1797, under the windows of Joseph Bonaparte, in front of the Palazzo Corsini, up to 500 Roman rebels gathered, who furiously shouted: “Freedom! Long live the French Republic! Down with dad! The young, brave French General Dufault appeared on the street, stood at the head of the crowd and led it to storm the apartment of the papal soldiers at Ponte Sisto. The small detachment located there behaved calmly until the mob irritated the soldiers so much with their bullying that they could no longer endure it. Unfortunately, a shot was fired that hit General Dufault, so that he fell dead in the square. This event led to terrible confusion. Gunfire rang out in the streets of Rome, and the pope's advisers were in twofold fear: on the one hand, they feared that the rebels would attack the papal government, and on the other hand, that the pope's supporters would rush at the French police. At early dawn the next day, Joseph Bonaparte left Rome, although the pope had sent him a guard against possible insults, and the Directory in Paris lost its temper when the news of Dufault's death reached it. The official newspaper called on the French people to shed tears “because one of their brilliant generals had fallen at the treacherous and murderous hands of the Roman priests.” General Berthier was sent to Rome with 15,000 troops; and he was given instructions to hurry as much as possible to warn the Neapolitans. When the French were two days' march from Rome, the pope was forced to flee, as there was a clear danger to his person. In a hurry to carry out the order, Berthier did not accept the representatives whom the pope sent to him for negotiations: they were admitted only before the very gates of Rome. But even having arrived there, he again did not want to negotiate with them, and, without drawing a sword, the French entered Rome on February 10. Five days after that, a republic was solemnly proclaimed there, and Berthier did not fail to “pray to the spirits of Cato, Pompey, Brutus, Cicero and Hortensius, so that they would favorably accept the offering of the French on the Capitol”; On behalf of the "free mature" people, the Roman deputation, consisting of Jews, robed monks and political adventurers, made a statement to Pope Pius VI that he had lost his temporal power and that in the future he would be only a simple citizen. A few days later, the pope was forcibly taken from Rome to Siena, and from here further to a Carthusian monastery near Florence, since Siena was in too dangerous a neighborhood with Rome. From Florence, despite his advanced age and illness, he was sent to Besançon; but even there they did not give him peace. The then victories of the Russians brought fear to the French, and therefore it was decided to transport the pope to Dijon. But he no longer reached there. He died in Valence in the province of Dauphine. Being on his deathbed, exhausted and tormented by all the vicissitudes of fate, he only exclaimed, turning to those close to him who consoled him: “My suffering is great; but the torment of my heart is even heavier. The cardinals and bishops are scattered - Rome, my people, the church - this is what torments me day and night! In what position do I leave them?.. And indeed the situation was terrible. After the death of Pius VI, the papacy virtually no longer existed. There were not even cardinals who could form a conclave to elect a new pope. It seemed to the freethinkers that they had sufficient reason to celebrate a funeral feast for the papacy, which had ended its centuries-old history. But they were wrong. The Papacy proved more resilient than they had expected, and rose again from its destruction. 2. The conclave that elected the first pope of the 19th century Order of Pius VI for the conclave. – Meeting of the conclave in Venice – A look at the work of the conclave in its historical development. – Meetings under the key and in isolation from the outside world. – Parties and their intrigues in the conclave. – Participation of powers. – Fight over candidates. - An unexpected candidate. – Election of Pius VII and his entry into Rome. -His Secretary of State Consalvi. A year before his death, Pope Pius VI decreed that the conclave, which was to elect his successor, due to the special circumstances of the time, should meet where the majority of the cardinals would be found or where the latter would find it most convenient. When Cardinal-Legate Albani, who was staying in Venice, received news of the death of Pius VI at the end of September 1799, he invited the cardinals to meet in this particular city to consult about the place of the conclave. At first he hoped that he would be allowed to summon the cardinals to Rome, which was then lost to the French: during Bonaparte’s stay in Egypt, the Russians and Austrians drove them out of Italy. But the Austrian minister Thugut opposed this plan and therefore it was decided to hold a conclave in Venice. Before the ceremonial opening of the conclave, according to custom, the election of a secretary began. Many prominent prelates sought this important and honorable position, but a man was elected to it who did not at all count on this honor, namely Consalvi, who later turned out to be one of the most remarkable men of his time and played a major role in the history of the papacy throughout the first quarter of our century. Born in 1757 in Rome into an old noble family and having received an excellent upbringing, Consalvi entered the clergy, became a very close person at the papal court and from that time on became the main genius of papal politics, and together with the pope in these turbulent times he shared both the triumphs and defeats of the papacy. When Pius VI was taken prisoner by the French, Consalvi was imprisoned in the Castle of the Angel, where he remained for several months, until he managed to free himself and arrive in Venice. Having been elected secretary of the conclave, his first task was to send a message to all European courts about the death of the pope. Under ordinary circumstances, this task was not difficult: several pompous phrases are usually expressed here in praise of the deceased pope, so that all such messages are almost word for word similar to each other. But under the circumstances of that time it was a completely different task and a very difficult Austria had recently occupied three papal legations and an ecclesiastical state before Rome; Naples occupied Rome and the papal region as far as Terracina, and the king of Spain allowed himself various actions, in which it was also impossible not to see a desire for conquest. The conclave had to take place on foreign soil, in a city that belonged to a power that held in its hands a significant part of the ecclesiastical region. Consalvi therefore began his task not without hesitation. First of all, he sent a letter to the German-Roman (Austrian) emperor: depicting this sovereign in it as a combination of Constantine the Great, Theodosius and Charlemagne, he especially exposed the internal connection between the throne and the altar. “The enemies of the church,” he wrote, “and your enemies. Unfortunately, too many crowned heads in our time have seen the dignity and power of the church decline, and at the same time the power of sovereigns is destroyed. Return the Church of God to its former splendor, then the enemies of the royal power will tremble with fear before the mighty sword. Who defends the sanctified imperial power." A message replete with the most exquisite expressions of respect was sent to the Russian Emperor Paul I, who gave direct orders to his troops to protect the Roman Church from violence. “The late pope, this message said, constantly remembered the emperor with keen interest. And who of all the sovereigns could better avert the dangers that threatened the church, if not he? And who could most quickly lead her to honor and glory? The College of Cardinals, as a faithful guardian of legal order, also sent a message and greetings to Louis XVIII, King of France, who was then leading an unstable, wandering life in Europe. “The very hands, said this message, which stained themselves with the royal blood of his brother in his kingdom of France, recently caused the death of the most holy pope. The day that sees Louis XVIII on the throne of his fathers will also be joyful and blessed for the church: then the most Christian king will restore the church to its former splendor, religion, piety, good morals will lead to new prosperity in his state and will educate a kind and inquisitive people. After preparing and sending these letters, it was the duty of the conclave secretary to find proper premises for the conclave meeting. In Rome, the place of such a meeting was always the Vatican: in some cases, however, especially when hygienic reasons required it, the cardinals also met in the Quirinal, another papal palace. For the present conclave, the emperor provided the Benedictine monastery on the small island of St. George the Great, located near Venice. October and November were spent in preparations, and since neither the college of cardinals nor the papal throne had any funds, the Austrian government had to assume all expenses. These expenses generally rose to 24,000 Roman scudi or guilders [about 50,000 rubles]. The cardinals then lived in extremely cramped circumstances and some of them received annual allowances even from Protestant governments. So Denmark paid up to 1,000 rubles to Cardinal Borgia, and England annually paid 4,000 pounds sterling to Cardinal York to give him the opportunity to live in accordance with his position. Cardinals who lived outside Venice found it difficult to find funds even to go to this city. The rich Roman banker Marquis Torlonia, who also provided financial support to the pope in Tolentino, came to their aid. He opened his credit and his purse to the cardinals, although they could not take advantage of this generous offer. At the end of November, the usual nine-day masses were celebrated for the deceased pope, and on November 30, 44 of the 45 cardinals then in the Roman Church gathered for a conclave. The cardinals gathered under the impression that great things were about to happen. Just on October 18, when Consalvi sent his messages to the sovereigns of Austria and Russia and the legitimate king of France, Bonaparte returned from Egypt and before the cardinals had gathered at the monastery of St. George, 18 Brumaire, a consulate was formed in place of the directory. The establishment of order in the paperwork of conclaves actually dates back to the end of the 13th century. When Pope Clement IV died in Viterbo in 1270, the cardinals, of whom there were 15 at that time, could not agree among themselves regarding the election of his successor and wanted to disperse without electing a new pope. But Bonaventure, who at that time was not yet a cardinal himself, persuaded the prefect and Podesta in Viterbo to lock the cardinals in the bishop's house until the See of St. Peter was again occupied. Cardinal-Bishop John of Toledo, seeing that a spirit of discord constantly prevailed among the cardinals, although they daily offered prayer for unity, said jokingly: “Remove the roof, otherwise the Holy Spirit will not come to us.” The authorities took him at his word and shone the roof off the room in which the cardinals were meeting. Despite the inconvenience this caused to the cardinals, however, the matter still did not move forward. In the assembly there was a quarrel between the Italians and the French, and it became so fierce that Charles of Sicily, as well as Philip of France, decided to go to Viterbo themselves in order to speed up the election of the pope. But it was precisely the news of the impending arrival of the sovereigns that caused the resolution of the matter to slow down even more: before making a choice, both parties wanted to wait for the arrival of the sovereigns. Then the authorities of the city of Viterbo came up with a new remedy: the cardinals received less and less food every day, and this remedy had the desired effect. Fearing death by starvation, six cardinals, in order to achieve their release from prison, decided to end the election and elected Teobaldo Visconti, who was then in the holy land, as Pope, under the name Gregory X. Upon his return to his homeland, the latter convened a council in Lyon - mainly on the issue of the union of the Western Church with the Eastern. At the fifth meeting of this council, he intended to propose a draft charter for the election of popes in order to encourage the cardinals to speed up the matter; but as soon as the cardinals heard about this, they tried to arrange things in such a way that the meetings were postponed for a whole week. Meanwhile, the pope, in secret conversations, convinced the prelates of the need to put pressure on the cardinals, and when the prelates bowed to his thoughts, the cardinals also had to yield. This is how the famous constitution of Gregory X was drawn up, which, however, Gregory’s immediate successor Adrian V again abolished, and John XXI deprived of all significance. Celestine V again declared it to have legal force, and it is precisely, despite particular modifications, that retains its significance to this day. As soon as the witnesses under oath declare the death of the pope, a larger bell is heard on the Capitol. Over the next 10 days, nine masses are then celebrated for the repose of the soul of the newly deceased pope, and on the eleventh day the conclave opens 6 . There are numerous rooms separated by wooden partitions, two for each cardinal. In one, almost six square arshins in size, he lives himself, and in the other, somewhat smaller, his secretary, the so-called conclaveist, is placed. Rooms designated by numbers are distributed by lot. The furnishings, usually very simple and the same in all, consist of a bed, a table, a washbasin and a pair of chairs. The cardinal's coat of arms is nailed onto the furniture and doors along a narrow corridor of rooms separated from each other. Most of the rooms are quite dark, since they receive light only from above, which penetrates very poorly through the window, and, moreover, curtained from below, into the large room in which these rooms are located. All doors are then walled up, except for one, through which belated cardinals are allowed in, and dangerously ill cardinals or conclavists can also exit. Beside this single door is a small window through which foreign envoys convey greetings and messages from their governments to the conclave. In addition, there are still openings in several places through which food and drink are supplied, and these openings are under strict surveillance. The main goal of this entire establishment is to strictly remove all influence from the outside world, although this goal is not always successfully achieved. Already in 1560, the Venetian envoy in Rome, Luigi Moccenigo, said that not only single letters, but also entire bundles of letters penetrated the conclave. There were also cases when cardinals maintained contact with the outside world through pheasants, which were given to them filled with dispatches, or through pastes, which also contained letters. According to the old rule, cardinals were entitled to a very meager allowance; but this has long been abandoned: the cardinals imprisoned in the conclave are now served not just one meager dish, as before, but entire luxurious dinners are sent. During the entire conclave meeting, one of the greatest pleasures for the residents of Rome is to watch how dinners for the cardinals are carried into the conclave in a long train. As soon as 12 o'clock strikes, almost fifty government carriages immediately appear, carrying lunches for the members of the conclave. Two stately attendants in livery carry dinner baskets woven from green and purple twigs on decorated sticks. Then there are two or three more dressed ministers and a young priest [breadmaker], who, by his participation in this gastronomic procession, tries to win the patronage of one or another cardinal, and if this cardinal is elected pope, then of course he can hope to win even more in the lottery that every conclave represents. Early in the morning on the day appointed for the opening of the conclave, all the cardinals first of all gather in some church, and when the conclave takes place in the Vatican, it is always in the Six and a certain chapel. There the cardinal dean celebrates the so-called Mass of the Holy Spirit, at the end of which he addresses the cardinals with an exhortation in the sense that they should not hesitate to elect a worthy head for the church. Then a solemn procession to the conclave opens. At the head of the procession are the ministers of the cardinals and the papal chapel, which sings: veni creator spiritus! She is followed by the master of ceremonies with a high cross, and after him come two cardinals in violet-blue robes. The entire procession ends with the Swiss Guard, followed by countless people. Having entered the conclave, the cardinals first of all enter the chapel designated for the final vote. Here a general prayer is performed, then all the bulls relating to the election of popes are read, and the cardinals take an oath to comply with the decisions of these bulls. Moreover, each cardinal must swear in advance, in case he is elected to the papal throne, that he will not waste anything from the estates and rights belonging to the church. During this day, the conclave rooms remain open until late in the evening for every visitor. At the same time, sovereigns and envoys greet the cardinals or conduct final negotiations with them regarding the upcoming election. Meanwhile, the officials of the conclave take the oath and begin their duties - and they especially must promise not to divulge the secrets of the conclave. At the ringing of the bell, all those not belonging to the conclave are removed. In addition to the cardinals and conclaves, the conclave must include the sacristan of the papal chapel, which always belongs to the Augustinian order and is constituted by the bishop in partibus, one or more masters of ceremonies, an assistant to the sacristan, a confessor who cannot be a Jesuit, two doctors, a surgeon, an apothecary with two assistants, and two barbers. A mason, a carpenter and several servants who supply the cells with firewood and take care of their cleanliness. The doors of the conclave are locked from the inside with two keys, which are given to the chamberlain and the master of ceremonies. The door is also locked from the outside with two keys, which are kept by the conclave marshal. After the door of the conclave has been locked with four keys, the chamberlain, accompanied by three cardinals and the master of ceremonies, walks around the entire room with lighted torches to make sure that no one who does not belong to the conclave is hiding anywhere. An inspection is then made to determine whether the main door is properly locked, and a special report is drawn up regarding this inspection. The next morning, when the conclave is already locked, the cardinals gather in the chapel. Here again the Mass of the Holy Spirit is celebrated and everyone receives communion. A table is placed in front of the altar, with places specially arranged for casting votes. The election itself is carried out in three ways. The cardinals may delegate the election of the new pope to any one person or to a committee appointed for this purpose. According to one legend, Jacob D'Ossa, having received such an order, immediately exclaimed: “I am Papa - Papa ego!” and thereby chose himself. Another method of election is the so-called “adoration" (adoratio) and in this way Popes Marcellus II and Paul IV were elected. This method is used in cases where at least two-thirds of the cardinals all together approach the one they want to elect and, by bowing before him, thereby letting him know of their intention to elect him. However, this method is used very rarely. The third method is usually used, namely through the submission of voting cards. Gregory XV and Urban VIII issued very detailed rules for this method of election. At the top of the ticket, the cardinal writes his own name, folds the ticket and seals it. At the very bottom he writes a saying from Holy Scripture or some other saying, as well as a number, after which he folds the ticket again and seals what was written. In the middle of the ticket he writes the name of the cardinal for whom he is casting his vote, but in such a way as to make his handwriting, if possible, unrecognizable. Finally, he rolls up the entire ticket and approaches the table standing in front of the altar, on which stands a bowl covered with a patena [plate with wafers]: here he kneels and says a short prayer, then stands up and swears “to choose the one who must be chosen before the face of God.” First, the voting card is placed on the board, and then it is lowered into the bowl. Before taking out the tickets, three cardinals are elected in order to collect the votes of the sick. Each of them takes a box, in the lid of which there is a small hole just enough to squeeze a folded ticket through. First, each of them shows his box to the assembly as proof that it is empty; then he locks his drawer, puts the key on the table and goes to the cell of the sick cardinals. When voting is completed, the counting of voting tickets begins. Three cardinals, one after another, read the names written in the middle of the voting cards, and all the other cardinals make marks against the names of the persons called out on the pre-distributed list of all members of the conclave. The read tickets are strung on a special thread and set aside for the upcoming evening voting. As soon as a cardinal receives two-thirds of the votes, he is canonically considered elected; otherwise, a new vote takes place in the evening. In this evening meeting business is conducted in the same way, with only a slight modification. During evening voting (the so-called per accesso), no one can cast their vote for the same candidate as in the morning, but must join those candidates who have already received a comparative majority (accedere) or even simply for no one (nemini - this is what is written on the ticket). If now any candidate turns out to have received the required two-thirds of the votes, then he is elected. If the election does not take place this time, then voting takes place again the next morning. In recent conclaves, such voting was, however, directly adjacent to voting in the proper sense of the word, as a kind of addition to it, so that in general voting was carried out four times daily. By the evening, all unsuccessfully submitted voting tickets are burned in the oven, and when the inhabitants of Rome notice smoke coming out of the chimney, this serves as a sign to them that the election of the pope has not yet taken place on this day. Previously, the inhabitants of Rome took an extremely keen interest in the earliest possible end of the conclave, because while the meetings of the conclave continued, all industrial and entertainment establishments were usually closed. Therefore, the people looked forward to the day when there would be no smoke and the Cardinal Dean, appearing on the balcony, would announce the outcome of the elections. This complex order of paperwork in the conclave during the election, which took place after the death of Pius VI, of course had to undergo some modifications, because it took place outside Rome; but, in general, he remained the same. A lot of time passed before the cardinals gathered in conclave and until then nothing was done. The Austrian Emperor was informed whether he would find it necessary to send his envoy to the conclave; but this proposal was rejected, since the interests of Austria in the conclave were represented by one famous cardinal. This Cardinal Herzan delayed for several days, so that the paperwork had to be postponed to await his arrival. When he arrived, voting began. The conclave split into three parties. The Austrian party, which was outwardly led by Cardinal Antonelli and secretly led by Herzan, wanted to elect Cardinal Mattei as pope, as he had repeatedly provided services to Austria. The second party was in the strict sense Roman. Its official leader was the nephew of the late pope, Cardinal Braschi, who gathered around him cardinals who felt especially obliged to thank the memory of Pius VI: its actual leader was Albani. The candidate of this party was Cardinal Bellisomi, of whom it could be assumed that he would certainly stand for the rights of the ecclesiastical state. Previously he was nuncio to Portugal and then bishop of Cesena. The third party, the so-called indecisive (volanti), consisted of the Cardinal of York, Zealand, Maury and the learned cardinals Borgia and Gerdil, of whom the latter became famous for his essay on religion, directed against the encyclopedists. The only states that followed the affairs of the conclave with particular interest were Austria proper and Naples. The French had long been busy with completely different matters, and in general, for the France of that time, the election of the pope had very little meaning. However, in the conclave there was no shortage of supporters of this state, Chiaramonti, Caprara, Di Pietro and Doria, the former nuncio in Paris, treated with lively sympathy for the affairs of France; but it was unsafe to show such sympathy as a member of the conclave and, moreover, on Austrian soil. Spain, which in former times had been very interested in the so-called conclave policy, was now indifferent to the matter. She decisively eliminated any interference of the papal court in her affairs, and the first minister of Charles III D'Urquillo freed the Spanish bishops from the intrusive tutelage of the Curia, as well as the Spanish people from burdensome exactions in favor of Rome. In one of the first votes, 18 votes fell on Bellisomi, and from private conversations it could be concluded that at the next vote several more cardinals would cast their votes in his favor. Thus, it seemed that the conclave would soon come to its desired end. But such an outcome was entirely against the interests of Austria, and therefore Herzan began to play an underground game, trying to destroy this candidacy, which he succeeded in doing. Then two other personalities came to the fore, and with great success. Mirabeau's rival in France, the proud and cold-blooded Archbishop Maury, used to drink chocolate in a conclave with one of his closest neighbors. His neighbor was Cardinal Ruffo from Naples, and the chocolate he served was a gift from Queen Caroline of Naples, to whom Ruffo was very close. Neither of these two cardinals was particularly respected by their colleagues. Ruffo wrote to his king that he entered into communication with others only to the extent required by extreme necessity, “because they all look at him as a Jacobin.” Chance brought Maury and Ruffo together, but they turned out to be perfectly suited to each other. Ruffo once wrote even to his master that he “conversed from time to time with another Jacobin” in the conclave. During his walks in the monastery garden, he sometimes meets the cardinal, "who has a very cheerful gait and, as he walks, hums to himself some of his favorite fashionable melodies." This cardinal was Chiaramonti, Bishop of Imola. At first Ruffo only bowed to him, then, as he passed, he exchanged separate words with him, and finally they entered into a long conversation with each other. From this conversation, Ruffo became convinced that Chiaramonti was the real candidate for the papal throne, especially if we take into account both the needs of the time and the special desires of Naples. However, there are special difficulties that prevent his election. Barnabas Ludovic Chiaramonti was born on August 14, 1742, in Cesena, in the legation of Forli. His father belonged to the Italian nobility, although he was not distinguished by either nobility or wealth. Having received an education in Parma, as a 16-year-old youth he entered the Benedictine Order, and added the name of Gregory to his name; later, as a teacher of theology, he arrived in Rome and there publicly defended his dissertation, which, among other things, included the proposition that “there will also be a place in heaven for women,” which was denied by one famous fanatic at that time. Chiaramonti was somewhat related to Pius VI and, by the grace of the pope, became titular abbot in the Benedictine monastery of St. Callistus, so that he could wear a ring and a miter, and was given a prominent place in the choir, although in all other respects he was subordinate to the abbot chosen by the monks. This papal favor aroused displeasure against him on the part of the brethren, so that Abbot Gregory suffered all sorts of troubles. While investigating this case, Pius VI became even closer to his relative and fell in love with him even more. As soon as the episcopal see became vacant in the charmingly located Tivol, Chiaramonti was elevated to it; but, having become a bishop, he continued to lead a strictly monastic life. In the forest near Tivoli, he allowed several hermits to build their cells, and among them the later famous German Redemptorist Clement Hoffbauer, who was then expelled from Austria. When the pope's uncle, Cardinal Bondi, died, the episcopal seat in Imola became vacant and Chiaramonti moved from Tivoli to Imola. Soon afterwards he was elevated to the rank of cardinal. Occupying the department at Imola, he remained as before a firm man, although at the same time meek, and carried out charity work on a large scale. Many of the fugitive French priests found a warm welcome from him. He usually donated half of his income to charitable causes and was often left completely without money. When he needed to go to Venice for the conclave, he had to borrow money for the trip from another cardinal. During his episcopacy at Imola, he, by the way, took one step that alienated most of his brethren in position, but it was precisely what the majority did not like that aroused a special interest in him in Cardinals Mori and Ruffo. In 1797, before the Peace of Tolentino, when the French invaded Italy, many of the bishops fled, but the Bishop of Imola calmly remained in his diocese. On February 2, 1797, the day after war was declared on the pope, French troops passed through Imola and had quarters in the bishop's palace. When Bonaparte arrived in Ancona, whose bishop had fled, he did not fail to remark to the citizens who brought him the keys to the city: “The bishop of Imola, and a cardinal at that, did not flee; True, I didn’t see him when I was there, but he was at his post.” In July of the same year, Chiaramonti preached a sermon, which he subsequently published in print. Mentioning in it the birth of the Lord Christ in Bethlehem, he exhorted his listeners to take to heart the grace of God revealed in this event, as well as the fact that it appeared along with the command of Emperor Augustus.” Christianity, of course, is true freedom; but this freedom is something other than licentiousness and licentiousness, which mixes good with evil. True freedom creates peace and happiness, and peace is the fruit of civil order and exists only where there are authorities who are obeyed. Therefore the Catholic religion teaches; “to resist authority means to resist God.” “The democratic government,” he said [the government of the Cisalpine Republic], which has now been introduced among us, does not stand in any contradiction with the basic provisions I have just outlined; it does not contradict the Gospel, on the contrary, it requires those sublime virtues that can only be learned in the school of Christ.” “How virtues once flourished in the pagan free states of antiquity - in Sparta, Athens and ancient Rome.” Even the church fathers speak about them with surprise. Let our virtues make us good democrats, that is, those who work without ulterior motives for the benefit of the public good, shun hatred, deceit and ambition, and try as much to respect the rights of others as the fulfillment of their own duties is in their hearts. By this, at the same time, true equality is established, which teaches each person how he should relate to God, to himself and to his neighbors. Meanwhile, there is no complete external equality in goods and treasures and never will be. This monstrous, so to speak, arithmetical equality in the natural and moral creation would turn everything upside down.” However, virtues alone cannot enable us to discharge our duties properly; this can only be achieved by the Gospel, which fosters Christian virtues. Even the author of "Emile" was touched by the beauty of the Gospel, as his expressions in the confessions of the Savoyard vicar clearly show. And the Gospel teaches us obedience. Let us humbly submit to the dictates of Providence. Do not think that the Catholic religion and the democratic form of government are incompatible with each other. Just be completely Christian, and then you will also be excellent democrats. Imitate the Redeemer in obedience and humility, and this you will do by obeying the laws and legitimate authority.” The sermon ended with an appeal to the priests to be examples of true Christianity and philanthropy: through this, all virtues will be fully rooted in the souls of those entrusted to their care, and along with the well-being of the citizens, the glory of the republic will flourish. Such a sermon, delivered by such an outstanding personage and in such an exciting tone, calmed minds, softened hearts and greatly contributed to the establishment of a new order of things. But it can hardly be said that she paved the way for him to the papal throne. Napoleon calls it in one place Jacobin speech, and in the circles of cardinals Chiaramonti was looked upon as infected with the republican spirit. Moreover, he was still quite young: a 60-year-old man did not give any hope for a quick change on the papal throne. But this wonderful sermon served as the best proof for Mori and Ruffo that no one else but Chiaramonti should now become pope. Mori did not believe in the durability of the Austrian victories. Bonaparte returned, became consul and undertook his second Italian campaign. In the event of his victory, it was important that whoever occupies the throne of Peter enjoyed the respect of the consul in advance and was not generally hostile to the new time; and Chiaramonti was precisely the person with whom the Republic and the French could deal. Ruffo completely agreed with Mori in this view; the election of Chiaramonti was a move directed against Austria, and Naples was quite happy with it. The whole matter had now taken such a definite turn that while Herzan, trying to prevent a candidacy that was unpleasant for Austria, in extreme excitement ran from cell to cell and nominated more and more new candidates, the Bishop of Imola was calmly sitting in his room and writing letters to sovereigns, various nuncios and to Rome, and his ministers were already in a hurry to somewhat shorten the papal liturgical vestments in accordance with his height. At last the morning arrived on the day which, as Consalvi says, “was to put an end to the widowhood of the Roman Church.” On March 14, at the usual hour, the cardinals began voting and all the votes fell on Chiaramonti. After the election took place, all the cardinals who were sitting on the side where the newly elected pope was sitting rose from their seats and, as an expression of their respect for him, left him sitting alone. The cardinal legate then approached Chiaramonti and asked him in the usual manner whether he accepted the election that had befallen him. Chiaramonti asked for a few minutes of reflection in order to pray, and after prayer, in a few words, declared that he accepted the election with a deep consciousness of his unworthiness and in the hope that the cardinals would help him. He was then asked what name he wished to bear as pope, to which he replied that out of gratitude to his predecessor he wished to be called Pius VII. Upon acceptance of the election, the new pope was taken to the altar and there he was dressed in papal church vestments. The cardinals then paid the pope their usual homage. “The chapel was opened so that the conclavists could also bring their worship, and when the pope received them, Cardinal Doria informed the crowd gathered in the small island-shaped square that Cardinal Chiaramonti had been elected pope under the name of Pius VII. Then the doors of the conclave were opened and the people were allowed to kiss the papal shoe. In the afternoon, Pius VII was carried in a solemn procession to the monastery church and enthroned, and there, in addition to the cardinals, the masses of the people reverently knelt before him. Outside, in the open square in front of the church, two orchestras played, and in the evening the monastery tower, the dome of the church and the entire monastery were magnificently illuminated. For three days, with short breaks, all the bells were ringing, and in the evenings St. The brand shone with festive coverage. “However, as one newspaper of the time said, the jubilation and participation in this event were not nearly as lively as one might expect.” It was noticed that the Austrians living in Venice did not illuminate a single window in their houses. Under normal circumstances, the pope is crowned eight days after his election in the Church of St. Petra; outside Rome, coronations usually take place in the main local church. Everyone expected that Pius VII would be crowned in the Cathedral of St. Mark, and hoped that the inhabitants and especially all the dignitaries of Venice would gather in this magnificent church. However, imperial agents in Venice did not dare to give permission for this. They said that regarding the coronation they sent a request to Vienna, but received no answer. Consalvi is inclined to think that an answer was received from Vienna, but it gave instructions to all questions to say that no answer had been received, so that not everyone would immediately know about the refusal. After all, the coronation was an expression of the pope's temporal power, and the imperial court would like this power to end completely. Others thought that Austria refused this request due to the costs associated with it, which, however, is incredible. Consalvi even assures that the Catholic believers in Venice wanted to bear all the costs of the coronation celebration, “so that it would not cost the imperial court a penny.” The new pope expressed to Herzan his surprise at the behavior of Austria that he had noticed in this case, but received the answer that the cardinal had no instructions regarding this. There was nothing left to do but either completely postpone the coronation, or perform it in the monastery church [which, however, represents one of the most beautiful buildings of Andrei Palladio]. The Pope chose the latter outcome and on March 21 he was crowned in the Church of St. George. A pious Venetian nobleman donated a stretcher on which Pius VII was carried there, followed by papal chaplains with a tiara. According to ancient custom, a bunch of cotton wool was burned three times before the eyes of the pope, and the words were pronounced: “Holy Father! Thus does the glory of this world pass away.” One deacon removes the bishop's miter from the pope's head, and the other puts on the triple crown in its place, saying: “Receive the tiara with three crowns and know that you are the father of princes and the leader of kings, even the vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ on earth.” After this, the pope blesses the people three times and with this blessing, complete remission of sins is given. A few days after his election, Cardinal Herzan arrived at Pius VII and made him an offer to appoint Cardinal Flangini, an obvious supporter of Austrian policy, as his secretary of state. The Pope replied that at the moment he did not have a state, and therefore he did not need a Secretary of State; Temporarily, he entrusted current affairs to the secretary of the conclave, Consalvi. Herzan then began to persuade the pope to go to Vienna, but he failed in this too, because Pius VII was eager to go to Rome as soon as possible. Herzan's whole behavior showed that he was rather a representative or squire of the Austrian emperor than of the church, which is why Pius VII considered it best to get rid of him as quickly as possible by appointing him bishop of Hungary. Finally, dad got ready to go to Rome. His intention was to go there by land, but he could not do this due to a ban from Austria. His journey through the legations was in danger, lest the population show the newly elected pope signs of respect as their legitimate sovereign. The Austrian authorities therefore advised the pope that he should go by sea to Pesaro, a border town of the papal state. The frigate Bellona was prepared for this purpose. The pope set off on this bad ship, and with him not only a close circle of his entourage, but also the Austrian envoy Marquis Ghislieri as the “papal jailer,” as Consalvi calls him. Subsequently, Pius repeatedly said that the captain of a Turkish ship offered him his services, but he refused them. The Bellona was sitting too deep in the water, so the guns had to be unloaded just to move, and the whole journey to Pesaro was accompanied by various troubles. From there the pope continued his journey by land, constantly accompanied by his "jailer", who, on arrival at Ancona, received the very depressing news of the battle of Marengo. On July 3, the pope, greeted with jubilation by the people, made his entry into the eternal city. A magnificent triumphal arch was erected in honor of the pope, and the Romans did everything on their part to declare their devotion to the pope. The Roman Republic existed too recently to take root among the people. His first business in Rome was to go to the tomb of the prince of the apostles, where he performed a prayer service. So, after a terrible pogrom, the papacy was again restored, over which the French infidels had already celebrated a funeral feast, as over a historical corpse. On August 11, Consalvi was appointed cardinal deacon and the pope delivered a speech in which he spoke with great praise about the past of the secretary of the conclave and, especially about his activities in Venice. On the same day, Consalvi was made Secretary of State, that is, the first minister of the curia, and at the same time the soul of all further enterprises. It is doubtful whether Pius VII could have chosen a better assistant. They complemented each other perfectly. Pius VII lived aloof from the world and its noise and understood very little about politics and diplomacy. Consalvi, on the contrary, was so familiar with political affairs as hardly any of the representatives of the church, and was distinguished by rare statesmanship, which acquired for him in the diplomatic world the name “siren”. “All Italy greeted him as a worthy heir to those immortal political geniuses that Rome possessed - geniuses who were sometimes swans, sometimes foxes and accomplished more conquests with words than kings with the sword.” Diplomats of that time applied to him Sixtus's remark about D'Osse, Henry IV's envoy to Rome: “to avoid his sharp gaze, it was not enough to simply remain silent: no, in his presence you had to be careful and think something.” 3. Pope Pius VII and the concordat with France The plight of the newly elected pope. - The need to reckon with the victorious Frenchman. – The question of concluding a concordat with France. – Religious views of Bonaparte. – His relationship to Islam is questionable. – Religion as an instrument of politics. – Negotiations on the Concordat in Paris. – Bonaparte’s personal participation in church and religious affairs. – Concordat and organic members. – Acceptance of the concordat and its significance. – Religious reaction in France. - “The genius of Christianity.” Although the restoration of the lordship and the entry of the newly elected pope into the eternal city was greeted with great joy in Rome, the position of the pope was extremely difficult. All affairs were extremely upset, the people were demoralized, and the Statue of Liberty still stood on the Tiber Bridge, contemptuously trampling on the papal tiara. Pius VII was animated by the most ardent desire to restore order and discipline in church administration, and in the person of Consalvi he had a brilliant assistant: but before starting anything, he had to somehow establish his relationship with that wayward genius - Napoleon Bonaparte, the glory of whose victories had already thundered throughout Europe and who clearly revealed his plans - to become the supreme ruler of the whole world. Therefore, he decided to achieve the conclusion of a certain concordat with France, on the basis of which it would be possible to establish certain relations with the government of an advanced country in Europe, and then, following its example, establish relations with other countries. But this matter turned out to be so difficult that to carry it out required all the brilliant resourcefulness of a diplomat like Consalvi, and although the concordat was concluded, such discord and difficulties soon arose over it, which again led to the most tragic consequences for the papacy. The vicissitudes of the question of the concordat with France form such an interesting picture of the then state of relations between church and state that a detailed presentation of them constitutes a necessary chapter in the history of the papacy of our century. At the same time as the conclave in Venice restored the papacy and granted the orbi et urbi of a new “successor to St. Peter”, very important events quickly followed one another in Europe. General Bonaparte, who had already thundered throughout Europe, made a campaign through Little Saint Bernard and descended into Italy. A few days before the pope left Venice, Bonaparte entered Milan and before Pius VII even reached Rome, Bonaparte won a victory at Marengo. This rapid victorious movement of the new Hannibal terrified the new Rome no less than the victories of the old Hannibal once terrified ancient Rome. Quite confident that Napoleon was a representative of the godlessness that prevailed in Paris, the papacy involuntarily had to tremble for its fate. But it did not know that Bonaparte could look at religion as an important political tool and respect it as such. And Napoleon, as an intelligent man, really understood what an important instrument of domination religion and the authority embodied in the papacy could serve for him, and therefore, to the considerable surprise of the papacy, he immediately discovered an inclination not only not to harm the papacy, but to enter into the most friendly alliance with it. Napoleon tried to make it clear from his very first steps in Italy. Entering Milan, he issued orders that a thanksgiving service be held in the churches - "in gratitude for the liberation of Italy from heretics and unbelievers" - alluding partly to the assistance that the British gave to the Austrians when they blockaded the harbor of Genoa, partly to the supply of vital supplies to Venice from Turkey. On June 5, 1800, he himself addressed the clergy of the city with a speech: “I wished,” he said, “to see all of you gathered in order to have the pleasure of expressing the feelings that I have regarding the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion. I am convinced that this religion is the only one that can bring happiness to a well-ordered society and form a solid basis for any government. I assure you that I will try to protect and protect her by all means. I look at you as my dearest friends. Here before you I promise that anyone who allows himself the slightest contempt for our common religion, or who dares to cause the slightest insult to your sacred persons, will be considered a disturber of the public peace and an enemy of the public good. I will subject such a person to the strictest public punishment, and even, if it were necessary, the death penalty. I want the Christian Catholic, Roman religion to be preserved in all its integrity and to be practiced openly, and that it will continue to enjoy as full, as wide, as unlimited a public confession as when I first visited this happy country. France, taught by all its suffering, finally opened its eyes; she recognized that the Catholic religion is the only anchor that, in times of unrest, can again give her stability and firmness and save her from storms: therefore, she again restored this religion to herself. I will not deny that I took a great part in this wonderful cause. I can only tell you the reliable news that the churches are now open again in France: the Catholic religion there has again received its former splendor, and the people look with reverence at their pious priests, who, filled with zeal, return to their abandoned flocks. The fate that befell the late dad should not at all fill you with fear. Pius VI owed the suffering that befell him partly to the intrigues of his own advisers, partly to the cruel policies of the Directory. If I find an opportunity to talk with the new pope, I hope that I will be able to remove all obstacles that may still stand in the way of a complete reconciliation between France and the head of the church.” This speech was by no means intended for the clergy alone. It was printed "so that not only Italy and France, but the whole of Europe could learn about the intentions of the first consul." Eight days after the victory at Marengo and the truce with the Austrian general Melas, Bonaparte with great solemnity ordered the Milanese clergy to consecrate the victorious banners in the cathedral, “not caring what atheists in Paris might think.” At the same time, he sent a message to Pius VII that he, as the chief commander of the French army, would begin negotiations regarding the organization of church affairs in France. This message came to the pope while he was still on his way to Rome, in Terni; but he gave an answer only after he arrived at his residence. He immediately communicated Bonaparte’s proposal to the college of cardinals, and clearly no one doubted, as Consalvi says, “that it was necessary to respond to the desire that was directed towards once again regulating religious affairs in a country where the spirit of the revolution had almost completely suppressed religious life.” Spina, Archbishop of Corinth in partibus, was elected to conduct these negotiations. He accompanied Pius VII into exile and became acquainted with Bonaparte from his stay in Valence, where the latter stopped on his way back from Egypt. This task was not very easy, and far from pleasant. At the very least, there were rumors that involuntarily raised doubts about how seriously and sincerely the first consul took the church and was jealous of raising its influence. It was by no means a secret that in 1797 Bonaparte in Luxembourg openly included religion, royal power and the nobility “among the prejudices with which the French people have done away.” In any case, he was by no means one of the particularly religious people. His friends, even those who shunned the extreme manifestations of the revolution, were, nevertheless, completely radical in relation to religion. But Bonaparte himself wanted to take a different view of religion. He willingly talked with Monge, Lagrange and Laplace about religious and philosophical questions and embarrassed them with the objections that he raised against their unbelief. “My religion,” he once told Monge, “is very simple. Looking at this great, multi-component, magnificent world order, I tell myself that this could not be a matter of chance, but must necessarily be the work of an unknown omnipotent Being who stands as high above man as a creative building above the most beautiful of our machines.” Another time he told him: “My nerves sympathize with the idea of ​​​​the existence of God.” These are expressions that a Voltairian could still use, but a materialist would by no means express himself in this way. Bonaparte did not share the materialists’ view of historical religions. While, for example the famous French encyclopedist Volney in his “Ruins” concluded from the greater variety of positive religions that they were all based on deception and intricacies; Bonaparte held a completely different view: he saw in various religions something universally religious, and this was “his religion.” He was convinced of the truth of “religion” in general; but in positive religions he found only symbols and shells of true religion. Religion, however, was as little a matter of deep feeling or heart for him as it was for Voltaire: he came to it only with the help of logical conclusion. Childhood memories, deeply Catholic Corsica and his pious mother, whom Thiers refers to in explaining his attitude towards religion, undoubtedly left little trace on him. But he understood that religious skills are of great importance for the people, and therefore he did not want to introduce Protestantism in France, precisely because the French people “do not have any Protestant memories”; For myself, I considered this inapplicable. In him, his rational and volitional life took a decisive advantage over his heartfelt or spiritual life in general, and his actual religious feeling was weak. True, he loved the ringing of bells, but this feeling was neither deep nor lasting. In relation to positive religions, he was, first and foremost, a politician. In his eyes, they had only as much value as they could help him achieve the goal that he set for himself and with which his mind was occupied. On the banks of the Nile he bowed to the muftis and imams; in the plains of northern Italy he paid homage to the Roman Catholic clergy. For him, the distinctive and unique feature of Islamism consisted in its strange clothes, just as he saw the feature of Catholicism only in rituals. But his sympathy immediately ceased as soon as his dominion was threatened by the slightest danger. Therefore, he finally came to the conclusion that his ideal was a kind of caliphate - a combination of secular power with spiritual power, so that in all respects one could count on unconditional obedience to him. When he arrived in Egypt, he ordered his soldiers to “have the same respect for muftis and imams that they would have in Italy for rabbis and bishops.” In a proclamation dated July 2, 1798, he told the people of Egypt: “We are also true Muslims. Didn’t we crush the pope, who said that war should be waged against the Mohammedans? Moreover, he even boasted that he had “overthrown the cross” (renversé le croix). Why did he start such a strange speech? He himself gave us the key to understanding this. “It is not at all impossible,” he said, “that circumstances could even force me to convert to Islam. – A change of religion, which is not excusable simply for personal reasons, becomes, however, permissible if it can entail great political results. Henry IV was right when he said: “Paris is worth a mass.” Would not dominion over the East, perhaps the subjugation of Asia, be worth a turban and a pair of shoes? Thus, his lust for power and ambition forced him to flatter Islam. “It was charlatanism, but not of the ordinary kind,” he himself said later; he was prompted to this by the monstrous dream of founding an eastern monarchy. He dreamed of this especially vividly when he was in front of Acre: the mountain peoples would then join him, and the Arab part of the population would only need a leader. If Acre is in his hands, he will have the key to Damascus; in the west, then Constantinople will not oppose him, and in the east India will lie openly before him. A day's order would be enough, he thought, to turn all the French soldiers into Mohammedans. Later he again discussed how polygyny, which Islam allows, is in fact a good means for eradicating differences between races, since it merges different races within the same family. And even in Eastern slavery he knew how to find an attractive side, comparing it with the slavery of the West. Neither polygamy nor slavery - if only the French had become unconditional masters in the latter - did not in the least deter the French soldiers from Islam. But there were other difficulties. Bonaparte had a wonderful conversation with Arab sheikhs on this subject near the great mosque. “Give me a fetam who would order the people to obey me,” said Bonaparte. “But why don’t you, you and your army, become Muslims?” - objected the venerable Sheikh Sierkavy; “As soon as this happens, hundreds of thousands will rush to your banners. You will again restore the old kingdom of the caliphs and you will be the ruler of the East.” “God,” Bonaparte objected, “has made the French incapable of circumcision; it is also impossible for them to abstain from wine.” “Circumcision is not absolutely necessary,” the sheikhs answered, “but every Muslim who pours wine will go to hell.” Bonaparte asked the sheikhs to consider whether it was possible to make some concession regarding this point. In response to this he received: “You can be a good Muslim without circumcision and without abstaining from wine; but then you need to do good deeds, especially give alms in accordance with the amount of wine you drink.” Napoleon said to this: “Yes, then we will all be good Muslims and friends of the prophet.” The sheikhs then set up a fetham, calling all the faithful to obedience, and Bonaparte ordered that a place be set aside for a huge mosque (as he later said on the island of St. Helena, “more extensive than Jemel Ashar in Cairo”), and stated at the same time that it should be built in memory of the “conversion of the army.” With these negotiations he tried to gain time; however, the intended mass “conversion” did not take place, since the campaign in Syria failed. But General Menu became a Muslim, called himself Abdallah and married an Egyptian woman. By taking this step, he made a certain kind of sacrifice: he thought in this way to contribute to the success of the campaign. Other generals had no desire to follow his example, and even the French soldiers laughed when they read Bonaparte’s proclamations, which were compiled by oriental poets in the flowery language of the East and which said about Bonaparte: “His hand is omnipotent, and his words are honey.” The dream of establishing an eastern world monarchy did not come true; instead, the ambitious dreamer was to establish his throne in the west. When he returned to France, instead of muftis and imams, he found the pope and bishops, and had to negotiate with them differently than with the sheikhs at the great mosque. The Pope, having read in the Moniteur about Bonaparte's Egyptian orders, was extremely embarrassed. These orders were quite capable of confirming the rumor that was then widespread in Europe that Bonaparte had converted to Mohammedanism. This rumor was refuted upon his return, and his friends tried in every possible way to convince the pope that those godless proclamations were only an evil fiction spread in the newspapers by the enemies of the first consul. Those around Bonaparte soon noticed that he had some plans for the church. Some advised him not to interfere with the grandfather of religion. But this seemed unfounded to him, because then Roman Catholicism would become a dangerous force. He found it necessary to attract the clergy to the new order of things and thus break the last thread that still connected the old royal family with the country. Others wanted to encourage him to become the head of the French national church. And this idea was also not accepted by him. He felt that he would make himself famous if he, a soldier, wanted to play the role of dad. Didn't Rousseau become famous when he proclaimed the cult of the Supreme Being as his invention, as well as the Directory with its theophilanthropism? Some then advised him to introduce Protestantism. But he was of the opinion that if he did this, the whole country would turn against him. Francis I could have done this in the 16th century; but now this has become impossible. Protestantism is not the religion of France; the past centuries forever decided the position and fate of Protestantism in France “Do we have,” he asked, “Protestant memories? Can sermons make a deep impression if they were not heard as a child? How unsuitable are empty and cold Protestant churches for inspiring reverence!” These objections obviously reflected an echo of Bossuet's polemic against Protestantism. Bonaparte just at this time had with him the works of the famous and eloquent bishop, and zealously studied them. Yes, Bossuet’s Catholicism is what he, after mature reflection, decided to establish in France - a Catholicism that would be as compatible with militant politics as with the monarchical system, therefore, not that slavish Catholicism that fearfully and reverently listens to the dictates of Rome, but a free-thinking, native Gallicanism, subordinate to Rome in matters of faith, but completely independent of it in church administration. Just in case, of course, it is best to persuade the pope first, and then hoist the banner of Gallicanism. For Bonaparte, Catholicism, as a religion, had special advantages due to the fact that it demanded a pope for itself. His position in Italy had already strengthened so much that without difficulty, he thought, he could take the pope into his own hands: and with this, all the pope’s enormous influence over the rest of the world would pass to him. The papacy, which he had previously called “an old rusty machine,” suddenly became a moral lever” of enormous importance. “Priestism” and “weak-headed fools,” as he reviled the clergy, now turned into people whom he addressed as respectable and pious fathers. When his envoy went to Rome and asked him how to treat the pope, Bonaparte replied: “As if he had 200,000 troops under his command.” His generals, however, could not internalize such an idea because they had been breathing in the atmosphere of godless clubs for too long. They were afraid, as Thiers says, “that they might laugh at the foot of the altars.” But Bonaparte, at all costs, had to enter into an agreement with the papacy, because with its help only he could achieve the imperial crown, for which he was already passionately striving. To do this, it was necessary to conclude a concordat with the pope, about which negotiations began. Archbishop Spina was sent from Rome for these negotiations, hoping to meet Bonaparte back in Italy; but he met him only in Paris. Spina's companion during this journey was the general of the Servite order, Caselli, one of the most learned theologians of the Roman Church, and with him he arrived in Paris in November 1800. On behalf of France, negotiations were conducted by Abbot Bernier, a man who had previously played a major role among the Vendeans loyal to the king. When the uprising in the Vendée was suppressed, Bernier closely sided with Bonaparte. His sincere desire was to reconcile France with the Pope. First of all, the question was raised about the formation of a new episcopate in France, for which, however, great difficulties were encountered. Bonaparte, in view of the current circumstances, could not agree that the former episcopate would be completely restored again without any changes. By doing this he was afraid of causing great displeasure in the country. Moreover, this also seemed dangerous for his personal plans: after all, the old bishops were in close connection with the old royal regime, so the restoration of this episcopate could easily be the first step towards the restoration of the old dynasty. Of the bishops who had not taken the oath, he could agree to the restoration only of those who were distinguished by moderation and at the same time did not belong to the most hated in Paris. The rest of the pope had to be forced to resign. In support of this, Bernier cited an example from church-historical antiquity (Donatist unrest); and even referred to the Council of Constance, which, for the sake of peace, deposed three popes. On the other hand, it was possible to restore some of the bishops who took the oath, especially those who took less part in the revolution, or were generally distinguished by their personal dignity and moral behavior. Negotiations were then supposed to touch upon the financial situation of the clergy. Church estates were taken away, and their return was out of the question. But could Rome recognize such a robbery? Archbishop Spina made a proposal to reintroduce tithes, but at that time in France this was a sheer impossibility. Finally, the concordat had to generally define the attitude of the French people towards the Roman Catholic religion. They did not find it convenient to call Catholicism the “state religion”; but even such an expression as "majority religion" could raise serious objections. Mirabeau, in one famous report, spoke out against any such names that would mean any privileges. In general, it was extremely difficult to come to an agreement. Dad rejected one project after another. On March 10, 3801, a messenger arrived in Rome with the fifth draft of the concordat, and at the same time, as a sign of goodwill, he brought with him the image of Our Lady of Loreta, highly revered in France. The Pope convened a meeting of twelve cardinals, to whom he proposed the brought project. But they did not like it at all, and therefore were sent back along with a detailed statement of the reasons that forced it to be rejected. Bonaparte, meanwhile, did not want to wait any longer: the French envoy in Rome, Caco, received orders to interrupt diplomatic relations and leave Rome if the pope did not accept the draft concordat as it was within five days. Caco received this order on May 28, and on the same day letters from Spina and Bernier were received by Cardinal Consalvi, announcing Bonaparte's decision. Consalvi was so amazed by this turn of events that he even fell ill. In the evening, Caco received an audience with the cardinal, although he was lying in bed. Consalvi assured him that if Bonaparte's threat came true, it would entail the death of the pope. Meanwhile, the envoy had no choice but to officially communicate France’s ultimatum to the papal court the next day. Pius VII, however, appears to have taken the matter more calmly than his Secretary of State had expected. Then, as always, he showed great self-denial in adversity. However, he could not accept the project as it was drawn up: and therefore a break was inevitable. Caco advised sending Consalvi to Paris; Bonaparte, he thought, might be flattered by the fact that the cardinal and the papal secretary of state were seeking an audience with him in the Tuilerie Palace, and it was very possible that the diplomatic art of the papal “siren” could again make Bonaparte friendly. Seeing no other outcome, the pope and the cardinals decided to follow this advice. On June 3, Consalvi and the envoy set off for Paris in the same carriage. By this they wanted to prevent the outbreak of unrest, which they feared if a break openly occurred between Rome and France. The path went through Florence, where Consalvi visited General Murat, with whom he spent the day in “apparently very friendly intercourse.” Caco remained in Florence, and Consalvi continued his journey to Paris as quickly as possible. The many destroyed Catholic churches made on him on the way, as well as the churches that were now dedicated to “Youth,” “Friendship,” “Trade,” “Strength,” and similar symbols in a purely pagan spirit. On the night of June 20, Consalvi arrived in Paris and stayed at the same hotel where Spina and Caselli lived. Meanwhile, Spina was busy drawing up the sixth draft of the concordat, which did not differ significantly from the previous ones. Immediately in the morning after his arrival, Bernier came to him to talk with him about the details of the presentation to Bonaparte, who, very possibly, would soon wish to see Cardinal Bernier, then personally delivered Bonaparte's order, which announced that the cardinal would be admitted to an audience the next day in the evening at 7 o'clock. Bonaparte wanted to see him in the same attire that cardinals wear in Rome. At the appointed hour, Consalvi went to the Tuileries in a black velvet robe with red stripes and a red cap. He was led into the ambassadors' hall, where he was received by the master of ceremonies, who escorted him up the stairs and through several halls, where the guards "saluted him as a statesman." Finally, he was met by Talleyrand, who led him into the hall where Bonaparte was. The First Consul, surrounded by his ministers and numerous dignitaries, took several steps towards him, and Talleyrand walked next to him. He spoke to the cardinal in a calm, pleasant tone, at first somewhat seriously, and then little by little, assuming a smiling and cheerful appearance. He spoke about the pope with great friendliness, but regarding church negotiations he did not show any favorable views. A new project was proposed for discussion, which had to be completed within five days, otherwise he would interrupt all negotiations and introduce a national religion. At the same time, Bonaparte noted that he had the right means at his disposal - to successfully carry out an enterprise of this kind. Consalvi answered respectfully, but at the same time with consciousness of his dignity; however, obtaining a longer delay for these negotiations proved impossible. But what did the first consul mean by the mysterious, flowery expression that he would “establish a national religion,” which he could introduce with success? Undoubtedly, he meant the council of sworn bishops and priests, which was to take place in Paris just eight days after Consalvi's arrival and which was very unfriendly towards the papacy. Shortly before Consalvi's arrival, Bonaparte had an interesting conversation with Bishop Gregoire about church affairs. In conversation he remarked: “Catholic France is divided into two parties; in order to reconcile them among themselves, I intend to conclude a concordat with the pope. Tell me your sincere opinion about this!” The bishop answered: “discord in itself is sad; however, for this there is no need for any concordat. The Catholic Church existed for twelve centuries without a concordat. It has apostolic tradition and canonical institutions, and they are quite sufficient. The first four ecumenical councils at that time were held in as high esteem as the four Gospels.” Then the bishop criticized the concordat between Francis I and Leo X (1516), and especially rebelled against the advantages of outstanding bishops allowed at that time and against the abolition of all participation of the community in the election of bishops. Bonaparte listened carefully to the opinion of the learned bishop, but could not agree with him, since he did not want to break with the pope, who he needed as an instrument for his broad plans. Meanwhile, negotiations between Bernier and Consalvi continued, and Bonaparte often spoke personally with Consalvi in ​​Bernier's presence. It was, however, impossible to come to any agreement. Bonaparte did not want to agree that something about the government's confession of the Catholic faith should be included in the concordat. He repeatedly drew attention to the fact that he himself was a born Catholic and had never rejected Catholicism. Although at such moments it was very convenient to remind him of his proclamations in Egypt, Consalvi found such a reminder imprudent and dangerous. The main difficulty was that Bonaparte, with all his desire to reach an agreement with the pope, had to comply with the mood of the governing spheres. High-ranking officials, philosophers, freethinkers, most of the officers were against the concordat and directly told Bonaparte: “The concordat will be a sure way to restore the overthrown monarchy.” Feeling how strong this opposition was, Consalvi exclaimed: “I expected rain, but not such a flood.” Finally, apparently the happy hour was approaching when the concordat could be signed, and July 13 was set for this act. Consalvi, Spina and Caselli were to sign on behalf of the pope, and Joseph Bonaparte, State Councilor of Crete and Bernier - for France. The signing was to take place in the palace of Joseph Bonaparte. Consalvi attributes this happy outcome to two circumstances: the absence of Talleyrand and the proximity of July 14th. This day, on which the storming of the Bastille was solemnly commemorated, was, according to Bonaparte's intention, to become a day of solemn remembrance of the restoration of peace between France and the Pope for all eternity. He asked that the concordat be returned from Rome with the signature of the pope as soon as possible, but at the same time expressed concern that no new difficulties would arise. And they really did arise. Bonaparte, unfortunately, already on July 10, in one order related to the popular holiday on Bastille Day, said: “The temptation of religious discord will soon end.” Then on July 13, he ordered the following message to be published in the Monitor: “Cardinal Consalvi has achieved good success in the negotiations that he, on behalf of the Holy See, conducted with our government.” This was enough to set all the opponents of the concordat in motion. A council of clergy sworn to the constitution, held in Paris, issued a proclamation with the inscription: “Liberty and equality,” and in it almost openly spoke out against any concordat with the pope. Despite all the instructions about silence and precaution, the contents of the concordat became known to everyone, and on the evening of July 13, Bonaparte received a letter in which the concordat was openly attacked. Then they had to draw up a new draft of the concordat, which, however, was completely inconvenient for the pope, as it was too Gallican. They tried to influence Bonaparte so that he proposed this draft to Consalvi as an ultimatum to the French government, since the draft on which Consalvi and Bernier entered into an agreement with each other “only leads to all sorts of difficulties.” On the morning of July 13, Consalvi received from Bernier an invitation to appear with him in the afternoon of the same day to Joseph Bonaparte, with a copy of the just mentioned Gallican draft concordat that the enemies of the pope wanted to carry out. At 4 o'clock Consalvi, accompanied by Spina, Caselli and Bernier, went to the house of "citizen" Joseph Bonaparte. The brother of the first consul received them with complete friendliness and said that the matter would soon be over, since everything had already been considered and decided. Consalvi was asked to sign a new draft, but when he, having already taken up the pen, quickly ran his eyes over the first articles, he immediately saw that he had been offered the same Gallican draft, and resolutely refused to give his signature, expressing his readiness to immediately draw up a new draft. The work began immediately, and after nineteen hours of continuous work it was completed. They just couldn’t agree on the first member. The Pope wanted two main points: religious freedom for the Catholic Church and the right of unrestricted public worship. The last point caused opposition from Bonaparte. He wanted to formulate it like this: “Her cult will be public, in accordance, in any case, with the rules of the police,” - which Consalvi could not accept, rightly fearing that the church would be given over to the mercy of the police. I had to sign the remaining articles of the concordat, and postpone this article until a definite and precise decision was received from the pope. Joseph hurried with a new project to the Tuillerie Palace, but an hour later he returned with the news that the first consul tore up this draft concordat and threw the pieces into the fireplace. “He wants to have the same concordat as it was last proposed, or he will completely break off all negotiations.” It was 2 o'clock in the afternoon when Joseph returned; At about 5 o'clock a ceremonial dinner was to take place on the occasion of Bastille Day, and at this dinner Bonaparte wanted to announce either the conclusion of the concordat or the break. For two hours Joseph Bonaparte made every effort to induce Consalvi to yield. At about 4 o'clock he went to his hotel to change clothes, and an hour later he and Spina went to the Tuileries. As soon as he entered the hall where the first consul was, the latter mockingly shouted to him: “Okay, Mr. Cardinal, you obviously want a break. Fine! I don't need Rome. I will act on my own. If Henry VIII, who did not have a twentieth part of my power, was able to change the religion of his country, then I will also be able to do it. If I change religion in France, I will change it at the same time throughout all of Europe, as far as my influence extends. Rome will see how much damage it has suffered; he will mourn his loss, but will no longer compensate for it. You can go: this is the best thing you can do now. You wanted a break - well, so here you go! - Fine! - if that's what you wanted! “When are you leaving?” “After lunch,” Consalvi answered quite calmly. This answer made Napoleon think, and he again began a conversation with the cardinal. He wanted the controversial article to be accepted as it was, without changing even a single letter in it. Consalvi objected that he would never sign it in this form. “Thus, I have the right,” Bonaparte continued again, “to say that you wanted a break, and I consider the matter over: Rome recognizes this and will shed tears of blood over this break.” Having said these words, the first consul approached the Austrian envoy, Count Cobenzel. Addressing him, he repeated his threats against Rome, with the addition that he would change the way of thinking and religion in all the states of Europe! He certainly won't be the only person to turn away from the Roman Church. He “will plunge all of Europe from top to bottom into fire, and everyone will owe the damage caused by this to the pope.” Then he mingled with the crowd of guests, and repeated the same thing to many. After dinner, Count Cobenzel approached Consalvi to persuade him to make a concession. Seeing this, Bonaparte also approached and remarked: “It would be a waste of time to try to overcome the waywardness of the papal minister.” Cobenzel, however, managed to turn the conversation around in such a way that Bonaparte appointed a new conference for the next day as a last attempt, and Consalvi agreed to continue negotiations with Joseph Bonaparte along with other representatives. Expecting success from this conference, Bonaparte ordered the papal banner to be placed among the flags of other powers friendly to him, with which the brilliant balloon rising from the Champs-Elysees was decorated with which flags. This was the first time since the Revolution that the papal flag flew on French soil. The Cardinal spent the night restlessly. In the morning Spina came to him, dejected and confused. Early in the morning Father Caselli visited him and said that he, for his part, did not dare to remain in the opposition any longer; Since Spina was convinced that Caselli was more learned than him in theology, he bowed to his view. If Consalvi is unable to agree with them that it is necessary to concede, they will submit a dissenting opinion. All this was of little comfort to Consalvi; however, he decided to stand his ground. But he asked both of his comrades in authority to hide their readiness for final submission as long as possible. Joseph's conference began at 12 noon, and it was not until about 11 pm that an agreement was reached. Consalvi allowed the controversial Article 7 to be changed, and Joseph finally decided to sign it in this new form, hoping to persuade his brother to come to terms with the fait accompli. The next day Joseph came to Consalvi to tell him how his conversation with his brother ended. At first Bonaparte was very irritated; then he fell into thought, and after a long silence finally agreed to accept the concordat as it now was. But then he decided to carry out his struggle against the church victoriously through the so-called “organic members”. This remarkable concordat of 26 Messidor IX (July 15, 1801) begins with the statement that the Roman Catholic faith is “the religion of the majority.” As such, she must have freedom of worship and enjoy the right of public worship under certain restrictions. The French bishops must be replaced and the pope promises to re-recognize the French bishops: “He confidently expects that they, for the sake of peace and unity, will be ready to make all sorts of sacrifices, even if this sacrifice were their very episcopal dignity.” If, contrary to expectation, the bishops of previous times had resisted making such a sacrifice, they would be forced to do so. The First Consul, within the next three months, should appoint new bishops and archbishops, in accordance with the new ecclesiastical division, to their positions, and then the pope, in accordance with the usual forms, should make a canonical confirmation, for which, however, no specific time was appointed. Bishops and priests must swear allegiance to the republic over the Gospel, and chant in all churches: “Lord, save the republic. Lord, save the consuls" 8. Bishops are given the right to appoint parish priests, but their choice must be directed towards such persons as are pleasing to the government. All necessary church buildings must be placed at the disposal of the bishops; but the pope must promise that neither he personally nor his successor will disturb the owners of the selected church estates. Instead, the government is willing to assign a certain salary to the ministers of the church, just as French Catholics are left free to make offerings to the church. The First Consul should enjoy the same rights as the old government; but if any of his successors left the Catholic religion, a new agreement must take place. The exchange of sealed copies of the concordat was to take place within two weeks. Thanks to this agreement, the Roman Church in France was once again on firm footing, and this was an immeasurable gain for her. But that this gain was bought, however, at a high price, Rome was soon to feel it. This is why the reviews about the concordat are so varied, some considering it a triumph for the church, while others consider it a disaster for it. If on the one hand they say that Bonaparte again restored the altars in France, then on the other hand they say that this is an exaggeration, since even then in 40,000 parishes divine services were performed correctly. It would be more correct to say that the concordat was beneficial for the Catholic Church, which without it would have been more like a church in the desert than a state church, and would not have had sufficient support in the fight against anti-Christianity, as a remnant of the revolution. At the end of the negotiations, Consalvi had a farewell audience with Bonaparte. When he entered in his purple cardinal's robe, the First Consul had difficulty suppressing a laugh. Consalvi at this audience especially noted that the papal throne does not at all think about worldly power or other worldly affairs; and Bonaparte listened to him politely and without any passion. The next day, Consalvi was once again called to the Tuileries, and Bonaparte addressed him with the most detailed questions regarding the state of the church state. During the conversation, he noticed, as if in passing, that when occupying new episcopal sees, he found it difficult to make a choice between the bishops who swore the oath and those who did not. Consalvi was extremely frightened by this remark and noticed that the basis of all negotiations was the condition that none of those who took the oath should again be made a bishop, since they were not in any communion with the pope. Bonaparte objected to this with a cold refuting stamp that he could not completely eliminate these individuals who had many adherents in the country. Consalvi, meanwhile, insisted that it would be impossible to grant canonical approval to such bishops unless they cleansed themselves of the past by the consciousness of their guilt. This conversation irritated the first consul to the extreme, and even several days after that he was still out of sorts. Consalvi arrived in Rome on August 6, “more dead than alive, completely exhausted and exhausted.” Bonaparte soon sent him, in gratitude for his high merits, an expensive snuff-box, and Spina and Caselli also received gifts. The Curia saw itself forced to respond to this with something, but was in extreme difficulty regarding this, because, as Caco says in one dispatch, “the pope had nothing left except the relics, and this object no longer had any value in France.” Still, the pope did everything he could think of that was better, and Madame Bonaparte received a magnificent lapis lazuli candle with antique camel trimmed with diamonds, the kind the pope usually gives to powerful empresses. The news of the conclusion of the concordat aroused, as Consatvi put it, great joy in Paris, and even outside France it was joyfully welcomed by both Catholics and Protestants. However, there were many dissatisfied among Catholics. Adherents of the old royal house saw with displeasure that the pope had concluded a concordat with the revolution: it was precisely the discord between revolutionary France and Rome that was, in their eyes, sufficient reason to harbor hope for the restoration of the old royal regime. In Italy itself, the following verse composed on this occasion went from mouth to mouth: To save his faith, only Pius (VI) lost his throne; to save his throne, another Pius (VII) gave up his faith 9). The National Cathedral in Paris was extremely irritated; but he received, a few weeks after Consalvi’s departure, an order to disperse. And he broke up with passionate cries against “treacherous and insidious Rome, which extracts its own benefits from everything.” But it goes without saying that the freethinkers were also dissatisfied. The best among them hoped for such freedom of belief as existed in North America, and from that moment they lost confidence in the republican sentiments of Bonaparte. What did Bonaparte himself think? - He was a politician. In view of Consalvi and the pope, he played on the strings of churchliness; but to Professor Cabanis (formerly a friend of Mirabeau) he said: “Do you know what the concordat I recently signed means? This is a religious vaccination: in fifty years there will be no more religion in France." Although in Rome itself some cardinals expressed doubts about the concordat, less than forty days had passed before the papal envoy arrived in Paris with a superbly prepared document signed by the pope himself. Bonaparte was at that time engaged in the study of the lengthy Ecclesiastical History of Claude Fleury (d. 1723), from which it became clear to him that, under present circumstances, it would be useful for him if the papal Legatus a latere arrived in France. From Fleury's work, he became convinced of the power that legates had in the Middle Ages, how they played the role of little popes in various states. If such a legate, equipped with the proper powers, had arrived in Paris, the first consul, having taken him into his own hands, could have achieved everything. Therefore, he demanded that the pope send a legate to Paris, and at the same time proposed Cardinal Caprara for this post. The latter was nuncio in Cologne, Lucerne and Vienna, and it was said of him that he was not alien to Febronian sympathies. The pope agreed with the proposal of the first consul, and on the evening of October 4, the cardinal, unnoticed, as he himself wished, went to the capital of France. A few days later he visited Talleyrand, and the latter immediately gave him a joyful message that the newly invented cult of theophilanthropism had been destroyed. Meanwhile, Cardinal Caprara faced the same difficulties with which Consalvi had to fight. But only the cardinal legate had neither the mind of the papal secretary of state nor his willpower. Bonaparte entrusted the Jansenist Portalis (later Minister of Confessions), familiar with church law, to conduct negotiations on behalf of France, but he himself closely followed them, and with his extraordinary genius, the first consul so surprised Caprara with his extensive knowledge even of canon law that the latter involuntarily said about him: “He argues as a canonist and theologian by profession.” Bonaparte wanted the proclamation of the concordat to take place on 18 Brumaire (November 9); but it proved impossible to finish everything by this time. Both the French bishops who took the oath and those who did not take the oath had to resign; then it was necessary to prepare a bull on the new order of bishops, and finally to appoint new bishops - which met with particular difficulties, because Bonaparte clearly intended to elect several new bishops from among those who had taken the oath. After signing the concordat, the pope addressed the bishops of France with a message in which he asked them to leave their positions and, moreover, within ten days. All the unsworn bishops who were in France immediately complied with the pope's demand, showing unconditional obedience, and the bishops who were in Italy also followed in their footsteps. Only one of them, the Bishop of Beziers, first turned to Louis XVIII with a request for permission to resign his rank. The French bishops, who had found a friendly reception in Spain, Switzerland and Germany, also immediately sent obedient replies to the papal letter; Only those eighteen bishops who fled to England hesitated. They sharply criticized the concordat: some even found it doubtful whether the pope had the right to make such a demand to the bishops; others thought that the consent of King Louis XVIII must first be obtained. Thirteen of them hesitated for a long time to comply, probably partly because they were under the influence of the English government, which benefited from religious division within France as a factor undermining that country, and did not want to eliminate it. In general, the bishops who took the oath, like the majority of those who did not take the oath, were ready, under existing circumstances, to renounce their positions; but some of them used expressions that insulted the pope, revealing in them the “stamp of Jansenism.” After the episcopal sees had been cleared, they had to be replaced again, and according to the concordat the choice belonged to Bonaparte, and the canonical approval to the pope. First of all, a new distribution of episcopal dioceses was made, a matter in which Bonaparte took a lively personal part. At the same time, he went into every detail, determining which dioceses should be considered the main ones, and where church houses should be located. Since he saw that ten metropolises and forty bishoprics were not enough, he generously added ten more new bishoprics to them, to which the cardinal legate, of course, happily agreed. Then a new episcopate was appointed. To the credit of the old legitimate bishops, it must be said that they did not resort to any workarounds in order to again achieve episcopal power; on the contrary, the majority did not accept the new bishoprics offered to them, so they had to resort to strong pressure on them. From the bishops who took the oath, the pope demanded an unequivocal statement to the effect that they “submit to the verdict of the papal throne in relation to ecclesiastical affairs in France and will carry it out, in other words, recognition of the papal indictment of the revolution and the civil status of the clergy. But Bonaparte did not want to go that far. In Rome, on the contrary, the pope's demand was found to be too lenient. It was ordered to print a false issue of the Moniteur, in which Napoleon’s proclamation to the Egyptians read as follows: “he expelled the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth from Rome.” At the same time, it was intended to cause extreme irritation in the minds, and some even advised the pope to flee to the island of Malta and it was better to seek refuge with the British than to rely on the first consul, who had forgotten God. But in Paris the papal claim was looked upon as insolence. After all, the sworn members of the clergy were still supporters of the revolution, and therefore, at all costs, in Paris they wanted to protect them from humiliation. Bonaparte was especially pointed out to some of the sworn bishops, whom public opinion strongly demanded to be included in the new episcopate, and more than once in the capital matters threatened to reach serious unrest because of this. Bonaparte had to exceed the limits of his consular power, and fifty members, as avowed opponents of the concordat, were removed from the legislative assembly before he could hope to obtain recognition of the concordat from the majority of the latter. Finally, somehow the last misunderstandings were eliminated on Rome’s part, and on April 2, 1802, the concordat was adopted by the State Council “without discussion.” Then, on the morning of April 5th, it was to be proposed to the legislature, not, however, to debate whether to accept or reject it, but to proclaim it as a binding law for the republic. At the same time, Portalis was entrusted with the task of overthrowing the last possible opposition in the legislative assembly. He solved this problem in a brilliant speech, in which he first proved the necessity of religion, precisely by the fact that one must have morality; and morality without dogmas would be nothing more than “justice without judges.” Most people can't be helped by evidence; they need commands, therefore they need religion, not philosophy. The advantage of positive religions is that they have rituals: an abstract religion can never become a popular religion. Atheism is much more dangerous for the state than superstition. But shouldn't some new religion be introduced and established? This is impossible. Religions should shine with their antiquity and they should be taken on faith as the work of God. Religion perishes as soon as they begin to see the hand of man in it. Why not stop at Christianity? Can the religion of Descartes, Newton, Pascal, Bossuet, Faupelon really be in conflict with enlightenment (reason and education) and good morals? True, the speaker continued, Christianity has several strange dogmas; but they “fill the empty space which reason has left and which human imagination would, of course, fill in the worst possible way.” In addition, the state must support religion simply because it needs to have it under its supervision (!). The concordat now concluded should be considered very beneficial even by the state, and especially in view of those “organic members” who are attached to it. By such a speech it was intended to contribute, with the help, of course, of Bonaparte, to the restoration of the “altars” in France, and the “Organic Members” represented a sufficient guarantee of the independence of the government in its relations with Rome. They were drawn up without the knowledge of the pope and later gave him cause for the most strident objections. In effect, they made the church a servant of the state. “No bull, no epistle, or other document of the pope,” they said, “shall be published or printed without the permission of the government. From him (the government) legates and nuncios receive their powers in order to have the right to fulfill their duties in France. Even the decrees of ecumenical councils cannot gain significance in France until the government examines and approves them; Without state approval, church meetings cannot take place in the country. No church acts can be carried out without special approval, that is, with the exception of those to which the government has given its approval in advance. In all matters, including ecclesiastical ones, everyone can turn to the state council, as a kind of supreme court of appeal. There can be no more talk about advantages of any kind. Archbishops and bishops may append to their name the words - Citoyen or Monsieur: (citizen or lord), and all other titles are prohibited. If any archbishop objects to consecrating suffragan bishops, the senior bishop may do so in his place. A person only thirty years of age can become a bishop, and only if he is a natural Frenchman. Bishops cannot leave their dioceses without the permission of the first consul. All teachers in theological seminaries must sign the Gallican Declarations of 1682, and also take an oath that they will instill in their students the teachings contained therein. No non-French person can become a priest in France without special permission. Throughout France the same catechism and the same liturgy must be used; Apart from Sunday, no other holidays can be introduced without special permission from the government. All ministers of the church must wear the usual French dress and dress in black; only bishops are allowed to wear a cross and purple stockings. In places where there are different faiths, no ceremonies can be performed outside churches. A wedding can only be performed on those married couples who have already entered into a civil marriage with each other in advance. Archbishops receive a salary from the pope of 15,000 francs, bishops 10,000 and priests 1,500 or 1,000 francs, in addition to the premises and garden.” Despite the addition of these “organic laws,” “the legislature was not very disposed to swallow the bitter pill which the concordat represented for it. On the same day that Portalis made his speech, a deputation from the assembly requested an audience with Bonaparte. Its representative made a speech in which he spoke about the Peace of Amiens, but did not mention a single word about the concordat. This was an obvious demonstration, which, however, Bonaparte did not pay attention to. Expressing his gratitude, he only said the following: “the entire French people yearns for an end to the religious unrest and the restoration of order in liturgical affairs. Like a nation, you too must come to an agreement on the subject of your deliberations. The French people will hear with the liveliest pleasure that there is no legislator who would not vote in favor of peace of conscience and family peace, which for the good of the people is of more importance than the peace for the conclusion of which you have just expressed your goodwill to the government! This statement left nothing to be desired in terms of clarity; and two days later the legislative assembly adopted the concordat into law by 220 votes to 21. On the same day the "tribunate" also passed this resolution by 78 votes to 7. The Parisian mob and fanatical adherents of the revolution tried to express their revenge by booing the drama that one of the tribunes who spoke in favor of the concordat staged in the "French theater", and the soldiers expressed their surprise that their The “little corporal” spoke in a churchly tone. On Friday, April 9, Caprara was officially received at the Tuileries Palace as legate of the papal throne. He expressed the desire that the horseman in front of him would carry a golden cross, as was the custom in ancient times when legates went to court. But the government did not dare present such a spectacle to the Parisian population. Therefore, the golden cross was hidden in the carriage that rode in front of the cardinal legate. Bonaparte received the legate at the head of a brilliant assembly and graciously listened to his speech. Caprara then took the oath of office. The day before, Bonaparte issued a decree by which the latter was recognized as the official legate if he promised in advance, “according to traditional odds,” to comply with the laws of the state and the “liberties” of the Gallican church. This expression was no doubt understood by the majority at that time to mean that the legate must recognize the four Gallican provisions of 1682. In reality this was not the case. This oath simply expressed a general vow of obedience. Upon taking the oath of office by the legate, Bonaparte expressed the hope that “the fruit of his mission will be joyfully welcomed by enlightened philosophers and true friends of humanity.” On the following Sunday, which coincided with Palm Sunday, four new prelates were canonically consecrated, and among them Bernier as Bishop of Orleans. Each of the new bishops received a cash gift, a cross, an episcopal staff and an episcopal miter (investiture). The solemn dedication took place in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, which was then still in the hands of the oath-takers. Meanwhile, this beautiful church was in the most pitiful condition. True, some amendments were made to it with extreme haste; but the sacristy was not in order, so a nearby building had to be used. The unusual spectacle attracted a huge crowd of people. “The Church,” says Thiers, was overflowing with countless Christians who mourned the sad state of religion and who, regardless of the indifference of parties, all gratefully accepted the mercy that the First Consul showed them that day.” On the eve of Easter, Bonaparte issued a proclamation in which he invited the French to participate in the celebration of the next day, precisely on the occasion of the promulgation of the concordat. “During the revolution,” this invitation said, “generally imbued with a love of freedom, religious strife suddenly arose, which was a scourge for your families, fed party discord and encouraged your enemies. Unwise policies tried to suppress these strife under overthrown altars, under the ruins of religion itself. Those pious festivals ceased, at which citizens called each other by friendly brotherly names and mutually recognized themselves as equals, under the right hand of Him who created them all. And the dying man was alone in his grief, no longer hearing that consoling voice that strengthens Christians with hope for a better life; God himself, as it were, was expelled from the world. The example of centuries and reason have commanded us to seek refuge with the Pope, so that he can again establish peace among communities and pacify hearts.” Then an appeal was made to the priests: “You, ministers of the religion of the world! Forget your strife, your harassment - and your mistakes. “Let citizens learn from you that the God of peace is also the Lord of hosts, and that He opposes all those who do not want France to be independent and free.” Finally, Easter day arrived (April 18, 1802), which at the same time was to receive special significance - due to the official announcement of the Peace of Amiens and the Concordat. Early in the morning, when the first consul was exchanging letters on this peace treaty with the envoys of foreign states, a semi-civilian, semi-military procession passed through the streets, and the concordat was announced to everyone. At about 11 o'clock Caprara went to the Cathedral of Our Lady, accompanied by the archbishops and bishops in their full vestments, and this time a golden cross was carried before the legate. Gilded carriages and carriages from the time of Louis XV moved majestically towards the church, which was filled with ladies in the most festive attire; and for the first time everyone saw in Madame Bonaparte’s carriage a servant in a green livery with gold tassels, which later became the color of the Napoleons. The First Consul walked to the church at the head of his faithful followers. On the way, this brilliant procession was greeted by a mass of generals, and at the behest of Bonaparte they all joined the procession (although this had to resort to a little military stratagem). The aged Archbishop of Aix, Boisgelin, delivered a solemn speech, which was nothing more than a panegyric to the general and first consul. The speaker made a comparison between him, Pepin and Charlemagne. All this was a prelude to the crowning of Bonaparte as emperor. Bonaparte chose the Archbishop of Aix for this role precisely because the latter was the speaker at the coronation of Louis XVI at Reims Cathedral. In general, everything was arranged as if France had only one ruler, and not three consuls, and only Bonaparte was literally given incense. When the priests asked in the morning whether the other two consuls also needed to burn incense, Bonaparte replied: “No! “Such a fragrance would be too strong for them.” This obvious attack on autocracy, together with the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion, further irritated the supporters of the revolution. Madame Steel locked herself in her room that day so as not to “see this disgusting sight”; and even many of Bonaparte's retinue were extremely dissatisfied. Upon returning home, the first consul said to one of the generals: “Isn’t it true? “Today everything seems to be done according to the ancient order.” He answered him: “Yes - with the only exception that 2,000,000 French died for freedom, and they can no longer be brought back to life.” After the conclusion of the concordat, Bonaparte sent a letter to the pope, in which he signed: “Your Holiness’s most devoted son.” However, a serious dispute regarding the “organic members” still remained unresolved between the pope and him. Rome was very dissatisfied not only with the “members” themselves, but even more with the very way they were imposed. An essay appeared in Paris, the title of which contained the word “Concordat” printed in large letters. The “organic members” in it were printed after the articles of the concordat and under the same number, so that everything looked as if they formed an inseparable part of the concordat concluded with the napoi. Regarding these “members,” Consalvi said: “They overthrew almost the entire building that we had erected with so much difficulty, turning it into ruins. The decrees that the concordat made regarding the freedom of the church and cult were again left to the will of Gallican jurisprudence, and the Church of France had to fear the return of the former slavery.” And his fears were fully shared by the pope and papal theologians. But nothing could be done. All representations, all requests, all threats remained fruitless; "organic members" came into force. In addition, in general it turned out to be extremely difficult to implement the decrees of the concordat and in some cases to reconcile the church, shaken up by the revolution, with the church of the monarchy. Priests and bishops who did not take the oath could not forget the dark past of those who took the oath, who, in turn, often saw the former as traitors to the cause of France and freedom. The fleeing bishops sent pastoral letters, partly from England, partly from Spain, Germany and Poland, to their former flocks, exhorting them not to accept the new order. Bonaparte was furious at these new troublemakers, and Talleyrand had to act diplomatically against them. The agreement with Rome, however, was not violated. Bonaparte sent the pope a Chinese dictionary compiled on his orders, and in animated words the pious pope thanked him for the relief that this would bring to the mission in China. The first consul gave him even greater joy with the gift of two ships, which were renamed and received the names “St. Peter" and "St. Paul". The pope was overjoyed, and the Romans began to little by little forget that in their city the revolution had once raised its head. Pius, for his part, turned out to be so well disposed towards Bonaparte that he appointed four French bishops as cardinals, among other things also Fesch, the brother of Letitia Bonaparte, the consul's mother. On March 27, 1803, a church celebration took place in the Tuileries Palace, during which Laetitia experienced the rare joy of witnessing how her son presented the cardinal's hat to her brother in exactly the same way as Louis XIV had previously presented it to the great cardinals. At the same time as the proclamation of the concordat was taking place, one young, hitherto unknown nobleman from Brittany, named Francois Chateaubriand, published an essay in which, under the title “The Genius of Christianity,” he praised the beauties of Christianity. This work was highly praised in the Moniteur, but was subjected to the harshest criticism from freethinkers. The author tries in it to overthrow the Nevers, proving that Christianity is neither absurd, nor rude, nor petty, as they began to look at it under the influence of Voltaire and the Encyclopedia, “this Tower of Babel in the field of science and reason.” Having himself come to faith with sorrow and tears, he now tried to bring others to tears, pouring out the brilliance of poetry on the “beauties” of faith and reverence for God. “Christianity,” he concludes, “is perfect; people are imperfect. Therefore Christianity cannot come from men; it obviously came from God Himself. If it is from God, then people cannot know it otherwise than through Revelation. Consequently, Christianity is a revealed religion” 10). This work, in its entirety, was more poetic than an apologetic work, richer in images than in thoughts. The author, apparently, was more deeply imbued with the works of classical poetry than with Holy Scripture. He simply tried to cover up the abyss that separated Christianity from the freethinking of that time. Therefore, the aesthetic “awakening” that he produced created more romantics who could shed tears of tenderness over the beauties of the teachings of faith and worship than true Christians who decided to live a life of self-denial and faith. That is why Chateaubriand’s view of Christianity did not at all convince the Nevers, but only gave rise to disputes and strife among aestheticians. And this is not surprising, because Chateaubriand’s Christianity, decorated with aesthetic embellishments, has little in common with true Christianity, and therefore attacks on it do not concern the latter. Not only literature, but also the arts were also involved in the glorification of the concordat. A painting appeared showing the pope at the very moment he was signing the concordat given to him by Cardinal Consalvi. This image was engraved on copper and printed in 5,000 copies for distribution among the people, and the same engraving, in addition, in small photographs, was sent to all parishes of the country, as a monument to peace between Bonaparte and Rome. So, peace was concluded between church and state. But how strong was it? In June 1803, Chateaubriand, who had recently happened to be present at an ordination performed by Cardinal Fesch in Lyon, wrote to his friend: “If today omnipotent man were to withdraw his hand, then tomorrow the philosophical spirit of the times would force the priests to fall under the sword of toleration, and would send them a second time to the philanthropic deserts of Guiana.” This world rested on such weak foundations! But in addition, there was another danger for the church, which Chateaubriand had not yet imagined: an “omnipotent man” could not only “take away his hand,” but also lay this hand on the church. But before it came to this, Pius himself had to render this man the greatest service that the pope was ever able to do, namely, to give a shine of legitimacy to the crown that this brave warrior had captured. Italian Concordat. – State of affairs in France. – Napoleon’s desire to strengthen his power through coronation. – Negotiations about summoning the pope to Paris. - Dad's arrival. - Coronation ceremony. - Bonaparte's autocratic act. - Dad's ministry. - Napoleon's plans. - Dad's demands. - Disagreements. – Return of the peahen to Rome. After many difficulties, having finally settled the matter of the church in France, the pope had to settle it at home in Italy. The matter was again very difficult, because the ideas of the great French Revolution found a living echo, primarily in Italy, where hot heads openly shouted about the need to put an end to the papacy as a centuries-old burden burdening the country and preventing it from striving for freedom and enlightenment. But there the papacy had such strong roots in the entire structure of state and everyday life that this movement could not be particularly deep, and therefore there, earlier than anywhere else, a reaction began in favor of restoring normal relations between church and state. When a republic was proclaimed in Italy under the influence of France, the state of affairs was at first so vague and uncertain that, in essence, complete anarchy reigned. But things could not remain this way for long, and therefore, at the end of 1801, an emergency advisory meeting of representatives from the northern Italian state was held in Lyon to develop a form of government for the south. The assembly unanimously elected Napoleon Bonaparte as president of the Italian republic, and since the papacy had been restored, the assembly found it necessary to take this fact into account and agreed to the adoption of certain laws regarding the position of the church, according to which its ministers were given an even more favorable position than what they had previously occupied. All this was done under the influence of Bonaparte, who, of course, from a political standpoint, wanted to strengthen the church in Italy, and therefore ordered the words at the head of the new Italian constitution: “The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the state religion.” With this visible sign of respect for the church, he wanted to bind to himself the people who valued the papacy, and, in order to strengthen his position there, he wanted to regulate the relations between the state and the church in Italy also through a concordat, similar to the French one. However, in Italy itself, a strong anti-papal spirit continued to dominate in the circles of the free-thinking intelligentsia, and therefore many of the highest dignitaries of the republic were against the concordat. Vice-President Melzi was an avowed enemy of the church, and this spirit hostile to the church, especially dominant in government circles in Milan, was expressed in the decree of June 23, 1802, which was in clear contradiction with the decree made in Lyon and made the church completely dependent on the state. Then Bonaparte himself took up the matter of the concordat and, supported by adherents of the French concordat, brought the matter to a happy end. He wrote a threatening letter to northern Italian dignitaries, and ensured that the Italian Concordat was signed in Paris on September 16, 1803. Upon approval by the Council of State in Milan, it received the force of law on November 2 of the same year. However, the Italian concordat could not do without the same appendage as the French one. Melzi issued several additional decrees, similar to the “organic members” adopted in France, and this caused a lot of grief to the pope. Meanwhile, in France everything was moving with gigantic steps towards the restoration of the empire. Napoleon formally accepted the imperial title, and in Paris they began to say that he wanted to receive the coronation from the pope himself. They just didn’t agree yet on where the coronation would take place, whether in Aachen, Charlemagne’s favorite city, or in Paris, or in Lyon. Napoleon himself dwelled on this thought with love. Cardinal Caprara immediately reported his intentions to Rome, and stated that only benefits for religion, church and state could come from such a coronation. On May 9, 1804, he dined in the evening at Saint-Cloudamame Bonaparte. The newly elected emperor was present there and entered into an intimate conversation with the cardinal legate. “Everyone,” he reasoned in an intimate conversation, “tells me how excellent it would be if my anointing and coronation were carried out by the pope himself, and this would also be in the interests of religion. It is incredible that any of the powers would make any objection to this. I won't go directly to my dad at this point because I don't want to run the risk of rejection. But still, get the job done, and if you guarantee my success, then I will take the necessary steps in relation to dad.” The next day Caprara wrote a message about this conversation to Rome. At the same time, he mentioned that Bonaparte gave the example of Pepin, who was anointed by Pope Zechariah; that he generally “spoke with rare seriousness.” The legate's view was that the pope, despite his old age, health and other circumstances, should meet the emperor's wishes. In his subsequent message, he refuted the objection that Napoleon could, following the example of Charlemagne, go to Rome himself, by the fact that “the emperor cannot leave the center of his state.” At the same time, in favor of his proposal, he even cites the somewhat material motive that the arrival of the pope will attract a lot of people to Paris, and the poor city, very depleted by the war, is in dire need of resources. In Rome they thought deeply about Caprara's proposal, because they doubted Napoleon's sincerity. In addition, church affairs were not completely settled. From England, French bishops continued to attack the concordat, which forced the clergy to swear allegiance to and pray for the new regime in France. From Warsaw, the "Count of Lille", later Louis XVIII, also issued a protest against everything that had happened since 1789. These circumstances required extreme caution from Rome, and therefore diplomatic negotiations began, which lasted for five whole months. Napoleon's uncle, Cardinal Fesch, as French commissioner, conducted his nephew's business in Rome, but not always with proper tact. The former intendant (precisely during the first Italian war) looked somehow strange in his cardinal's attire and was far from modest in his speech. When one day the cardinal, after a lively verbal conversation with Consalvi, got into the carriage, and the servant asked where the coachman should go, he said with his usual irritation: “A casa di diavolo” 11. People of different classes, and by chance also one of the foreign envoys, heard this, and the story of it spread throughout Rome. When, after long negotiations, the ground was finally prepared for inviting the pope, Napoleon sent his old brother in arms, a zealous adherent of the Concordat, General Carfarelli, to Rome with an official invitation to the pope. This invitation read: “Holy Father! The gratifying influence that the revival of the Christian religion has had on the morality and character of my people serves as an occasion for me to turn to your Holiness with a request to give me a new proof of the goodwill that you feel towards me, as well as towards the fate of this great people, and precisely during one of the most important revolutions that world history knows. I ask you to come and give the full stamp of religion to the celebration of the anointing and coronation of the first Emperor of the French. This celebration will open a new period in history if it is performed by Your Holiness himself. It will bring down on us and on our people all the blessings from God, by whose commands both families and states are governed.” The Pope received Carfarelli very graciously, and Napoleon already foresaw the realization of his goal. Emperor Francis II of Austria significantly contributed to the happy outcome of the case. At first, the Pope was afraid that Napoleon's coronation would cause trouble for this German house. But when this matter was clarified, on October 6, 1804, the pope officially informed the nuncios that he wanted to go to Paris, however, “not only to anoint and crown the emperor, but also to support the interests of religion, and hopes for very significant success in this regard.” Napoleon insisted that the coronation take place at least on the Sunday after the 18th of Brumaire; but this was impossible: only on November 2 did the pope leave Rome. Before his departure, he attended mass in the Cathedral of St. Peter and quietly prayed for a long time, kneeling. The pope went to Paris with only a small retinue, which consisted of six cardinals, several prelates, court dignitaries and doctors. Consalvi remained in Rome, and Fesch accompanied the pope as envoy of France. From the moment Pius set foot on French soil, the costs of the trip were borne by the French state treasury; and everywhere the authorities were ordered to treat the pope with the greatest possible consideration. Despite the emptiness of the papal state treasury, Pius brought with him various gifts: for Napoleon two antique cameos with the image of Achilles and Scipio, for Josephine antique vases, and for the ladies of the court expensive church candles. The route went through Florence and Alexandria to Turin, and from there through the Alps to Lyon. Along the way, masses of people flocked everywhere to receive a blessing from the pope; he was welcomed and celebrated in circles large and small. The youth of Lyon sent a deputation, which came to Pius with the purpose of assuring him that they stood in the faith of their fathers and were glad to express to him their heartfelt devotion in a region so richly blessed with memories of martyrdom. The old general, who was at the head of the army in Lyon, brought his son and said to the pope: “Holy Father! Jesus Christ blessed babies. Bless my son, you, His vicegerent on earth. I will raise him for church and state." From Lyon the path headed to Fontainebleau, where Napoleon wanted to meet the pope, and throughout this entire space, as before, the pope passed among the kneeling people. On November 25, Pius arrived in Fontainebleau. Napoleon deliberately scheduled a hunt for this day in order to avoid a ceremonial reception for the pope. He wanted to make it look as if the meeting had happened purely by chance. Dad suddenly saw before him a new Charlemagne in hunting clothes, surrounded by Mamelukes and a large pack of dogs. They embraced each other and entered the carriage to set off for Fontainebleau in a rather strange procession led by the Mamelukes. On the stairs of the castle, Pius was met by the empress and court dignitaries, and after resting for several hours, he paid a visit to the imperial couple. After a three-day stay in Fontainebleau, the pope entered Paris, but in the evening, because Napoleon did not want the Parisians to see that the pope was sitting in the carriage on the right side. His stay was allotted to him in the Tuileries Palace, and his rooms were deliberately furnished in the same way as his rooms in the Vatican were furnished, so that he would feel “at home.” On November 30, the pope wrote a letter to the Queen of Etruria, from which it is clear that he was completely fascinated by the courtesy of the emperor. On the same day, members of the Senate, Legislative Assembly, Tribunate and Council of State had an audience with him. Some feared that the democratically and Voltairian-minded members of the tribunate might introduce some bad taste into the generally friendly negotiations, but nothing of the sort happened. At the end of the audience, Pius VII went out onto the balcony of the castle to give a blessing to the crowds of people who, having forgotten about their “religion of reason,” were kneeling and awaiting the blessing from the pope. On December 2, the first Sunday of the Nativity Fast, the actual coronation of the Emperor and Empress was scheduled. The day before, Josephine came to dad in extreme emotional excitement. She opened her heart to him and declared that she was married to the emperor only in a civil manner. In 1796, during the terrible turmoil of the revolution, they appeared in court to enter into a civil marriage in the presence of several witnesses. Previously, the emperor so strictly insisted that the children of his generals be baptized and the marriages of his relatives receive church blessings that one might think that he himself would one day secretly get married in church. Josephine herself had been carried away by the revolutionary current for some time and took the matter lightly; but later her conscience became alarmed. When the concordat was concluded, she asked her husband to end their marriage with a church blessing: but Napoleon opposed this, either because he wanted to avoid any publicity, or because he was already toying with the idea of ​​divorcing Josephine. The latter is most likely: we know that his brothers were already persistently persuading him to divorce her then. Having heard this confession of the emperor's wife, the pope refused to crown the imperial couple until the church wedding took place; but he agreed that all this should be done in secret. Therefore, on December 1 at 11 o’clock in the evening, a small altar was placed in the emperor’s room with the greatest secrecy, and near it Cardinal Fesch married the imperial couple. This wedding remained a secret, which only a few initiates knew about. Then Fesh went to dad. “Is the marriage completed?” - Dad asked him; and when the cardinal answered: “yes,” Pius said further: “Okay, in that case, we will no longer resist the coronation of the empress.” The Cathedral of Our Lady from the floor to the very vaults was hung with gold-embroidered velvet. On the right side of the altar there was a throne for the pope, and at the foot of the altar there were two simple chairs for Napoleon and Josephine. The main entrance to the church was closed, because inside it, opposite the altar, a colossal throne was erected, to which twenty-four steps led. At 9 o'clock in the morning, the pope left the castle first for the archbishop's palace, where he put on the papal vestments. After a short stay there, he... Accompanied by bishops, priests and part of the imperial guard, he went to a church located not far from here, and entered it through one of the side doors. Before him were carried a cross and signs of papal dignity. At his appearance, all those present stood up, and the orchestra, consisting of 500 musicians, played a melody to the words of the Lord, “You are Peter, and on this stone,” etc. (Matthew 16:18). Then the pope knelt before the altar, ascended to his high throne, and the bishops of France began to approach him to express their respect to him. The emperor kept the assembly waiting for an hour, probably because the master of ceremonies had rather imprecisely distributed the order of the various ceremonies. Napoleon first went to the archbishop's palace, where the crown, scepter, sword and imperial robe were located, which were carried before him by the generals and placed on the altar. On his head he had nothing but a golden laurel crown, in which he resembled an imperial figure on one of the ancient coins. He and Josephine then first sat down in their chairs, and after the "Veni Creator Spiritus" had been sung, the Pope addressed him with a solemn question: Does he swear to maintain law, justice and peace, and to pay due respect to the Church? Laying his hand on the Gospel, the emperor swore: “I swear on this!” After a new prayer, the emperor and empress ascended the steps of the altar; and at that time the choir sang: “And let Zadok the priest and John the prophet anoint him there as king over Israel, and blow the trumpet and shout: Let King Solomon live” (1 Kings 1:34). Then the pope anointed first the emperor, then the empress, both on the forehead, arms and hands, after which the imperial couple returned to their places again, and the “great almsgiver” wiped the anointed places. After the anointing, the pope blessed the crowns, sword, robes and rings; and, having presented the emperor with a ring, a sword, a mantle and a scepter, the pope again went to the altar to take the crown and place it on the emperor’s head; But Napoleon warned him, took the crown from the pope’s hands and placed it on his own head. Then he also took the crown assigned for Josephine, and likewise placed it on his head with his own hand. Then both crowned ones with a brilliant retinue walked through the entire church to the great throne, with Napoleon's brothers carrying the trains of the imperial robes. Having ascended to the upper step of the throne, the Emperor and Empress sat there, and the Pope solemnly approached them and blessed them. After the blessing, he kissed the emperor on the right cheek, then turned to the assembly and said the words: “Vivat imperator in aeternum”! The entire assembly loudly responded with a shout of “Vive l’empereur”! 12 and then cannon shots announced to the whole city that the Emperor of France had received ecclesiastical consecration. When all the church ceremony was over, the pope retired, and the presidents of the senate, the council of state, the legislature and the tribunate approached the emperor, and the emperor, with a crown on his head, placing his hand on the Gospel, pronounced an oath in which he swore that he “will respect and value equality before the laws, political and civil freedom, as well as the irrevocable sale of national estates” - expressions that burst into this whole medieval ceremony, like a sudden gust of wind from the vague movements of modern times. After the oath, the imperial couple left the church under the royal canopy carried by the priests. Then cannon thunder and rifle salvos were heard again, and the people fled through the streets along which the emperor walked. Only the revolutionary generals did not share this universal joy. With deep annoyance they saw how the son of the revolution trampled under foot the religious and civil ideals of the revolution, and did not hide their annoyance. Dad didn't feel happy either. He was extremely embarrassed by the fact that Napoleon himself placed the crown on his head, which was not at all consistent with the long-established custom. Pius was generally so upset by this act of Napoleon that he demanded that if the Moniteur mentions the coronation, then the description of the entire action should adhere to the agreed upon ceremony, according to which the pope was to place the crown on the emperor. But Napoleon did not agree to this, although on the other hand he did not want to give the pope any reason to protest. Therefore, he decided to simply prohibit the Monitor from reporting on the coronation. While all the French newspapers were filled with descriptions of the brilliant celebration, the official organ maintained the deepest silence, although earlier (in the issue of December 9) it promised to give the most detailed report, “as the readers expect, and as was the intention of the editors.” However, word of this incident began to spread more and more, and everywhere they spoke with bitterness about the humiliation that the pope had committed. As soon as Napoleon was anointed and crowned, his interest in the pope cooled. Nevertheless, from the outside he continued to show generosity towards the church and its ministers, and in every possible way showed attentiveness to the pope himself. So, when for example Pius visited the imperial printing house, then he was presented with a copy of the prayer “Our Father” in almost a hundred languages, and a book was compiled in which the pope’s stay in Paris was poetically glorified in all known languages ​​- a collection for which Sylvester de Sacy even composed Arabic verses, and precisely on the model of Gariri. Every day the Monitor reported in detail about every step and action of the pope, and everything went perfectly. Only sometimes did dad accidentally notice traces of irreligion. When he once blessed a crowd of people he met, he saw someone hastily run away to avoid the blessing. “Don't run away! “- he exclaimed with his characteristic resourcefulness, “the elder’s blessing has never harmed anyone,” and this remark passed from mouth to mouth in Paris. But, despite all the attentiveness of Napoleon and the Parisians, dad wanted to return home as soon as possible; meanwhile, the emperor did everything to keep him with him longer, and even, if possible, to completely keep the pope in France. One day, some high military dignitary, whose name the pope never wanted to name, made him an offer to establish his residence in Avignon and at the same time erect a papal palace for himself in the archbishop's castle in Paris: there would be his privileged state city apartment, where envoys of various states would live around him. From this it is clear that Napoleon (undoubtedly, this was his business) in his church-state plans came to the intention of making the pope his imperial court chaplain. To this the pope replied that he would never voluntarily agree to such a plan; but if they use force, then in Paris they will have nothing more than “a poor monk, whose name is Barnava Chiara-monti.” Before his departure, foreseeing the possibility of such an eventuality, he made orders that in this case a new pope should be immediately elected. Meanwhile, in Rome there was already a strong desire for the pope to return as soon as possible. On the night of February 1, Rome suffered a great misfortune. The Tiber overflowed its banks and so quickly flooded the whole quarter that its inhabitants had to flee to the roofs, from where they shouted: “Barcarolo, a noi, pietà, pane”! (Hey, boatman, come here! Have mercy! Bread!). Consalvi himself equipped the boat, and in cardinal's clothes, moving from one roof to another, he delivered vital supplies to the unfortunate. The example of the cardinal had an infectious effect on other Roman nobles. The rumor of this misfortune aroused the pope's persistent desire to return to Rome. But before setting off on his return journey, he presented (in February or March 1805) his demands to the emperor. He demanded the elimination of various abuses and some laws that were contrary to church teaching, such as the divorce regulations contained in the Napoleonic Code, as well as some organic members, namely the Gallican provisions. For the bishops, he demanded their old right to supervise the morals and lives of priests, as well as the restoration of the old laws regarding the sanctity of Sundays and feast days, the prohibition of married priests from teaching in schools, and the admission of monastic orders. Finally, he demanded that the Roman Catholic religion be declared dominant in France. The pope accompanied his written statement with a second note, in which he touched upon the loss of several areas of the church state that he had suffered. Following the dictates of his conscience, as well as relying on the favor of the emperor, the pope argued that, in view of the expenses associated with the papacy, he could not do without the provinces taken from him by the French. “And in general it would be useful for the balance of Italy to return the lands to a sovereign who has no other weapon except political weakness and spiritual dignity.” The emperor should imitate Charlemagne, who returned to the pope what was taken from him by the Longobards; and if a peace congress ever takes place, the papal throne should send its delegate to it, not in order to interfere in the political affairs of the sovereigns, but in order to declare the needs of the papacy. The papal idea was the wish that Pius VII and Napoleon I acquire the same glory as Stephen IV and Louis the Pious. The Pope personally handed over this document to Napoleon. Napoleon received him friendly, but left it to himself to answer individual points later; and as Cardinal Antonelli writes to Consalvi, it was clear from everything that it was absolutely impossible to entertain hopes of the return of the lost provinces. Even sadder for the “holy father” was the fact that Melzi, at the head of a deputation of northern Italian dignitaries, on March 15, 1805, offered Napoleon the royal crown of Italy. It was extremely improbable that the new king of Italy would return to the pope several of his best provinces, especially in view of the sentiment against the papacy; which dominated precisely in northern Italy. The Pope, however, was given a thorough and carefully drafted answer to all his complaints. In two written replies, drawn up by Napoleon together with Portalis, the pope was first promised the return he desired of the provinces taken from him. According to the emperor, “he has always held the view that it is useful for religion if the pope in Rome is considered not only as the head of the church, but also as an independent sovereign.” Meanwhile, the revolution destroyed the temporal power of the pope and caused damage to his spiritual power, until finally the emperor, after a series of victories, managed to restore the altars again and return 30,000,000 Christians to obedience to the pope. But although the power and influence of the church have been restored again, this has not yet eliminated all opposition against it; and against the enemies who opposed the church, only power and wealth would not be enough. This would immediately arouse even more hatred and displeasure. The loving personality of the present pope ensures the obedience of the people to the Holy See much better than all the wealth and all the power of the past. However, the emperor is quite ready, both in earthly and political terms, to provide all assistance to the pope if God provides him with a favorable opportunity to do so. The Constitution of the state and the sacred oath given to him forbid him to do at this time what he would willingly do; if God prolongs his life, then he hopes to be able to “improve and expand the lands of the holy father.” But at all times he will consider it his honor and his happiness to serve as one of the firmest supports of the papal throne. In addition to these sweet effusions, Portalis was tasked with drawing up a clearer response to certain points put forward by the pope in the first of his written statements. Regarding divorce permitted by French laws, Portalis wrote “that the law cannot prohibit divorce in a country where there are religious parties that allow it. It would not be entirely prudent to immediately change the legislation that had been consolidated in France during the fifteen years of the revolution. In addition, civil laws can always only be relatively good: ideal requirements must be consistent with the historical circumstances of the people. In order not to disturb or confuse the conscience, one circular from the time of the consulate allows priests to refuse to perform a new marriage for divorced people while the other divorced party is still alive. If the pope wishes to restore the old right of bishops over priests, then the state must, in return, retain the right to judge and punish the crimes of priests, insofar as they are citizens of the state. Canonical errors and crimes are a completely different matter. The state will always forward cases related to this to the bishops.” As for the pope’s desire to celebrate Sundays and solemn days, the answer said: “Good examples always mean more here than the letter of the law. In villages there is more religiosity, and therefore it is easier to protect the peace of Sunday; in cities, however, it cannot be made compulsory, simply because some would suffer harm in their business, and therefore, as experience teaches, many, as a result of forced rest, receive an opportunity only for secret vices or crimes.” On the contrary, another desire of the pope, that married priests should not be given teaching positions, can be satisfied; to the proposal that the Catholic religion be declared dominant. the government cannot agree. “It is such in reality and especially in view of the fact that it is the religion of the emperor and empress, the imperial family and the prevailing majority; a law that contained such a definition would not bring real benefit and, on the contrary, would expose religion itself to great dangers. In view of the direction of the times and the general mood, such a law would only re-awaken old enmities and create new opponents to Catholicism. So these negotiations ended in nothing and both sides were unhappy. Therefore, the friendship between the emperor and the pope rather cooled when parting. Napoleon was unhappy because Pius did not want to stay in France. However, good relations have not yet been disrupted by an obvious break. On Sunday, March 24, Pius personally baptized the emperor's nephew, Napoleon Louis (not the later Emperor Napoleon III, but his brother). The emperor was the godfather, his mother was the godmother, and nine cardinals and fifteen archbishops and bishops also took part in the celebration. For the uninitiated, everything had the appearance of an extremely cordial relationship between the head of state and the head of the church; but Pius no longer felt well in Paris and hurried to leave. The Emperor and the Pope both went to Italy, although by different roads, and met again in Turin. Napoleon was met everywhere by the people in joy and jubilation, Pius, on the contrary, on his knees. From Turin the pope continued his journey through Parma, Modena and Florence. There he met with the bishop of Pistoich, Scipio Ritchie, who finally bowed to the papal authority and abandoned all opposition to him. On May 16, 1805, the pope again entered his capital. The Cardinal of York came out to meet him at the head of all the other cardinals, and great joy reigned everywhere. Going straight to the Church of St. Peter, the pope fell to his knees to thank God, and a solemn prayer service was performed in the cathedral. On June 26, a meeting of the College of Cardinals took place, at which the pope made a report about his journey and said with the greatest possible brevity: “On December 2, the anointing and coronation of the emperor and his eminent wife, our beloved daughter in Christ Jesus, Josephine, was most solemnly performed.” At the same time, dad tried to note the brighter sides of the trip. “Much has already been achieved,” he said, “and what has been achieved serves as a guarantee of further acquisitions for the church in the future.” Meanwhile, already before this message was made to the College of Cardinals. Napoleon was crowned in Milan (26 May); and a few weeks later he issued a significant decree concerning the clergy, by which the last traces of revolution and Gallicanism were destroyed in the Italian church. Despite this, the decree did not make a favorable impression in Rome, since the Italian concordat was damaged through it. By virtue of it, the emperor, in addition to the pope, could make any innovations he wanted. When the pope expressed a complaint about this, Napoleon got angry and ordered the pope to be told: “He has already made it clear to His Holiness more than once that the Roman court is too slow and follows a policy that could be quite good in past centuries, but is no longer suitable for the present.” However, this bitter pill was accompanied by such kind assurances that the pope was still, in general, satisfied with this answer, because it revealed “the emperor’s love for religion and his opposition to the false philosophy of the century." How great this love was, he soon became convinced of it. h3 5. The gap between the emperor and the pope Conflict over divorce. - The pope's disagreement and the emperor's dissatisfaction. - Requirement for dad. - Dad's difficult situation. – Gap – Napoleon’s intentions to remove France from the power of the pope. - Feast of St. Napoleon. – Napoleonic Catechism. - Threats to dad. - Arrest him. – Napoleon’s official body mocks the Pope. In 1803, Napoleon's younger brother, Jerome, was in North America as an officer in Admiral Villometz's squadron. During his stay in Baltimore, he met the daughter of a wealthy Protestant merchant Paterson, and the Bishop of Baltimore married this couple, despite the difference in religion of the couple, and the nineteen-year-old groom did not even present a certificate of his mother’s consent. Napoleon, at that time being only the first consul, first looked at this marriage as a rash youthful act; but when Jerome expressed a desire to bring his young wife with him to Europe, the police were given an order, if this happened, to send the American woman to Amsterdam and from there back to America. Jerome, meanwhile, was so prudent that he dropped off his wife in Lisbon; but when he then received news of his brother's order, he did not dare disobey him. Therefore, he sent his wife to Holland, and he himself went to Milan to see his brother there. Napoleon soon managed to influence his brother so much that he himself began to desire a divorce, and at the same time his mother filed a formal judicial complaint against the conclusion of this marriage without obtaining her consent to it. It was not so easy to persuade dad to dissolve this marriage. Cardinal Caprara offered his theological adviser, Caselli, to the Emperor's service to find grounds for divorce, while on the other hand the learned jurist, the United States Agent in Rome, interceded for the Patterson family. Pius, who himself had studied canon law for a long time, tried in every possible way to find grounds that would give him the opportunity to make a concession to the emperor, and finally thought that he actually found one in one of the decrees of the Council of Trent. But then he himself doubted. Were the decrees of the Council of Trent ever announced in Baltimore? The most thorough research was carried out in the archives of the Inquisition and propaganda. It turned out that the decrees of the Council of Trent were not announced in Baltimore. As a result of this, the pope, of course, in the most kindly terms, refused to agree to the dissolution of this marriage. The emperor, not at all taking into account all the scrupulous conscientiousness of the pope, saw in this answer only a sign of stubbornness and ill will, and could not understand how the pope did not agree to the dissolution of the marriage of a Catholic with a Protestant. But that here, too, religion for Napoleon was only a tool of temporary use, this is clear from the fact that he later allowed his brother Jerome to marry a Lutheran, precisely the heiress of the Württemberg region. And then the pope, like almost all the sovereigns of Europe, had to make sure that Napoleon was a tyrant who did not want to tolerate any contradictions and obstacles in his path. In October 1805, French troops were given permission to pass through the Papal States on their way from Naples to northern Italy; but the French general abused this permission, occupying the papal city of Ancona without any extravagance. Pius expressed his amazement to the emperor at such an act, and at the same time, although in the mildest terms, made a threat that if Ancona was not cleared by the French, he would interrupt diplomatic relations. Throughout the pope’s letter there is a tone of despondency and sorrow: “he showed France every kind of attention, for which he even suffered reproaches from others: what reward did he receive for this”? Napoleon was then (in November) near Vienna, and was busy with the most important matters, so he got ready to answer only a few months later from Munich (in January 1806), and answered the pope as if clouded by happiness and glory. His entire letter from beginning to end sounds like reproaches to dad. He calls God to witness that he has done more for religion than all the reigning sovereigns together: but the pope constantly did not want to understand this and was ungrateful. In one of the letters to Cardinal Fesch dated the same day, he calls the pope’s letter “savvy and insane,” calls the pope’s advisers “fools,” and threatens to recall Fesch and send some secular Protestant as an envoy to Rome. He even directly states that the pope and his people, relying on the Russians and the British, “desecrated religion,” and even expresses the idea that he has a good desire to reduce the pope to the position of a simple bishop in Rome. And this “reduction” always seemed to him the most desirable. The Papal States annoyingly divided between two kingdoms: Naples and Northern Italy, and its capital constantly served as the seat of clever foreign diplomats, almost exclusively of powers hostile to France. When the French Minister of Police Fouche, who had his own numerous spies in Rome, reported to the emperor that Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar caused as much rejoicing in Rome as the Battle of Austerlitz, this irritated Napoleon even more, and he decided to bring down the pope, although he did not begin this immediately, but gradually, through diplomatic means. On February 13, 1806, he wrote a remarkable letter to the pope, in which he wrote to him that in order to get rid of all difficulties, the pope must stay away from the powers “who, from a religious point of view, are heretics and do not belong to the church, and in the matter of politics are so alien to the pope that, not being able to protect him, they could only bring him harm.” He goes on to propose something like an alliance between France and Rome. “Our conditions,” he says, “must be that your Holiness will treat me with the same attention in political matters as I treat you in spiritual matters. “Your Holiness is the sovereign in Rome, and I am the Roman emperor.” All my enemies must also be your enemies.” Then he condemns the slowness and inertia of Rome, but at the same time makes it clear that this censure is actually directed only at famous persons in the retinue of the pope, “who do not want good and instead of thinking in these critical times about healing evils, they only try to make them worse.” These words were thrown at Consalvi's account: Fesch, who could never get along with the papal secretary of state, constantly humiliated him before Napoleon. Moreover, the emperor, during the negotiations of the concordat, learned that Consalvi was one of those few Roman state dignitaries who had sufficient political acumen and familiarity with European affairs to be dangerous. Therefore, the further, the more the emperor’s disfavor towards him intensified. The above-mentioned letter to Fesch also says: “Tell Consalvi that if he loves his fatherland, then he should either leave his ministerial post or do as I wish; that I am a truly religious person, and not some kind of bigot.” The emperor wanted the pope to break diplomatic relations with all the enemies of France, expel their subjects from the church state and close his harbors to them, in a word, act together with the emperor. That such a statesman as Consalvi could never agree with such an idea is obvious; because through this the pope would undoubtedly descend to the degree of French court bishop. Napoleon also failed to achieve great compliance in Rome because he particularly emphasized the Roman character of his imperial power: after all, for the Vatican it was quite obvious what a big difference there was between the Europe of the times of Charlemagne and modern Europe. If the pope had submitted to Napoleon's policy, then through this he would have lost his church supremacy over more than half of Europe: and whether he would have gained more influence over the French church through this, given the despotic nature of Napoleon, it was more than doubtful. Meanwhile, Consalvi advised the pope to propose this matter to the cardinals for discussion, which he did. Two sessions of the consistory were convened, at which thirty cardinals were present; but everyone, with the exception of only one French cardinal, was against Napoleon's proposal, because... “The independence of the Holy See is too closely connected with the interests of religion.” In a detailed letter, the pope outlined the reasons that prompted him to reject the emperor's proposal: God is the God of peace; How could His deputy speak out and support what is contrary to the world? God loves peace both with those who are close and with those who are distant, therefore the Pope must keep peace not only with Catholics, but also with heretics. He cannot act otherwise than by rejecting the emperor's proposal, which would immediately involve him. in a war with the enemies of the emperor. If the emperor condemns the slowness of Rome, especially with regard to the state of German affairs, then the pope rightfully recalls the extremely confused nature of the then relations, which became more and more confused day by day, especially after the Congress of Regensburg. Napoleon's attempt to advance his importance as Roman Emperor was eliminated by the pope with the simple remark that he was the Emperor of the French and had no right to Rome. There is no emperor over Rome; otherwise it would mean that there is no papal primacy. There is, however, the title “Roman Emperor,” but it belongs to the German Emperor and cannot belong to two sovereigns together. Therefore, the pope sees himself forced to reject Napoleon’s claim that the pope recognize his authority in relation to civil affairs in the same sense as the emperor recognizes the power and authority of the pope in spiritual matters: after all, the latter’s authority in spiritual and ecclesiastical terms is of divine origin and cannot be compared with any secular authority. Therefore, there can be no question of the enemies of any sovereign being at the same time the enemies of the pope; Such a desire would be contrary to the divine mission of the papacy in the world. That such a papal message could not please Napoleon is self-evident. Napoleon suspected Consalvi of his style and tone, against whom his hatred flared up more and more: and this hatred soon received new food. When his brother Joseph was appointed king of Naples, the pope was informed about this event in the most pompous terms: but within a few days Consalvi recalled “the close connection that for many centuries existed between the pope and Naples,” in other words, the pope laid claim to dominance in the two Sicilies. This courage completely infuriated Napoleon. “What does the Papal Secretary of State want? What kind of extravagance possessed him? – Napoleon wrote to Caprara. “If he continues in this tone further, then I will order Consalvi to be removed from Rome and made responsible for previous affairs; because, obviously, he was bribed by the British.” To show that the threat was serious, he had already two weeks earlier issued an order to Joseph to immediately and as quietly as possible occupy Civitta Vecchia. harbor of Rome. Consalvi immediately protested against this activity and instructed the papal nuncios to inform foreign powers that such an action was violence and was by no means the fruit of a friendly agreement. But Napoleon did not stop there. Following this, the pope learned from the Moniteur that the emperor had given Talleyrand and Bernadotte Benevend and Pontecorvo, two papal castles in the Neapolitan region: and at the same time, in the place of Cardinal Fesch, a layman and a known enemy of the church, Alquier, was sent to Rome as the French envoy. Now it became clear to the pope that this was about his secular power, which is why he decided to take a firm position against Napoleon. When Consalvi became convinced of the pope's determination, he thought that the time had come for him to leave his post, although he was convinced that this resignation would not improve matters. He suggested that the pope elect another secretary of state. Dad did not want to agree to this for a long time, so that the whole matter would not seem like a concession to Napoleon. Finally, however, he yielded to Consalvi's arguments, and he elected Cardinal Casoni as his successor (June 17, 1806). Casoni spent a long time in Avignon and was subsequently nuncio to Spain, and France had no reason not to trust him. This kind of consideration contributed to his choice much more than his personal qualities. It was extremely unfortunate for the pope to lose Consalvi, and both the citizens of Rome and foreign diplomats felt the same way about this matter. But everyone felt that they were walking on a volcano, not only their subjects, but also the pope himself. Having received a farewell audience with the pope, Cardinal Fesch briefly denied him the right to assert his spiritual supremacy in the then church affairs of France, and shamelessly expressed that, in his opinion, church councils are higher than the pope. The ruler’s shamelessness also infected his servant. Napoleon, meanwhile, had already come significantly closer to the ideal of the caliphate, which had become his constant favorite thought, especially since the time of his coronation. From that time on, he began to apparently prefer the old bishops, while previously he especially favored those who took the oath; Likewise, he began to provide officer positions to the old nobility, high judicial positions to former parliamentary families, and finally court positions in general to persons of the old regime. To explain this, he directly said: “only people of the old generation know how to serve.” His government was supposed to “represent, as it were, a continuation of the government of Louis XIV, with the only difference that he stands infinitely higher than that great monarch, and therefore he should have complete control over the church. It is remarkable that from the very moment when it came to breaking with the pope, he diligently began to speak in what he called “the language of religion.” He asks the bishops to give thanks to “the Lord of hosts for the brilliant help that He provided to the French arms; and the clergy were ordered to pray "that our persecuted brethren in Ireland may obtain freedom of religion." At first his victory ballots were read in churches, but this was later canceled because such a reading might create an unpleasant impression in the event of defeat; in addition, through this the church department would receive too much importance and power. Napoleon had a high opinion of the importance of preaching, and therefore paid special attention to preachers. “Let Monsieur Robert, the priest at Bourges,” he wrote to the Minister of Confessions Portalis, “let know that I am dissatisfied with him: on August 15 he preached a very bad sermon.” Those clergy with whom he was dissatisfied, he first imprisoned them in a monastery; later he ordered them to be imprisoned. In St. Marguerite, Fenestrelle, Ivre and other places, the prisons were overcrowded with priests. The lawless and lawless arbitrariness against these individuals was completely reminiscent of the times of the revolution, confirming the well-known fact that Christianity can be the subject of persecution under any form of government. However, a considerable part of the French clergy themselves deserved the disdain that is reflected in many of the emperor’s expressions. There were many bishops and priests who shamefully groveled before him, flattered him, and no one had the courage to warn him on his path to self-deification. At the suggestion of Portalis, two new holidays were introduced to replace the old ones that had been abolished, so as not to distract the population from work. One of these holidays, namely the feast of St. Napoleon, it was decided to celebrate August 15, the emperor’s birthday, as a holiday of thanksgiving for the prosperity of his reign. The celebration of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary itself was completely cancelled. On another day appointed in winter, it was decided to celebrate in honor of the great army and the coronation of the emperor. In response to the circular ordering the introduction of these holidays, loyal requests followed from various quarters for permission to dedicate chapels and churches in honor of the saint, who had the good fortune to give his name to the great emperor. The old returned emigrant Osmond, Bishop of Nancy, openly demanded the establishment of unions that would bear the name of the new fashionable saint, and Osmond's biographer, Abbé Guillaume, wrote obsequiously in 1862, hinting at a second empire: "At the magical sound of the name of Napoleon, thoughts were given life, and hearts were warmed, the masses were set in motion and worked for the glory and prosperity of the fatherland." However, one unpleasant circumstance happened to the new saint: apart from his name, nothing else was known about him. The Bollaidists of the 17th century and the Roman martyrology did not even mention him at all, and Osmond could not find the slightest information about St. in the libraries of Nancy. Napoleone. Out of excess jealousy, the bishop wrote about this to Paris; but despite the rich book depositories available in Paris, all research led only to a sad result: no one knew anything about St. Napoleone. Finally, they resorted to comparative linguistics, in the hope that it would shed the desired light. The discovery was made that a certain Greek named Neopolis or Neopolas suffered martyrdom in Alexandria under Diocletian or Maximian. This name Neopolas was converted, as was supposed, in the Middle Ages, through various sound transitions, into Napoleo, and finally in Italian Napoleon was developed from it. Based on this philological hypothesis, the new saint was included in the French church calendar. It is not surprising that the emperor, who lived and acted at the forefront of the French people, little by little overshadowed the unknown saint, and in the eyes of the festive crowd the celebration was celebrated in honor of the living Napoleon. Once he took the path of arbitrariness in church affairs, Napoleon stopped at nothing and decided to transform the entire religion in his spirit. To this end, he first of all founded an official church body (“Journal des curés”), placed under his strict control, and then, relying on the organic members, which said: “In all the Catholic churches of France only one liturgy and one catechism should be recognized,” he decided to take this area into his own hands. Already in 1803, he expressed the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bcompiling a new catechism; but later he found it more expedient to base this on Bossuet’s catechism, which then coincided with his awakened sympathy for the old government. Contrary to a clear warning from the pope, Cardinal Caprara took part in the editorial process, for which he subsequently received severe trouble from Rome. The new imperial catechism of 1806 was also essentially a reproduction of the catechism of the famous Bossuet; but at the same time, however, everything was aimed at “tying the people to the venerable person of the emperor,” and further, “directing their obedience to the right goal.” To understand these phrases, one need only glance at the explanation of the fifth commandment. Bossuet's Catechism says: "What further commands us in the fifth commandment"? Answer: “Honor all leaders, such as priests, kings, government officials and others.” These few words were considered sufficient in 1686; but in 1806 this section of the catechism was much in circulation. Napoleon did not want to put himself on the same line as priests and other government officials; and therefore in the imperial catechism the corresponding section, apparently processed by Napoleon himself, was as follows: Question: “What duties do Christians have in relation to the sovereigns placed over them, and what are especially our duties in relation to Napoleon I, our emperor”? Answer: “Christians are obliged to show their sovereigns, and especially we to Napoleon I, our emperor, love, obedience, respect, faithfully, to serve military service and pay the taxes imposed on them in order to support and protect the emperor and his throne. Further, we are obliged to offer prayers for his salvation, as well as for the spiritual and physical well-being of the state 14. - Question. “Why should we perform all these duties towards our emperor”? Answer: “First, because God, who created states and divides them according to His good pleasure, has favored our emperor with His gifts in war and peace, made him a ruler over us and a servant of His power, and made him His image on earth. Showing honor and service to our emperor is the same as showing honor and service to the Lord God Himself. Secondly, because our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, both by teaching and example, taught us that we owe everything to our sovereign: He himself was born while fulfilling the duty of obedience to the order of the Emperor Augustus; He paid the assigned tax, and commanding to render to God what is God’s, He at the same time commanded: render to the emperor what belongs to the emperor.” Question: “Are there special circumstances that bind us even more strongly to Napoleon I, our emperor?” Answer: “Yes, because it was God who raised him up in the midst of difficult circumstances in order to again restore public worship and the holy religion of our fathers, and to constantly be its defender. With his deep and effective reason, he not only restored social order, but also strengthened it; he defends the state with his mighty hand; through the dedication he received from the pope, the head of the entire church, he became the Lord’s anointed.” – Question: “What should we think about those who do not fulfill their duty towards the emperor?” Answer: “According to the word of St. ap. Paul, they rebel against the order established by God Himself, and make themselves worthy of eternal condemnation.” – Question: “Should we have, by virtue of the laws of the empire and in relation to the legitimate successors of the emperor, the same duties that we have towards the emperor himself?” Answer: “Yes, certainly; because, we read in Holy Scripture that God, the Lord of heaven and earth, by His will and industrially entrusts the state not only to an individual, but also to his family.” – Question: “What responsibilities do we have towards our authorities?” Answer: “We must honor and respect them, obey them, because our emperor made them participants in his power.” – Question: “What is prohibited by the fifth commandment”? Answer: “She forbids us to resist our superiors, harm them and say anything bad about them.” In this form, French youth in the future were ordered to instill the duty of obedience to the emperor. As soon as the pope received news of the new catechism, he was not slow to protest: “the emperor wants to arrogate to himself the authority that God has granted only to the church; the apostles, not the kings, are told: “Go and teach all nations.” But the protest came too late. The Imperial Catechism remained approved as a textbook in France until the fall of the Empire. Along with this self-will, with which the emperor arrogated to himself a right that in Roman Catholic lands belonged only to the pope, namely the right to abolish and introduce textbooks, new griefs arose for the pope. Not limiting himself to the seizure of fortified places of the church state, Napoleon also wanted to have the moral support of the pope against his enemies. When Pius did not agree to this, Napoleon decided to take the final step. On January 10, 1808, General Miollis received orders to suddenly march on Rome, and precisely under the pretext that he wanted to join his troops in the kingdom of Italy. He was supposed to occupy the city and “punish and suppress the slightest attempt at an uprising in the strictest possible manner.” By the end of January 1808, Miollis, at the head of his army, moved from Florence. Having reached the limits of the church state, he asked permission to pass through Rome. “He would like to have wings to reach Naples by air; but since there is no other way on earth to Naples except through the city of Rome, he asked to be allowed to pass this road.” Permission was given: and therefore no one was surprised when, early in the morning of February 2, 1808, a large French corps entered the city through the “People's Gate”. The army moved in military order through the Spanish Square to the gate of St. Giovanni: A few cannons in front, followed by cavalry and infantry. Arriving at the large square in front of the Quirinal, where the pope lived, the army stopped, and the cannons were pointed at the Quirinal. At this time, on the occasion of the holiday, the Pope, together with the cardinals, performed divine services in the Church of the Quirinal. The French did not interfere with them and were surprised to see how, at the end of the mass, the cardinals got into their carriages as if nothing had happened. But the Roman population could not react to this event with the same calm, and for the first time since time immemorial, the week of the carnival passed boring and sad, because everyone saw and felt that they were, in essence, captive of the French. Soon after the occupation of Rome by the French, Cardinal Casoni suddenly fell ill, and Doria Pamphilius became his successor as papal secretary of state. His rule did not last long, however. Napoleon, hating the college of cardinals in general, issued an order that commanded that all those cardinals who were not subjects of the pope from birth should be immediately and against their will each deported to their homeland. As a result of this order, Doria immediately had to leave for Genoa, and Gabrielli took his post. Then Pius resorted to a decisive measure - to sever diplomatic relations with France. Cardinal Caprara was stripped of his powers and himself recalled. The retinue did not advise the pope to resort to such an extreme measure; but he stuck to his decision. Not without some pride, he realized that he was the only person who dared to take such a fatal path. Foreign diplomats were more or less indifferent to the fate of the pope; because from Napoleon’s formidable self-will then other thrones wavered in their foundations. On June 16, two officers, without any report, quietly entered the premises of the papal secretary of state, Gabrielli. They declared him under arrest and sealed his desk, which contained several important documents; then they took him away from Rome. That evening, Pius summoned Cardinal Bartolomeo Pacca and appointed him Secretary of State. The new secretary, who belonged to Consalvi's secret opponents, began to act with such gentleness and caution that he even aroused displeasure in the pope. “Mr. Cardinal,” the pope once said to Nacke, unable to bear it, “in Rome they say that we fell asleep. It must be shown that we are awake, and therefore send an energetic note to the French general regarding his latest act of violence." But Pacca knew how to save his shot for the right moment. He repeatedly negotiated with General Miollis, whom he tried to restrain from violent actions and make him softer, but in vain. They exchanged harsh words with each other. General Miollis said that he was “given orders to suppress or hang all who in the ecclesiastical region would oppose the orders of the emperor.” Pakka was not embarrassed, but saw that things were coming to a conclusion, which did not take long to arrive. Feeling like masters in Rome, the French decided to form a civil guard there, and many have already begun to enroll in it. But on August 24, 1808, posters were posted on street corners in which the pope, as the “legitimate ruler,” threatened church punishment for those who signed up for this guard. Miollis, recognizing Pacca's style in this announcement, decided to immediately eliminate the Secretary of State. A few days later he sent a major to Panke, with orders to immediately retire to Beneventum, as his homeland. The major had with him a subordinate officer, whom he instructed to ensure that Pakka did not leave his room, and especially so that he did not have the opportunity to talk with the pope. With the major's permission, Pacca, however, wrote a note to the pope briefly informing him why he had not come to see him today, against custom. A few minutes later, Popeye himself suddenly came in and told the officer that he was depressed by all the grief that had been caused to him. Turning to Pakka, he ordered him to follow him. The foreign officer, not understanding Italian, asked Pacca to translate the pope's words for him, which the Secretary of State did. When Pacca finished, the pope said: “Mr. Cardinal, let’s go!” After which he took Pakku by the hand and took him away with him, and the confused officer did not dare to resist. From that time on, Pacca occupied three rooms directly adjacent to the pope's room. Both of them were as if under siege and expected an attack every day. Meanwhile, there was a rumor that Napoleon had a plan to take away the church state and completely remove the pope. This rather probable rumor again awakened in the Quirinal the idea that had already been expressed earlier - to excommunicate Napoleon. This was already in mind in 1806, but then things did not come to this. Consalvi would probably have thought long before resorting to such an extreme measure; but Pacca had a different view: the lightning in the hand of the Vicar of Christ, in his opinion, in the nineteenth century did not become colder or weaker than it was in the Middle Ages. Therefore, two different bulls were made, one in case the French took control of the government even before the removal of the pope, and the other for the opposite case. It was no longer a secret to anyone that dad felt extremely embarrassed. He told the prelate in charge of the treasury that he had already “laid a mine, and all he had to do was take the fuse in his hand to make an explosion”; and he remarked to another of his acquaintances: “The French want to force us to speak Latin. Okay, we'll do it." On June 10, 1809, around noon, under the thunder of cannons, the papal coat of arms was removed from the castle of St. Angel, and the tricolor French banner was thrown out. At the same time, the decree issued by Napoleon on May 18 in Schönbrunn was announced throughout the city. By virtue of this imperial decree, the ecclesiastical state was abolished and united with the empire, so that the rule of the pope ended. As soon as the Quirinal heard about this, Pacca hurried to the pope, and both exclaimed: “Consummatum est” (It is finished!). The pope, however, hesitated greatly when the question came about issuing an excommunicating bull. He noted that, having re-read it again, he found that it contained too strong expressions against the French government. Pacca objected to this that the phrases used in it did not at all say too much, that, on the contrary, they were too slow in their protest against the rude and violent actions of the French. These words made a decisive impression on the pope, he again went to his desk, hastily signed a protest drawn up in Italian and then issued an order to place the excommunicating bull in the usual places, especially in the three main churches of Rome. Even before sunset all this was accomplished by pious and self-sacrificing people, and when the Romans returned from the evening service, they could read the colossal document, printed in huge letters, until the French came and tore it down. In this excommunicating bull, the pope first reports on all the suffering that the church and its ministers have had to endure so far; These sufferings became so great that there could be no more talk of long-suffering. “Let everyone understand that, by virtue of the command of Christ, they too are subjects of our throne and placed under our dominion. After all, we also have a kingdom, and an even better one (etiam praestantius); and it would be unreasonable to assert that the flesh should obey the spirit, the heavenly - the earthly. Therefore the pope finds himself compelled to draw the sword of judgment of the holy church; but he does this in the hope that those who rebel against him may still come to their senses. Then follows the usual formula of excommunication against all those who allow themselves to resort to violent actions against the church, as well as against all their accomplices, and finally, an order is given to report such a sentence “in all places and all peoples.” – But the arrest of the pope in Rome at that time was still only a half-measure, and soon an order followed from Napoleon to completely take him away from Rome. On the night of July 6, General Miollis gathered the noble society of Rome for a brilliant celebration in the Palazzo Doria, and at that very time, around 3 o'clock in the morning, the Vatican was suddenly cordoned off by troops. The soldiers under the command of General Radet did not encounter any resistance, since the Papal Swiss Guard had orders to remain calm in order to avoid bloodshed. The French knocked down the gates with their maces, and through the dark corridors of the castle they reached the outbuilding in which dad lived. Hearing noise in the corridors of the castle, Pacca sent his nephew to his dad to wake him up. Pius hastily dressed and went out into the audience hall, where Pacca, Cardinal Despuic and some other persons belonging to the usual retinue of the pope also gathered. When the doors were broken, the pope went to his desk, and the cardinals stood next to him. General Radet, who appeared at the head of the attackers, was embarrassed at this spectacle and remained motionless for several seconds. He later said that at that moment the memory of his first communion appeared in him, and it stopped him. Finally he gathered his courage, and in a trembling voice said that he had an unpleasant assignment - to force the pope to renounce secular power, or, in case of refusal, to take him to General Miollis. The Pope replied that “he cannot refuse what is not his own; He is only the ruler of the church state.” He and Pacca were then led to the gates of the Quirinal, where a carriage awaited them. But instead of taking them to General Miollis, the carriage took them out of the city, and Radet apologized to his prisoners for the lies he had told them. Post horses were already standing at the People's Gate, and they rushed to Florence without stopping. In this sad situation, the pope and his minister involuntarily smiled, because, looking at their wallets, they were convinced of their “apostolic poverty.” The pope had only 20 badgecci with him, the cardinal 15. Jokingly, showing General Radet, who was sitting in the same carriage, his travel ticket office, dad told him: “Here you see everything that is left to me from my rule.” Nakka, meanwhile, was in extreme anxiety. He couldn’t help but think that he was the main culprit for the pope’s plight. But his anxiety soon disappeared, because the pope, smiling and pretending to be pleased, told him: “Cardinal, we did well by issuing the excommunicating bull on July 20: because today we would not be able to do this!” From Florence, the carriage with the prisoners headed further through Genoa and Turin to Grenoble, and from there the pope was escorted to Savona, a small fortress located near the Gulf of Genoa; Pacca was sent to the state prison of Fenestrella on the Savoyard border. However, the inhabitants of various cities and villages of the country showed all kinds of signs of respect to the pope and his minister, and the French allowed this, because at that time no further orders had yet been received from the emperor. But in the Monitère (Napoleon's official organ) there was not a word about the pope, and the Parisians did not receive the slightest news about his fate from the newspapers. There was constant talk about northern and southern Italy, but everything that happened in Rome was kept in the deepest secrecy. However, dark rumors about the arrest of the pope reached Paris, and they even assured that he was in Grenoble. Finally, on August 9, 1809, the Moniteur published a letter from Grenoble dated August 9, which literally said: “The people here are in an excited state on the occasion of the beast that has passed through the city. Judging by the traces he left, it can be assumed that he belongs to a species of two-legged vipers, larger than those known in France.” Then followed a detailed story about the path in which this “reptile animal” moved, and how it was finally thrown into a mountain stream 13. So Napoleon’s official magazine allowed itself to write about the pope barely five years after the coronation! 6. The struggle of the almighty emperor with the captive pope Napoleon's divorce and new wedding. – Summoning the cardinals to Paris. – Wedding ceremony disrupted by cardinals. - Napoleon's decision to end the papacy. – National Cathedral in Paris. – Concessions forced from the lady and repentance from the pope. – The new concordat and the pope’s renunciation of it. – The disaster of the Russian campaign and its influence on Napoleon. - Allowing the pope and cardinals to return to Rome. Napoleon, taking advantage of the pope's captivity, decided to carry out his long-conceived idea of ​​divorcing his wife Josephine. To justify this act, he did not neglect any tricks, which, for his part, his uncle Cardinal Fesch tried in every possible way to justify. In a court hearing on December 26, 1809, Cardinal Fesch, on behalf of Napoleon, stated that the emperor never considered this marriage valid, and could not consider it as such, because 1) this marriage was not properly sanctified by church rites, while the emperor himself wanted marriages in his family to be performed with church blessing; 2) if on one solemn occasion it was necessary to perform a wedding, then it still took place without witnesses and has no force; 3) moreover, he declared to Cardinal Fesch, Marshal Duroc and others during this very wedding that it was being performed against his will and he had yielded only to circumstances. – What a web of hypocrisy and deceit we see in the behavior of the emperor, who decided at all costs to get rid of his wife who was boring him! When the issue of divorce was resolved, it was necessary to find a new empress. At first the Russian Grand Duchess Olga was meant; but later Napoleon's attention settled on Marie Louise, the daughter of the Austrian emperor. In Napoleon’s retinue, some advised him to marry a Frenchwoman who could give him hope for an heir: but he rejected this proposal as not in line with state interests, since “he had already repeatedly experienced what role the connections of one royal family with another always played in political alliances.” A connection with Marie Louise could be the most beneficial politically. And this consideration decided his choice. Meanwhile, wanting to end the papacy. Napoleon, in February 1810, issued a Senate decree according to which Rome was declared the second city of the empire, and the popes, upon taking office, were required to give the same oath to the Emperor of France as in the old days the popes gave to Charlemagne. For this, the popes were to receive a salary of 2,000,000 francs annually, and in addition, in their places of residence, namely in Paris and Rome, special palaces. At the same time, Napoleon inspired the pope that Jesus Christ came “to bless, and not to overthrow thrones”; and then addressed him with the following teaching: “You will have enough to do if you take care of spiritual things and the care of souls. I have a mission to rule the West, and you should not interfere here! If Your Holiness had been concerned only with the salvation of souls, the German Church would not have found itself in such a state of disorder and decay as it is now. For a long time, the popes interfered in matters that did not concern them at all, and neglected the needs of the church. I recognize you as my spiritual head; but I am your emperor." Not wanting to have anything more to do with the pope, but at the same time not wanting to deprive the church solemnity of his new marriage, Napoleon ordered all the cardinals to gather in Paris, which was done. Some of them, like Consalvi and di Pietro, wanted to evade this honor, but they were forcibly put into a cart and sent to Paris. But even there they tried to keep aloof and kindly rejected the pension of 30,000 francs, which Napoleon offered to the cardinals, and which most of the latter accepted, appeasing their conscience with various, not particularly honest interpretations of the word “pension”. Consalvi was in dire need of money, and, however, did not want to accept this monetary gift under any circumstances, and in order to find funds for his maintenance, he sold the snuff box that the emperor gave him after the conclusion of the concordat. Having thus gathered the cardinals to Paris, the emperor decided to solemnly celebrate his marriage to Marie Louise in their presence. But when the wedding was scheduled on the morning of April 2 and for the solemnity thirteen chairs were placed for the cardinals, then, to the great indignation of Napoleon, most of the cardinals did not appear, so in order to smooth out the impression, the chairs had to be removed. Napoleon's anger knew no end, and he decided to break the pride of these prelates. One officer received an order from the emperor to immediately “send thirteen cardinals home.” He especially attacked Consalvi with his anger, whom he considered the main culprit of this intrigue directed against him. The next day at 8 o'clock in the evening, all thirteen cardinals received a written summons to appear before the Minister of Confessions at 9 o'clock to receive orders from the emperor. The minister addressed them with a long speech, at the end of which he made it clear to them that 1) their property was being sequestrated and they were deprived of their church income: 2) the emperor could no longer tolerate them in the rank of cardinals and forbade them to continue wearing the signs of their dignity, and 3) the emperor would make further decisions regarding their future stay. When all this happened, Pope Pius VII was still a prisoner in Savona. He arrived there on August 20 or 21, 1809. At first he lived with the mayor, but after a few days a bishop's house was assigned to him as a place to live. Napoleon ordered that he be given 100,000 francs monthly. and horses and carriages were also made available. A special livery was invented for his servants, and they were also entitled to a monthly salary from the treasury. But the pope refused all this, and asked his servants to make do with as little salary as possible. He lived as a pure ascetic, and a few vegetables and fish constituted his only food. He did not leave the house at all, but celebrated Mass daily in his small home church; and here his minister often heard him praying for the man who had formerly been the defender of the church, and now its persecutor. At the same time, he did not abandon the duties that lay with him as a pope, as far as possible under the given circumstances. He was not allowed to have a secretary with him, and therefore the position of secretary was performed by a minister. The emperor kept a vigilant eye on all this and even opened all the pope's correspondence, waiting for the moment to conclude peace with him. An extremely difficult question arose in France. It was Napoleon who appointed new bishops. But they required canonical approval from the pope, and it could be assumed that under the circumstances the pope would refuse it. The Minister of Confessions advised Napoleon, in order to avoid this unpleasant clash with the pope, to directly send the newly elected bishops to their dioceses, although this was a clear violation of the concordat. Indeed, some of the new bishops were ordered to immediately go to their dioceses and be titled bishops in all their charters, “without waiting for canonical consecration.” He also wanted to do the same with the highest bishop of France, Cardinal Fesch, Archbishop of Lyon, who bore the title of “Primate of Gaul” and since 1808 ruled the Archdiocese of Paris. When the cardinal hesitated in this regard and expressed himself in the sense that he could not occupy the Parisian archdiocese without receiving the approval of the pope, the emperor became extremely angry and even decided to give this archdiocese to another cardinal, Maury. The emperor wanted, at all costs, to humble the pope, and decided to completely deprive him of any opportunity to communicate with the outside world. At night in early January 1811, the prefect of Savona suddenly entered the pope’s premises and conducted a house search. All his chests of drawers were open, even all the clothes of the pope, as well as his servant, were unfolded to examine whether anything was hidden in them. Then the same search was carried out at the pope's secretary. They took away his pen and ink, as well as all his books, even his breviary and missal. All this was sent to Genoa, where French police officials made a thorough inspection of everything. Dad was allowed to read only the Moniteur, a completely unpleasant newspaper for him, since there he could only read about the emperor’s antics against the church. His closest servants, and by the way his elderly barber, were sent to Fenestrella, and even those golden things that were presented to the pope by some pious Catholics were taken away. From that time on, only 1,200 to 1,500 francs were allocated monthly for his maintenance, and the carriages that were placed at his disposal were sent to Turin. Even the fisherman's ring (annulus piscatorius, the golden papal seal) was taken from him so that he could not use it to seal papers. The emperor demanded this ring for himself, and received it, but broken (as it usually breaks upon the death of any pope). Wanting to justify his actions, Napoleon ordered the publication of several works compiled in a spirit hostile to the papacy. One of them was published under the title: “An essay on the temporal power of the popes, on the abuses that they made of their ministry, and on the wars that they declared on sovereigns, especially those who had dominance in Italy.” The imperial librarian Barbier, already in January 1810, was tasked with collecting examples proving that popes were banned or even deposed by the emperors. The emperor ordered even theological science into his triumphal chariot, just to break the papacy that he hated. Napoleon was then firmly convinced that the whole “priesthood” (la prêtraille) was conspiring against him and he rushed right and left. Church servants one after another were “eliminated”, from the cardinal to simple village priests, and even women who were known for their piety and ecclesiastical sentiments were imprisoned in state prison. But hitherto the emperor's church policies still lacked the necessary aura of legality. He decided to give it such an aura through the convening of a French national church council. Already in 1809, Napoleon convened a theological commission and proposed to it various questions, partly related to Christianity in general, partly to the church in France, and, among other things, to the question of convening a council. The only courageous person on this commission was Abbot Emery. With general intimidation and servile insignificance, he alone defended the rights of the papal throne and entered into an argument with Napoleon himself. At an audience with the emperor on March 16, 1811, he with great courage reminded the emperor that even in the imperial catechism it is written: “The Pope is the visible head of the church,” in the introduction to the Gallican provisions of 1682 it is directly stated that the primacy of St. Peter is enjoined by Christ Himself, and that Christians must show obedience to the pope. The abbot's courage apparently impressed the emperor, who was not angry with him. He entered into a discussion with the abbot and noted, among other things, that he did not dispute the spiritual supremacy and authority of the pope, to the extent that the latter had it from Christ. “But,” he said, “it was not Christ who gave him temporal power. Charlemagne did it. I am the successor of Charlemagne, and again I am taking it away from the pope, because he does not know how to use it and because it only prevents him from fulfilling his spiritual and ecclesiastical ministry.” When the abbot referred to Bossuet, who directly states that the pope must enjoy complete freedom in order to be able to exercise his ecclesiastical authority, Napoleon drew his attention to the fact that now are different times. In the time of Bossuet, Europe had many rulers: now it has one, and if all other sovereigns bow before this one, then why should not the pope do the same? The abbot, however, did not give up, but answered him in such a way that the emperor fell silent. All the courtiers were extremely surprised at such courage, and some of the bishops were quite spineless and tactless that they even began to apologize to the emperor for the abbot’s courage; but Napoleon noticed that Emery spoke like an understanding man. When, a few days after this, Cardinal Fesch decided to present some theological considerations to his royal nephew, he received a sharp answer: “Be silent! You are ignorant. Where did you study theology? I have to talk to Mr. Emery about this: he understands something here.” Unfortunately for the French Church, Abbot Emery's days were numbered. The calamities of the church undermined his vitality, and when he heard that the emperor was seriously thinking about carrying out his plan for the cathedral, his heart broke and he died on April 28, 1811. “In order to prevent a state that is equally contrary to religion, the principles of the Gallican Church and the interests of the state,” the invitation to the church council said, “the emperor decided to convene all the bishops of France and Italy to a synod in the Cathedral of Our Lady on June 9 of this year.” When this invitation had already been issued, he sent three of his faithful bishops to Savona to start new negotiations with the pope, in the hope that the proposed council would intimidate him. Napoleon offered him a choice: either stay in Rome, if he took the same oath that the French bishops took as a result of the concordat, or stay in Avignon, if he recognized the four Gallican provisions. On May 9, 1811, the bishops arrived in Savona, and the next day they were received by Pius. In the negotiations that they conducted among themselves, dad showed great firmness, but no less consideration. He did not want to do anything against the declaration of 1682; but he also did not want to cancel the bull of excommunication that Alexander VIII pronounced over her on the eve of his death. Regarding the canonical approval of the French bishops, he also, perhaps, was not averse to agreeing, if only the government would not take such cruel measures against the church. The bishops could get nothing out of him; but then the prefect again took the matter into his own hands. He resorted now to threats, now to exhortations, and even used all means (they say, even medical ones) to break the old man’s stubbornness. Prolonged stress led Pius into a feverish state: he could not sleep at night and was extremely pale. Driven to extreme exhaustion, he gave in and agreed - within the next six months, to give canonical approval to the bishops appointed by the emperor, and if after this time, for some reason, he does not fulfill his promise, then the right to perform canonical consecration was granted to the metropolitan or the oldest bishop of the ecclesiastical province. In the document containing this agreement it was added that the said concessions were made in the hope that the papal throne would soon again receive its freedom and independence. This document, however, was not signed, because it was not supposed to have the meaning of a treatise, but only a simple expression of the papal will. Having obtained these concessions from the pope, the bishops immediately left; but as soon as they left Savona, the pope repented of his compliance. He wanted to turn back the bishops and correct those points on which there was an agreement. But it was already too late. When he was told about this, he fell into a state bordering on insanity. While the ill-fated pope endured these physical and spiritual tortures, a church council opened in Paris on June 17, 1811. The Bishop of Troy first made a speech in which he tried to pay tribute to the emperor and the pope. Meanwhile, everyone was already so accustomed to hearing constant praises of the emperor that in this case these praises passed almost unnoticed; on the contrary, everyone heard with surprise how the bishop expressed his deepest respect for the pope. This speech, before admitting it, was carefully read by Cardinal Fesch and crossed out many places in it; but the Bishop of Troy did not pay attention to his censorship. Then Cardinal Fesch himself invited the meeting, following the example of previous councils, to take an oath of obedience to the pope. The emperor became extremely angry, both about the content of the speech delivered at the opening and about this oath, which, however, was absolutely necessary so that the cathedral did not immediately acquire a schismatic connotation. According to custom, Napoleon first of all vented his rage on his uncle the cardinal; then he ordered the Monitor and other journals to maintain the deepest silence regarding all this, but he was not satisfied with this either. By his order, at the very first meeting of the council, the ministers of the confessions of France and Italy appeared in uniform at the meeting, and the first of them read the imperial decree by which Fesch was appointed president of the council - and it was necessary to establish a special police bureau, which, as in some previous councils, was supposed to maintain order; finally, both ministers were declared independent members of the council. The meeting was extremely astonished at the above-mentioned demand, especially regarding the hated name of the “police bureau”; but it complied with the wishes of the emperor and elected members for this bureau, the name of which it changed to "internal administration", although the emperor continued to officially call it as before. Then the French Minister of Confessions read the imperial message to the cathedral. It was filled with the strongest attacks on the pope and his bulls, “which were composed in the language of Gregory VII and outraged everyone.” The message further spoke of the pope's "evil plans", which, however, did not lead to anything, and finally ended with threats. His Majesty ordered that the assembled fathers be informed that he would not tolerate the pope in France, when filling vacant episcopal sees, to exercise the same influence as in Germany through the apostolic vicars. In his opinion, the British and other peoples rightly assert that the Catholic religion interferes with the independence of government. Therefore, he wants, “as emperor and king, as patron of the church and father of his people,” that bishops should be confirmed as before the conclusion of the concordat, and that no episcopal see should remain without a replacement for more than three months. In view of the large assembly of ministers of the Roman Church, this was extremely shameless language, and it denoted a violation of both the concordat and the last agreements with the pope; but the council could not do anything. Napoleon even exerted pressure on the formation of separate commissions; further demanded that meetings not take place in public, and that no reports be printed without the Emperor's prior review. The overwhelming majority of the prelates present slavishly bowed before the mighty genius of Napoleon, although all the bishops generally had in their souls like “a crowd of pilgrims in the desert when they suddenly hear the roar of a lion.” All the uncertainty and spinelessness of the meeting found its most eloquent expression in the way its president behaved. Cardinal Fesch alternately portrayed either the emperor's uncle or the bishop of the Roman Church. The first task of the church council was to draw up a response to the imperial message, and for this purpose a special commission was formed. When it met for the first time, Duvoisin proposed an answer that, as he said, was “approved by Napoleon,” and he could directly say: written by Napoleon himself. He did this so tactlessly, and the commission found his act so outrageous, that this draft was greatly changed before it was reported to the whole meeting. Here, however, he was not greeted with great favor. The appointed Bishop of Munster, Caspar Maximilian Droste-Wischering, said that in the draft address he does not find the most essential thing, namely the request for the return of complete freedom to the pope. When they objected to him that the moment was inconvenient for declaring such a desire, the bishop declared: “it is now that we must follow the admonition of the apostle: the infusion is timely and untimely; reprove, rebuke” (2 Tim. 4:2). Some bishops proposed making changes to the address, but when Napoleon found out about this, it again aroused his anger. He wanted to know in advance what these changes were, and strictly stated that otherwise he would not accept the address; Moreover, he even ordered the bishops who asked for an audience to refuse it. On the contrary, he demanded that over the next eight days the council should express its views on the issue of the canonical installation of bishops. How irritated he was, some bishops were fully convinced of this, to whom he said: “I wanted to make you princes of the church. It's up to you if you want to descend to the rank of pedels. The Pope opposes the implementation of the provisions of the concordat. Well, that's good! We will not have any concordat in the future." The main issue at the council was indeed the question of the order of the canonical decree of bishops. This question was extremely difficult. First of all, it was necessary to somehow enter into communication with the pope on this issue. But Napoleon did not want this. The latest negotiations and agreement with the pope were unknown to the members of the council. Therefore, they had no idea about what Napoleon knew, namely, that the pope was then almost mad with grief as a result of the concession he had made. The emperor wanted the council, first of all, to make an appropriate synodal decision and then send a message to the pope. A special committee was appointed to discuss the issue of canonical ordination; but the committee, for its part, asks permission to enter into communication with the pope. Therefore, the usual scene with his nephew again fell to Fesh’s lot. When he wanted to say a few words in defense, Napoleon shouted at him irritably: “Keep quiet about theology! If I studied only for six months, I would understand it more than you.” He later threatened to “cash out the entire cathedral,” after which the appointment of clergy would be left to prefects, even cathedral chapters and bishops. If the metropolitan refuses to give them a canonical decree, the emperor will close the theological schools, and religion will no longer have teachers. At this moment, in the bosom of Cardinal Fesch, the bishop again triumphed over his uncle, and he boldly said to the emperor: “If you want to have martyrs, then make a beginning in your own family. I am ready to seal faith with my life. Until the pope gives his consent, I, the archbishop, will not consecrate any of my suffragans. I'll go even further. If any of my suffragans dared to make episcopal consecration in my province, I would immediately excommunicate him.” . The former intendant was not in the habit of speaking in such a tone, and his words, apparently, made Napoleon hesitate somewhat. At the same time, news came from Savona that the feverish excitement of the pope had given way to a quiet melancholy, which makes the possibility of reaching a peace agreement incredible. Under such circumstances, Napoleon slightly changed his tactics. The above-mentioned envoys who negotiated in Savona were ordered to tell everything that they had hitherto kept silent about the purpose and results of their journey. Then the emperor ordered to call the secretary and dictate to him a document that should serve as the basis for all paperwork at the council. First of all, it stated that a deputation should be sent to the pope in order to enter into an agreement with him on the issue under discussion, but then a proposal was made to the council to draw up a synodal definition containing a request to the emperor to enact the latest agreement with the pope into state law and again send a message to the pope “to express gratitude to him for the fact that with this concession he put an end to the suffering of the church.” It was a turn that could be called worthy of a great commander. Fesch and Duvoisin, who knew nothing of the pope's subsequent repentance regarding the concessions he had made (because it all remained a secret), called the emperor's proposal “inspiration from above,” and their joy was shared by the rest of the committee. But soon deliberation arose again among the bishops, and the committee, expressing clear distrust of the emperor, rejected the emperor's decree. Then his patience ran out. On June 10, another general meeting was held, which had no significance, and the very next day there was a notice that the cathedral was closed. On the second day after that, the usual epilogue played out. The Bishop of Troy and two other bishops who belonged to the opposition were captured by police agents in their beds and sent to Vincennes. There they faced strict imprisonment. But then new news arrived from the prefect of Savona. Dad, the latter reported, was feeling better, and there was more opportunity for reconciliation with him. Napoleon immediately decided to take advantage of this circumstance and again ordered the convening of the fathers of the council. Some bishops who were most opposed to the emperor's plans were, of course, already removed from Paris. The remaining bishops received orders to stay, and Napoleon already shamelessly acted on the prelates with promises and threats, which he generally succeeded in, although not always. Thus, he once persistently wanted to win over Bishop Miollis, the brother of the ruler already known to us in Rome, to his side. “Sire,” answered the pious bishop, “I do not have the habit of making any important decision without asking advice from the Holy Spirit: therefore I ask for time to think.” Four days later, Napoleon, again meeting with Miollis, asked him: “Well, Mister Bishop, what did the Holy Spirit tell you?” “Sire,” answered the bishop, “exactly the opposite of what your Majesty told me 14.” On August 5, the last meeting of the council took place. The Archbishop of Tours read a full report of the negotiations with the pope and a literal statement of the points on which the agreement was reached. There could be no question of reasoning: the council had, of course, to bow to the will of the emperor and answer his command with a submissive “yes” and “amen.” Mori hastened to declare that all reasoning would be “useless” because everyone agreed. Regarding what definition? - “The National Council - so it was decided - has, in cases of need, the right to make decisions on the issue of consecrating bishops.” What are these cases of need? “If the pope,” it was further explained, “opposes to approve the decree decreed by the council regarding the consecration of bishops, then a case of need will arise.” It was then further decreed that in the future the emperor would appoint bishops and the pope would give them canonical consecration. If the pope does not give such consecration within six months, then the archbishop or the oldest bishop of the province can do so. Pius, meanwhile, knew nothing about the Paris Cathedral. Therefore, he was extremely surprised when an embassy from the cathedral suddenly came to him. It goes without saying that Napoleon himself appointed the members of this embassy, ​​and, of course, only the most devoted friends of the imperial throne. They were given orders to seek complete and unconditional acceptance of the decree. In order to induce Pius to yield, the imperial government at the same time sent some cardinals to Savona, with instructions to try to dispel all the pope's hesitations. The unfortunate pope, betrayed and tormented on all sides, yielded and signed a breve, in which he expressed his recognition of the decree. He sacrificed the exclusive right of the papal throne to give canonical consecration, which was a fatal step on his part. True, even before the concordat of Francis I (1515; archbishops in France made canonical installations: but then the appointment itself was in the hands of the church, and not the state, as was the case under the concordat with Napoleon. As soon as the breve was made, it was immediately sent with a very kind letter to the emperor. The latter was then in Vlissingen, completely occupied with the upcoming war with Russia. Although the pope agreed with everything, Napoleon was still dissatisfied. He did not even want to answer this letter, pretending that he had not even received it, and was looking for a new reason for discord with his prisoner. Perhaps. Napoleon was unhappy that the pope did not want to completely and forever renounce his sovereign right over the eternal city. Any shadow of opposition was unbearable for this wayward man. If Napoleon had returned from Moscow victorious, the pope would have been reduced to the rank of court bishop and the emperor would have become, in the proper sense, the caliph of the entire Western world. Later he himself expressed these thoughts. One day, already on the island of St. Helena, after dinner, together with his companion in exile, he read Voltaire’s “Zaire” and several scenes from “Oedipus,” after which the conversation turned to Christianity and the church. “What would have happened then,” he said, “if I had returned from Moscow a winner and triumphant? “Then I would finally make a complete separation of spiritual affairs from secular ones (and this is so unprofitable for His Holiness), since the mixing of these matters introduces too many difficulties into human society, and precisely by the hand of one who is called to be a source of consent. Then I would place the pope unusually high: I would surround him with luxury and honor to such an extent that he would not need secular power. I would make him an idol (un idole). He would have his residence near me: Paris would become the main city of the Christian world, and then I would finally rule the world both politically and religiously. This would be a new means to more closely unite all states allied with the empire and maintain peace. I would convene church assemblies side by side with legislative ones; my councils would be the representation of the entire Christian world, and the popes would only be their presidents. I myself would open and close these councils, accept and proclaim their definitions, as Constantine and Charlemagne did. This supremacy slipped from the hands of the emperors because they made the mistake of leaving the popes to live too far from them.” He went on to say that “he always found it desirable that the religious leadership should be in the hands of the sovereign. Without such leadership one cannot even rule; without it, peace among the people at any moment may be disturbed, their dignity and their independence may be damaged.” Such speeches echo partly the French philosophy of the time, partly extreme absolutism. Napoleon at that time was at the height of his glory, and at the sight of the many sovereigns bowing before him, his head turned. This was the moment when he resembled that king of the East, who exclaimed in boundless pride: “Isn’t this the majestic Babylon, which I built as the house of the kingdom, by the strength of my might, and for the glory of my greatness.” (Dan. 4:27). Nebuchadnezzar's punishment was his madness; but Napoleon suffered the most sensitive punishment for a commander spoiled by victories, namely complete defeat. However, at this time the emperor’s soul was not occupied by this Caesar-papist plan; he was entirely occupied with the campaign in Russia. But even on the way to Moscow, the thought again appeared before his soul - to wield “both swords.” Fearing that the British (as rumor had it) would kidnap and release the pope, Napoleon ordered, under the strictest supervision, to transfer him, in possible secrecy, closer to Paris - to Fontainebleau. And so the unfortunate old man was put into a black carriage and, having removed all the signs of papal dignity from him, they took him to a new place of detention. Soon news came to France about the unfortunate outcome of the Russian campaign, and this outcome in church circles was interpreted as God’s judgment. When Pius VII excommunicated the emperor, Napoleon wrote to Eugene: “Doesn’t the pope know that times have changed? Does he really think that excommunications can lead to my soldiers’ weapons falling out of their hands?” “The Lord God,” writes Cardinal Pacca, “actually did this.” Napoleon himself later wrote that “the soldiers were not able to hold weapons in their hands; it fell out even from the hands of the bravest.” He, like many devout Catholics, saw in Napoleon's terrible defeats on the snowy plains of Russia the fulfillment of the prophetic word of the psalm: "Fire and hail, snow and fog, a stormy wind fulfill His word" (Ps. 149:8). On December 18, 1812, Napoleon returned to the Tuilerie Palace at midnight, and rushed about like a wounded lion, not knowing what to do. He understood that under these sad circumstances, a real or even apparent reconciliation with the pope would be very useful for him, both for the benefit of Catholics in France and in Germany; but now it was difficult to get back together with dad. He did not respond to his handwritten letter, and from that time on he repeatedly allowed himself to openly attack the head of the church. Nevertheless, taking the opportunity to congratulate dad on the New Year, he wrote a letter to him on December 29. In it, he expresses his joy at the news that has reached him that the pope’s health is now better, and assures him of his friendship; despite everything that happened between them. “Perhaps we will be able to achieve such a desired goal - to put an end to all misunderstandings between the state and the church. For my part, I am completely ready; everything will depend on your Holiness.” The courtesy achieved its goal, and this letter was answered with an expression of the desire to begin new negotiations, for which a special commission was formed from the cardinals. One might think that now Napoleon will make all sorts of concessions. But that was not the case. Just as a merchant, out of fear of the opinion of the world, on the verge of bankruptcy, continues to display wasteful luxury, so Napoleon, at a critical moment in his position, increased his demands even more. “The pope must, like his successors, before being installed on the papal throne, swear that he will do nothing or recognize anything that is contrary to the Gallican provisions, and the pope in the future will have the right to appoint one third of the members of the college of cardinals. Regarding the replacement of bishops, the last agreement must remain in force. The Pope must express his dissatisfaction and condemnation of the conduct of those cardinals who were not present at the emperor's wedding, after which the emperor grants them amnesty. Only Di Pietro and Pacca should be deprived of this amnesty. The Pope must henceforth live in Paris, receiving 2,000,000 francs annually.” Such a proposal again plunged dad into the greatest anxiety and heartbreak. He could not sleep and was in such a state that Duvoisin even doubted whether it was possible to continue negotiations with him. When Napoleon heard about this, he decided to personally take up the matter. On January 18, he was hunting in the vicinity of Fontainebleau, from where he suddenly ordered himself to be taken to the castle in a postal carriage. In the evening, when the pope was sitting with a circle of cardinals and bishops and, “to the weariness of the listeners, although to the pleasure of the storyteller,” for the hundredth time conveyed stories about the events of his life, Napoleon unexpectedly entered. Everyone present hastily retreated, and Napoleon went straight to the pope, hugged and kissed him. That evening there was no conversation about business, but Napoleon tried in every possible way to show his cordiality and friendliness. The pope was very pleased with this visit, and with purely childish delight he later told his servants how the emperor hugged and kissed him. In the following days, negotiations took place between the emperor and the pope, about which, although all sorts of anecdotes were told and published, no one knew anything reliable. Chateaubriand, in his essay “Bonaparte and the Bourbons,” says that during these negotiations it even got to the point that Napoleon, irritated by the pope’s stubbornness, tore his hair and inflicted all kinds of insults on him. In view of Napoleon's temper and lack of self-control, there is nothing incredible in this, but the pope himself always denied it; his only complaint was that Napoleon treated him as an ignoramus in church matters. However, Napoleon significantly lowered his demands. The concordat, which the pope finally signed after long resistance and with a trembling heart, does not speak of Gallican liberties or state intervention in the election of cardinals. The pope was not forced to agree to have his own residence in Paris; Important concessions were also made regarding the appointment of individual bishops near Rome and in France, although, in general, earlier agreements were confirmed. Despite all these concessions, the pope hesitated greatly when it came to signing the concordat. Before signing, precisely on the evening of January 25, he looked around at everyone around him; but the majority lowered their eyes or shrugged their shoulders, as a sign that there was nothing left to do but yield. As soon as the concordat was signed, an order was issued to return the removed cardinals and release those imprisoned. On the occasion of the conclusion of the concordat, Te Deum was celebrated in all churches and the agreement was announced to government officials in Milan and Rome. The Emperor remained at Fontainebleau for three more days; then he returned to Paris again to organize a new big campaign. But when, with the removal of the despot, the cardinals freely discussed the concordat, they were horrified by it and convinced the pope that he, one way or another, had to renounce this concordat, and poor Pius VII had to agree to this. In this spirit, a special note was drawn up, which was sent to the emperor on March 24. The Pope admits in it that at the time of signing the concordat he was tormented by remorse and repentance, so that he had neither calm nor peace due to the temptation he caused to the church; therefore, just as Paschal II once canceled the concessions he had made to Emperor Henry, so he now revokes his own. Napoleon, having received this note, became unusually furious and, showing it to the State Council, exclaimed: “Matters, apparently, will never come to order until I rip off the heads of some of these priests”; but when one of the members of the State Council suggested that he proclaim himself the head of the French church, he replied: “No, that would mean breaking glass.” He went a different route. The next day he wrote to the Minister of Confessions: “You must observe the strictest secrecy regarding the papal message of March 24, so that, depending on the circumstances, I can say that I received it or that I did not receive it.” The bishops, “in view of Holy Week and their official duties,” were sent home, and the Concordat of Fontaineble, despite the abdication of the pope, was proclaimed a state law. The bishops were asked to sign the address, the draft of which was drawn up by Napoleon himself. In it, the concordat “is called the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with the help of which the sufferings of the church should end.” The emperor took the whole matter into his own hands and conducted it as if this was the only thing he was doing, although at that time he was busy gathering troops for a new mighty campaign. Dad continued to languish in captivity; but this state began to weigh heavily on everyone, and even Bishop Duvoisep, devoted to Napoleon, on his deathbed, wrote to Napoleon: “I most earnestly ask you to free the pope. His captivity darkens the last days of my life. More than once I have had the honor of telling you to what extent this captivity is distressing the entire Christian world, and what disasters can result from its continuation. I think the return of the Holy Father to Rome is necessary for the well-being of Your Majesty." After the bishop's death, Napoleon ordered the erection of a monument to him in Nantes Cathedral; but he still did not fulfill the last wish of his dying servant. When the Battle of Dresden turned out to be happy for him, he again began to dream of victories. But the star of his happiness faded. Then his spirit humbled himself and he, being surrounded on all sides by enemies, asked the priests to pray for the fatherland, the army and the emperor. That prayers on the part of the clergy were offered up everywhere, there is no doubt about it; but the gap between the emperor and the pope remained unhealed. Already on May 9, 1813, the pope declared all newly installed bishops illegitimate, imposed by pastors, and their official actions invalid. A new attempt on the part of the emperor to get closer to the pope led to nothing, because the cardinals did not believe the sincerity of the emperor. Then something unexpected happened. On January 22, 1814, two empty traveling carriages arrived from Paris and stopped at the palace castle, and Colonel Lagorce, who played no small role in the negotiations between Napoleon and the pope, informed the cardinals of important news, namely, that he had been ordered to accompany the pope to Rome the next day. The cardinals did not believe him at first, but later they became convinced that the pope had indeed been given permission to set off. They advised him to ask for two or three cardinals as companions, but this was refused. On January 23, the pope said goodbye to the cardinals and went to Rome after captivity, which lasted four and a half years. Soon after that, the cardinals received orders to leave, and Consalvi was again appointed secretary of state of the pope. Restoration of the papacy. – General joy and the reasons for it. – The first steps of the restored papacy. – Restoration of the Jesuit Order. – Two contradictory bulls. - Political position of the papacy. – Bull against Bible societies. - Concordats. – Science and art. - Napoleon on the island. St. Elena. – Death of Napoleon and Pope Pius VII. Pius VII's journey to Rome was a triumphal procession. The people fell to their knees wherever he passed, and the sovereigns expressed their respect to him. In Cesena, Murat appeared to him, and Charles IV of Spain greeted him before the gates of Rome. In Quiripala he was received by Queen Maria Louisa of Futruria, and in the church of St. Peter Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia wanted to kiss his feet. Pius VII suffered more than anyone from Napoleon, which is why he seemed like a real hero among the sovereigns who all rejoiced at being freed from the French yoke. But the love that manifested itself towards the returned Pius also had a deeper basis: it treated him not only as a martyr, but also as a prince of the church. The rulers of Europe rejoiced that with the overthrow of Napoleon, the revolution itself was overthrown. And the revolution, by its very essence, was anti-religious. Hence, the restoration itself received a religious-ecclesiastical imprint, as a counterbalance to the entire godless trend, and the pope was glorified as a representative and bearer of religious as well as conservative interests, so from this side he was welcomed even by Protestants 15. The bloody drama unfolding in France showed the sovereigns that thrones were overthrown along with altars; Therefore, the sovereigns became guardians of the altars, and the throne standing on the altar was made a symbol of their policy. In place of the triple motto of the revolution: freedom, equality and brotherhood, another triple motto was now put forward: faith, king, law (foi, roi, loi). In a certain respect, Napoleon himself was already paving the way for this restoration. His coronation and the establishment of a new French feudal nobility was the first clear expression of the trend returning to the Middle Ages and the entire medieval way of life that emerged after 1814. However, some of the sovereigns were not at all concerned about the papacy, but about strengthening their power. But since religion was considered one of the powerful pillars of power, the papacy again emerged as a strong factor in public life. Admirers of the medieval way of life also appeared, which was painted in rosy colors as the implementation of the kingdom of God on earth. Under the influence of this passion, that romanticism was formed, which dominated for an entire half a century and had ardent followers among Protestants who aspired to the bosom of the Roman church. Such was Friedrich Schlegel, who, looking for healing in the past for the future, settled on empire, papacy and chivalry, although he dreamed of the empire of Charlemagne, the Ottonian empire before the struggle between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. The ideal for the European state system and people's life was to be a harmonious interaction between the empire and the papacy. Joseph de Maistre expressed even more strongly the adoration of the pope that was then beginning. He looked upon the papacy as the very essence of religion; in it he found the only help against “constitutional fever.” The Pope, according to him, should be a mediator, resolving all disputes that arise; therefore he must stand above princes and nations. Papal infallibility was to mean in the moral and religious world the same thing as sovereignty in the civil world, and all humanity was to represent a pyramid with the pope as its highest culmination. But on May 24, 1814, Pius VII solemnly made his entry into Rome. In Cesena, Murat showed the pope a petition intended for submission to the allied powers, in which many eminent and wealthy residents of Rome expressed the desire to be ruled by a secular sovereign in the future; but the pope threw this petition into the fire without reading it. When he approached the capital, the rumor about this scene in Cesena preceded him, and the authors of the petition were in a hurry to show their devotion to the pope, so that he was received with great jubilation. Under the influence of this general joy, there was even talk, both within and outside the Curia, of certain changes in the system of papal government, especially of the transformation of the various religious orders. But things were limited to just conversations and soon everything returned to the old ruts again. Moreover, the question immediately arose of restoring the main support of the papacy - the Jesuit Order. This was Cardinal Pavel's favorite idea and he worked hard to implement it. Already during his exile in Fontainebleau, he was organizing this business; but dad then hesitated. In his youth, Pius, belonging to the Benedictine order, had as teachers persons who were resolute opponents of the Jesuits; and “it is known,” says Panca, “what a deep impression everything we learn in our youth makes on us.” The Cardinal himself must have forgotten some of his youthful impressions; after all, he was well acquainted with Pascal’s “Provincial Letters” and with the book of the noble Jansenist Arnold “On the Practical Morality of the Jesuits.” However, Pius had already taken several steps along an inclined plane, which finally should have led him to the restoration of the sons of Loyola. The old spirit of this order found a home in the two new orders established in the previous century, namely partly in the congregation of the “sacred heart of Jesus” - the work of the abbots Broglie and Tournel, partly among the so-called “fathers of the faith” or “Baccanarists” 16, the founder of which was the tailor's disciple of Paccanari. But the order itself was not actually destroyed. Frederick II called the Jesuits to Silesia, partly in defiance of Austria, which expelled them, partly because with their help he hoped to organize public education more cheaply, especially since in the “age of enlightenment” he did not consider them dangerous. Likewise, they also found refuge in Russia under Catherine II, since this empress wanted to use them as a weapon against the Poles. Already in 1782 they had a vicar general there, and in 1801 the pope himself again restored this society “within, however, the borders of the Russian Empire, and not outside it.” The motivation for this was partly his concern for the education of the clergy, partly the fact that there was a lot of harvest, but few laborers. In 1804, the order, at the request of King Ferdinand, was again restored to its rights in Sicily, and had it not been for the clash with Napoleon, perhaps it would have been restored in its entirety. In the order's monastery "At Jesus" in Rome, a circle of Jesuits, mostly returned missionaries, constantly lived. But they calmly continued to perform spiritual shepherding and preaching; There were even several seminaries under their leadership. All these Roman Jesuits now tried to induce the pope to officially recognize the order. Cardinal Pacca acted as intercessor for them, and the seal of that time stood for them. This step, of course, did not fail to arouse extreme displeasure among those whom Pius, in one letter to Consalvi, called “the philosophical and Jansenist clique”; but it was precisely in the displeasure of these people that he saw the best proof that this was a useful step for the papacy. And so on August 14, 1814, Pius VII went in a solemn procession to the Church of Jesus and celebrated Mass at the altar of St. Ignatius. Then, before a large assembly of cardinals, bishops and Jesuits from Sicily, assembled in a nearby oratory, he ordered the master of ceremonies to read the bull "Sollicitudo omnium." This bull stated that “The care of the church entrusted to the pope makes it his duty, by all means available to him, to contribute to the satisfaction of the moral needs of the Christian world. After the Society of Jesus, by virtue of the breve of May 7, 1801 and July 13, 1804, was admitted into Russia and the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the almost unanimous desire of the entire Christian world led to persistent and expressive demands for the complete restoration of this order, especially after the abundant fullness of the fruits brought by this society wherever it existed was poured out in all directions.” The Pope would have made himself guilty of a grave sin before God if, during the strong storms that raged around the ship, the ap. Peter, rejected the strong and experienced helmsmen who offered themselves to pacify the raging waves of the sea. Therefore, he now decided to carry out what had long been his keenest desire from the day he ascended the throne of Peter, and now commands by this, irrevocable decree that the orders previously issued for Russia and the two Sicilies from this moment are expanded and acquire significance not only “for all parts of the church state, but also for all states and kingdoms. This decree, it is further said, must remain unshakable and inviolable at all times; any action contrary to it, no matter where it comes from, must be considered invalid and insignificant; and especially the breve of Clement XIV (which abolishes the order) is declared, by virtue of the present breve, but having powers, applications and effects.” - In order to more correctly illuminate this important event, it is worth paying attention to some of the expressions of the above-mentioned breve of Clement XIV, from which it will be seen to what extent these two popes contradict each other in their official solemn decrees, without thereby overthrowing the Roman idea of ​​​​papal infallibility. Clement XIV wrote in 1773: “After many necessary investigations, we are convinced that the said society (of Jesus) does not produce the richer fruits and blessings for which it was founded, has been repeatedly confirmed and so richly endowed with privileges, so that it will be scarce, or rather, it will be quite impossible to maintain true and lasting peace in the church while it (this society) exists; and therefore we, acting in trust in the gracious inspiration of the Spirit of God, and, by virtue of our office, having the duty to preserve, maintain and establish peace and tranquility in the Christian world, and with all our ability to eradicate that which, even in the slightest, may violate it, for these important reasons, as well as for others - on the basis of our firm conviction and by virtue of our apostolic authority - we close and destroy this society of Jesus. Henceforth, this breve of ours can never be overthrown or contested, deprived of power and meaning, but must remain forever legal, firm and effective.” So, both popes both declare their decrees irrevocable, and yet this did not in the least prevent Pius VII from repealing the “irrevocable breve” of Clement XIV and at the same time declaring his own breve “irrevocable”: clear proof of how “irrevocable” papal bulls and breves are in general! “It is impossible,” says Nacca, “to depict the joyful cries and expressions of sympathy with which the good Romans accompanied Pius VII on his way to the Church of Jesus.” But one can doubt how enthusiastically the entire Christian world greeted the news of the restoration of the Jesuit order. In Italy, this was actually received rather indifferently, because the Jesuits already existed in large numbers in Sicily. It was not the same in the countries beyond the Alps. Francis I of Austria did not want to hear about the Jesuits; Portugal, as well as Brazil, also made objections. King John did not want to enter into any negotiations, either oral or written, on this issue: in his lands everything had to remain as before. The reappearance of Jesuitism in the church field could not but entail important consequences. The Jesuits, persecuted like dogs, now returned everywhere like eagles; and fanaticism, superstition, and idolization of the papacy received strong and skillful workers in them. By the time of their return, there were still many representatives of that noble, sincere Catholicism, which put the strictly Catholic (i.e., universal Christian) above the papal. But they had to disappear in the struggle with the Jesuits, who, having appeared with a whole system of means of influencing religious and moral life in their spirit, consistently began to strive to crown the papist system with the crown of papal infallibility. Along with the Jesuits, medieval barbarism also returned. Already at the beginning of 1815, the “congregation for the purity of faith” filed 737 complaints against heresy, and the “congregation for the prohibition of books” began to index not only all political works, but did not even spare Alfieri’s poetry. The system of coercion in matters of faith was also resumed. On all Sunday evenings, 300 Jews from the Ghetto were forced to go to church and listen to sermons preached with the aim of converting them; in the evenings the very part of the city where they lived was locked. All institutions introduced by the French in Rome were again destroyed, and even gas lighting and smallpox vaccination were abolished. Public beggary was again given freedom, and the most striking signs of the Ultramontane cult began to appear everywhere. Nakka tried in every possible way to turn everything back not only to the time before 1789, but even to the period before 1773. However, the French occupation of Rome and Italy in general still left seeds that, long hidden in the depths, later made themselves felt in the revolution and revolutionary upheavals of all kinds. While Pacca did everything possible to once again plunge the eternal city into the darkness of the Middle Ages, Consalvi, with his characteristic diplomatic dexterity, handled affairs in foreign countries. When he arrived in Paris in the middle of May, all the allied sovereigns and diplomats either left or intended to leave and go to London. Consalvi decided to follow them, taking with him a letter from the pope to the English prince regent. But before setting foot on English soil, he felt some difficulty. Could he have appeared in a cardinal's robe where no cardinals had been seen for several centuries, and where not long before that an effigy of the pope had been burned? However, he overcame his caution and decided to appear openly in his cardinal's robes. And he did not suffer from this at all. On one of the streets in London he suffered a misfortune: his carriage crashed; but the English people were then so friendly towards all the enemies of Napoleon that even the papal minister could appear everywhere without hindrance. Already in 1800, Consalvi acquired the name of “a very delicate, liberal person,” and this good opinion of him remained there forever. He also managed to establish closer relations between the Curia and England,” where Roman propaganda subsequently found such favorable soil. From London Consalvi went to Vienna for the congress. Italy generally had few representatives there. This beautiful country was looked upon as a conquered land that could be disposed of by the allied powers. The only one who took a keen interest in Italy was Count Kapodistrias, the Russian envoy; and his interest rather stemmed from sympathy for the Greeks, since Hellas and Italy for him were sisters cast into the sleep of death, and the awakening of one was supposed to drive away sleep from the other. Fortunately for Rome, the pope had in the person of Consalvi a statesman in whom all the conditions were combined to achieve the desired goal in the matter of the church state. He was privy to all the secrets, and especially the envoys of England, several German states and Russia entered into close friendly relations with him. The cunning papal diplomat immediately saw that, due to the secret rivalry of the powers, nothing would come of the congress. Their representatives did not even understand each other well. “We are similar,” wrote Consalvi, “to the builders of the Tower of Babel: our languages ​​were confused even when it came to the first foundations for the building.” Consalvi himself was a conservative of the purest water, and strongly opposed freedom of the press. When he was in Paris, he said to Louis XVIII: “Freedom of the press is the most dangerous weapon that has ever been given into the hands of the enemies of religion and monarchy; with every social crisis and with every social movement it will expand further.” He expressed the same opinion to the Prince Regent of England, who “has long become acquainted with this despotism of thought, manifested by unknown or ill-informed people.” In the Englishman, however, he found more sympathy than in Louis XVIII, in whom at that time there still remained something of the “white” Jacobin. When the issue of the papal throne came up at the congress, Consalvi had to use all his statesmanship to avert the dangers that threatened him. At the same time, the “stupefying diplomatic dexterity of the papal “siren”, like strong spirits, was revealed in all its brilliance, and no one could resist him. First of all, on behalf of the pope, he compiled a truly classic letter dated October 23, 1814, in which he argued for the need to restore all of his possessions to the papacy, in accordance with the previous state of the church state. From Emperor Francis I, as the patron of the church, he demanded that the lands taken away from him be returned to him, and he managed to prove to the English, as well as to the Russian government, that the pope endured so much suffering precisely because he did not want to break with them. But even in the “German Catholic churches” (he deliberately used the plural to reject the idea that was then emerging about a German state church) much needed to be put in order. Ecclesiastical principalities were secularized and even given to non-Catholics, ecclesiastical estates were not returned to the church, and the Holy Roman Empire was not restored again. Next to the loss of land holdings, the question of the Holy Roman Empire lay especially heavy on the pope’s soul: after all, the Holy Roman Empire, as developed in more detail in a note dated June 14, 1815, was “the center of political unity, a venerable creation of antiquity, bearing religious sanctification, and its overthrow was one of the saddest destructive deeds of the revolution.” The question of the papal possessions caused great difficulties. Austria and Prussia were not averse to profiting at their expense, and such a dispute arose about them that threatened to lead to the disruption of the entire Congress, until, finally, the “hundred-day empire” that suddenly emerged from the Elbe prompted the sovereigns to unify. Napoleon's landing on the shores of France caused great confusion in the church state. The Pope, fearing major troubles for himself in Rome, left for Genoa. He was, however, in a good mood. “This is a storm that will last three months,” he said cheerfully, and indeed he guessed right. Napoleon, meanwhile, did not show any irritation against Rome. In his letter to the pope, he presented his return as “a matter of the unanimous desire of a great nation”; but he received no answer to this letter. The Pope was confident in the fragility of the resurrected Sphinx and decided to return to Rome. First, however, he visited the city of Savona, and in the open square in front of the bishop's house, which was his prison, the King of Sardinia and the Duchess of Modena kneeled and received his blessing. For the fourth time, Pius VII entered his capital on June 7, having spent 78 days in exile. Two days later, the Congress of Vienna returned to the pope the areas near Camerino, Beneventa and Pontecorvo. In addition, he received three legations of Ravenna, Bologna and Ferrara, with the exception of a small area located on the left bank of the Po. Therefore, this was not enough for the papacy, and it also declared a claim to the left bank of the Po River, as well as to Avignon and Venessen, especially to these two French districts, although this claim was not satisfied. However, what was acquired was enough, and when Consalvi returned to Rome, the famous artist Antoni Banzo ordered to secretly engrave a drawing by Franz Manno, in which Cardinal Consalvi is depicted presenting Pope Pius VII with the newly acquired legations: the cardinal turns his gaze to the pope, and with his right hand points to Bologna, which is depicted there in the form of a kneeling figure, but with the helmet of Minerva on his head. Behind the pope, in addition to the city of Rome, “Religion” is visible, and “History” is depicted as a seated figure. Consalvi gratefully accepted this engraving, but bought the cliche itself from the artist and ordered it to be broken, because, with his modesty, he did not like this kind of glorification. Thorvaldsen used a similar idea as the basis for the tombstone he sculpted in Rome in 1823. This bas-relief also depicts Consalvi returning six papal provinces to Pius. At the end of the Congress of Vienna, Consalvi could calmly take up the state helm, although of course under the most difficult circumstances. True, the pope received almost everything back; but the external position of the hierarchy has changed in many ways. Dad then, in some ways, was like a nobleman who received his castle back, but did not have sufficient funds to furnish it properly and continue his previous life. Much less money now flowed into Rome than before, and from the rich houses that had previously served freely at the papal court, the younger sons now kept aloof, since now there could be no question of rewarding them with profitable abbeys and prebends. Fortunately, during French rule, thanks to the closure of “spiritual unions,” the debts of the church state were significantly reduced. Part of these debts was partly in the bills of these unions, which were destroyed when they were closed, and partly to cover the debt it turned out to be possible to sell the property that belonged to them. In 1800 the papal throne had a debt of 79 million, and in 1815 only 33 million. Rome's greatest misfortune was its overabundance of hierarchical bureaucracy. On the streets there was a priest for every fifteen people, and a minister in livery for every ten people. Many eastern monastic orders and most western ones had their generals in Rome, and therefore there were many different kinds of monasteries there. A clear indication of how high the reaction in Rome had risen in such a short time is the prohibition that Pius VII pronounced on the Bible Societies in 1816. Prohibitions against reading Holy Scripture in the vernacular have been issued for a long time - since the beginning of the Middle Ages. When the Waldenses in France tried to distribute among the laity certain books of the Bible translated into the vernacular, the Bishop of Metz instigated strong persecution against the Bible societies formed in his diocese. Although Innocent III admitted that the zealous bishop had gone too far, he still found that the laity should not study the Bible, for God himself, giving the law at Sinai, commanded that cattle approaching the mountain should be stoned. Then the councils, from Toulouse in 1229 to the Council of Trent in the 16th century, also issued prohibitions against the free use of the Bible by the laity; and these prohibitions were renewed every time some new translation into the popular language appeared. The saying of the ap. Peter about the epistles of St. Paul, that “there are some things in them which cannot be understood, which the ignorant and unstable pervert, like the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16), served as sufficient justification for such measures. Three months after the Council of Trent, Leah IV issued a list of prohibited books, and among them were bibles brought from abroad. Later, however, laymen were allowed to read Catholic translations of the Bible if advised by their confessor and permitted by the bishop and inquisitor; otherwise, the readers were arrested and had to give the Bible to their pastor. Subsequently, when the spirit of Jansenism passed through the Roman Church, new prohibitions appeared: the errors of the Jansenists included the fact that they recommended and diligently read the Holy Scriptures in the vernacular. Among Quesnel’s provisions, condemned by Clement XI in the bull Unigenitus (1713), was this: “Everyone should read the Holy Scriptures.” However, under the influence of Jansenism, even in strictly Catholic circles, a more lenient view of reading the Bible was formed. Benedict XIV allowed all the faithful to read Holy Scripture, as long as they used an authorized translation, which was annotated by the Church Fathers or Catholic scholars. Consequently, what was prohibited was not so much the reading of the Bible itself, but rather the free, independent study of the Bible. Pius VI even went so far that in a letter to Abbot Martin, later Bishop of Florence, he wrote: “You do well in inducing the faithful to read the divine word; because this is the purest source, which must be open to all the faithful, so that they can draw from it the purity of morals and creeds.” But when, on the one hand, the reaction intensified again, and on the other, the Protestant Bible societies opened the eyes of the curia to new dangers and new enemies threatening it, then in this it found sufficient reason for new prohibitions. When a new translation of St. Scriptures without notes, then Pius VII, dated June 26, 1816, wrote to the primate of Poland, the Archbishop of Gniezen, a letter in which he said that the pope “felt disgust at an extremely insidious invention (namely, biblical societies), which undermines the very foundations of religion.” He called the cardinals to a meeting to consider how best to counteract this plague. A breve was drawn up, in which the medieval prohibitions were renewed, although it still did not contain a direct prohibition of the reading of Holy Scripture in general, but only took measures to strengthen the control of the church over this reading. Even before leaving Vienna, Consalvi developed several laws that were intended to organize internal affairs in the legations returned to the papacy, as well as in the entire church state. Leaving intact the institutions introduced by the French, as having proven useful to the papacy, Consalvi and in all other respects, such as for example. in the matter of public education and schools, he made a number of good promises. Everything was supposed to be improved as much as possible. However, school affairs were far from being in such a sad situation as was often claimed: in Rome at that time there were more than 100 schools in which education was provided free of charge or for the most insignificant fee. Finance was also a concern for Consalvi; but they were and remained in a desperate situation. The days in which some prince of Doria could move millions of money in papal coin are over; there were now very few rich people in Rome, like Torlonio and a few other bankers. Already in 1816, annual reports showed a deficit of more than a million scudi. To get out of the difficulty, they then resorted to all sorts of means of raising income; state revenues, following the example of the ancient Romans, were laid down, and very far went in this direction. The courts and prisons were not in a better position. And it was difficult to carry out reforms at all in a country that had experienced so many turmoil. Previously, the church fed both cities and the whole country; now, on the contrary, she herself needed their help, which is why she aroused discontent. The provinces were dissatisfied that all affairs were done in Rome, and the highest aristocracy grumbled at the loss of their privileges. Added to this was a new discord between the clergy and the laity, which became sharply evident shortly after the French occupation; and since no reasonable opposition was provided at the appropriate time, this discord became threatening. The church state sooner or later had to fall under the blow of Nemesis, which always fell upon every sad mixture of secular and spiritual, politics and Christianity. All these events greatly turned many against Consalvi and discontent increased on all sides. His enemies did not even stop at this childish fabrication, attributing to him a letter with which he allegedly addressed Napoleon, who was on the island of St. Elena: “Sir! - this letter said, - I have prepared everything for your return. I abolished what was good in your reign, I kept and strengthened what was oppressive. Everyone awaits you with open arms, especially your loyal subject Hercules Consalvi.” At the same time, more witty polemical works against the cardinal appeared, which circulated in manuscripts in Roman cafes. He also encountered strong opposition from his fellow cardinals. Thus, Pacca became the soul of a large party called the Zelanti (zealots), who secretly and openly accused Consalvi of being infected with godless liberalism, and cardinals Castiglioni (later Pope Pius VII) and Della Genga (later Pope Leo XII) belonged to this party. As a result of such opposition, Consalvi deprived the cardinals of all participation in government, and by this circumstance irritated them even more. They embarked on a fatal path, partly bringing to life secret reactionary societies, partly facilitating them, which all led to great disasters, since these societies made religion an instrument of their politics. Particularly distinguished in this regard was the political-religious society of the “peacemakers” or “holy union,” whose motto was the saying of Christ: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” They swore to maintain social peace, even at the cost of their lives. Another society of “Sanfedists” (i.e., champions of the holy faith), as the members of this union were called, at first set themselves the task only of defending the faith and the pope, both against unbelief and secular attacks; but later, these bearers of absolute theocracy in the name of Christianity began to initiate bloody persecution against liberals, regardless of condition, gender and age. Under the influence of the Sanfedists, Pius VII later issued a bull against the Carbonari (who got their name from the fact that they borrowed their emblems from the coal miners). It is unknown where this secret liberal society first arose, in France or Germany, or on Italian soil. The Carbonari themselves derived their origin from the mysteries of antiquity, especially from the priests of Isis and Mithra, but in reality they were hardly older than the French occupation. During the rule of the French, the Carbonari, as national patriots, sought to overthrow the French yoke, and their society was a hotbed of liberation aspirations and national patriotism. Over a bottle of poison and a hot iron, they swore an oath to think day and night about the extermination of tyrants, and to strictly observe the secrets of society, otherwise “a bottle of poison will be a drink for them, and a hot iron will burn their body.” At their parties they drank with the words: “death or independence”! and they sang about the “bloody star” rising over their fatherland, which will rise again “at the cock’s crow, when the eagles quarrel among themselves.” Next to the disaster caused to the church state by the struggle between the Sanfedists and the Carbonari, another local plague, banditry, was no longer so important. The war with the French drove many into the mountains, and when it ended, all such fighters, finding themselves outlawed, had to seek refuge in the gorges of the mountains and the slums of the forests. The renewed romance cast an attractive shine on the bandits, so that Roman girls looked with delight at men who “could live in the mountains,” and their fathers usually entered into intercourse with the bandits without any embarrassment. Through reasonable measures, Consalvi managed to somewhat limit this evil. But it has not been possible to completely eradicate it even to this day. So rich in congresses, meetings and decrees of sovereigns, the time that followed the Congress of Vienna was, as regards the foreign policy of the church state, marked by a number of concordats which it concluded with individual states, each of them representing new evidence of the growing strength of the papacy. But the papacy greatly damaged itself in the eyes of the sovereigns by the fact that the pope refused to join the “Holy Alliance”, which was concluded by the sovereigns among themselves in order to preserve truth, love and peace. This union of sovereigns was based on a great idea, worthy of its initiator Alexander I the Blessed, to introduce the principle of justice in place of the hitherto dominant system of “European balance,” which was essentially based on force. It was intended to establish agreement and mutual respect among the powers; the right of conquest should no longer find recognition, large armies were abolished, and the idea was presented - the establishment of eternal peace on earth. The Turks were ordered to take serious measures against the spread of the plague, as well as to treat their Christian subjects humanely: the North African robber states were to be destroyed, and English commercial despotism was supposed to be broken. The conclusion of this sublime union was naturally prompted by all the turmoil and dangers experienced, as well as by the humble consciousness that in the last events which led to the taming of the indomitable conqueror, the omnipotent power of God was miraculously manifested. And the idea of ​​such a sacred union was enthusiastically accepted by the peoples, exhausted from turmoil. Poets enthusiastically sang of this union, seeing in it the beginning of a new era, heralding, like the angelic army over the cradle of Christ, peace on earth and goodwill in people. But dad reacted extremely coldly to all this. In the “heretics” he did not want to see the true sons of the church, and therefore did not want to satisfy any of the wishes of the union, so that he would renounce excommunications and the Inquisition and forever renounce Jesuitism. Obviously, the papacy could not part with these powerful instruments of its power. But without joining the “sacred union,” the Vatican did not fail to extract all possible benefits from the religious animation that dominated the courts, and achieved that the emperor. Alexander the Blessed gave the Roman Catholic Church in Poland rich land holdings; in Spain the concordat of 1753 and the pragmatic sanction of 1763 were restored, and new bishoprics were established in Sardinia. In 1817, the pope persuaded France to conclude a new concordat with him, thanks to which the old treaty of 1516 again came into force, and Gallican church rights were abolished. Then the destroyed bishoprics were restored and richly provided for, so that a large part of France again fell under the influence of the papacy. The same thing happened in Bavaria, with which a concordat that was beneficial for the curia was also concluded in 1817. As for the Protestant governments in Germany, at first it was not so easy to settle with them. At the Congress of Vienna the idea of ​​a free German national church found sympathy, and during the negotiations that took place in 1818 with the states of the Upper Rhine province in Frankfurt am Main, echoes of Febronianism could still be heard. But when the persecution of demagogues began, the Roman Church again began to fish in troubled waters. The King of Prussia, Frederick William, who found it offensive to his religious feelings to bring the Roman Catholic cult onto the stage in Schiller's Maid of Orleans, was far from wishing to cause trouble to his Roman Catholics. subjects. When he needed to send his representative to Rome, his choice fell on the famous historian Niebuhr, who “combined conscientious religiosity, unblemished honesty and ardent love for the fatherland, and the agreement that took place through his mediation was so favorable for Rome that the pope himself called it wonderful. Niebuhr, who was cold and critical of the sagas of ancient pagan Rome, fought with knightly fervor for the dreams of medieval Rome, the dangers of which he did not see. The bull “De salute animorunr” dated July 16, 1821, despite everything that has happened since that time, still serves as the basis for the ecclesiastical position of Prussia in Rome. The only Roman Catholic power that did not enter into any agreement with the pope was Austria: in this country, in church terms, part of the spirit of Joseph II still hovered. But Emperor Francis I put an end to this spirit when, with his wife and daughter, as well as Prince Metternich and a brilliant retinue, he made a pilgrimage to Rome in 1819 to express his love and respect to the pope. His example was followed by other crowned heads, not only the king of Naples, but also the king of Prussia. Even the artistically inclined prince, later the king of Denmark, Christian and his wife Amalia stayed for some time in the eternal city. In addition to these temporary guests, several other royal persons lived for a long time within the walls of Rome, so Charles IV of Spain, like the elderly, blind Charles Emmanuel IV of Savoy, completely moved there and Napoleon’s family also found refuge there. All admirers and lovers of the arts and sciences also flocked to the city of St. Peter, in which pagan antiquity and the Christian Middle Ages met each other. Consalvi even had the idea of ​​making Rome the capital of the arts, if he could no longer be the ruler of the world. Therefore, the priests of art were held in high esteem there. The famous sculptor Canova enjoyed the respect of both the pope and his secretary of state, for which he repaid with a magnificent bust of Pius VII. Painting also entered a new flowering. Especially the German artists Overbeck, Cornelius, Veit and Schadow flourished there, who in 1816 together painted frescoes of the story of Joseph in a house located on Monte Pincio, and with this a new era began in the history of painting. These artists saw their models in the strictly ecclesiastical art of the Middle Ages, in the paintings of Fra-Fiosel, painted with prayer. Many of them even directly exchanged their religion for the faith of the Roman Church, and in their painting were guided by imitation of its medieval masters. There was also no shortage of people of science. However, the former originality of Italian scientists now seems to have given way to callousness. “Italy has gone out and there is a corpse,” one old-school scholar complained to Niebuhr. There was the venerable scholar of antiquity, Fea, a man of colossal learning, who, for many years, day after day, sitting in the same place in the Minerva library, pored over old books, and received particular fame in the scientific world for his edition of Winckelmann. Another extremely prolific writer, Concellieri, for more than sixty years, published learned treatises on the most bizarre topics, such as: “The Pope’s Physicians”; “How they kissed dad’s foot before the cross was embroidered on his shoe”: “People of strong memory and people who have lost their memory”, etc. - works in which, with the diligence of an ant, a huge mass of all kinds of knowledge was collected. Papenkordt, a scholar of the Middle Ages, thoroughly knew the smallest events of those times and constantly made excursions to the mountains to study the very places of the endless struggle of the Italian barons in the Middle Ages. There were also astronomers, like Conti and Calandrelli, and under the patronage of Pius VII, an academy of practical sciences was founded, which was located in the Capitol. There was no shortage of preachers either. In addition to native artists and scientists, there were a lot of foreigners, sometimes stars of the first magnitude, who lived and worked for more or less a long time under the shadow of the monuments of ancient Rome. Pius, for his part, did everything to make his city as attractive as possible for people of science and art and not only collected treasures of the arts and sciences, but also took every possible care of their maintenance and preservation. One could even sometimes hear complaints from local residents of Rome that the government cared more about foreigners than about the natives. And yet, Rome, even being a city of beautiful arts, could no longer live in peace, and already under Pius VII one could notice the harbingers of new storms. In 1816, the pope complained that “it is now more difficult to deal with peoples,” indicating how “difficulties” of all kinds were increasing from year to year. In 1817, the Carbonari made an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Macerata, and two years later it was discovered that their plans extended to Rome itself. Letters were intercepted from an Italian Illuminati officer, which revealed the existence of a conspiracy spreading throughout the entire peninsula. And indeed, all of Italy was engulfed in a revolutionary movement. Revolution broke out in Naples and Sicily. In southern Italy it was directed against the king, and in northern Italy against foreigners. "Kingdom of Italy! Independence!" - that was the slogan in Piedmont. In the middle between these two revolutionary currents there was the church state, which also could not protect itself from infection by the revolutionary spirit, and in Rome itself rings with death's heads and other symbols of the Carbonari were sold. In the legations, where the seeds of revolution were left by French rule, members of secret societies held their meetings in the wilds of the forest, and sang: “We are all warriors of freedom.” Their slogan: “Italy, Rome and freedom!” made a deep impression on Lord Byron when he happened to pass by such a crowd, and he distributed money and weapons. But this is where the “sacred union”, which it shunned, helped the papacy. He suppressed the uprising on both peninsulas of Southern Europe, and the death blow was also dealt to Jansenism, which again boldly raised its head in the Cortes of Spain and in the court circle of Portugal. Meanwhile, far from any political unrest, St. died on his remote island. Helena captured Emperor Napoleon. Despite everything that Pius VII had to endure from Napoleon, he did not forget him in disaster. In October 1817, he wrote from his villa in Gandolfo to Consalvi: “The family of Emperor Napoleon informed me through Cardinal Fesch that the rocky island of Helena has a murderous climate, and that the poor exile sees his strength declining from minute to minute. This news caused me inexpressible grief, and you, no doubt, will share it with me: after all, we must both remember that, besides God, we owe it to him that religion was again established in the great French state. – Savona and Fontainebleau are only spiritual errors or haste that come from human ambition, and the concordat was the saving work of Christian heroism. “It would be an incomparable joy for my heart if I could help alleviate Napoleon’s suffering.” He can no longer be dangerous to anyone; I only wish that he would not give anyone a reason for remorse.” It was language worthy of a Christian. Pius intended to address this issue in writing to the allied powers and especially to the Prince Regent of England. In a letter dated May 18, 1818, Madame Letitia thanks the pope for everything he did for her “great unfortunate exile to St. Elena." Her soul is like “the mother of all sorrows,” and her only consolation is that dad has forgotten the past, so he only thinks with favor about her and her child. The Pope sent a priest, Abbot Vignali, to Napoleon, who was supposed to give him the consolation of religion. Under the influence of misfortunes, Napoleon's spirit was humbled, and he became more accessible to the influences of religion. He began his will with the words: “I die in the bosom of the Apostolic and Roman Church,” and wanted the rites of the Roman Church to be performed at his burial. When his doctor chuckled at this, he said to him: “Young man! You may be too smart to believe in God. I haven't gotten to that point yet. Not everyone can be an atheist." But now the end of the great warrior has come. On May 5, when storm and rain were raging all around, Napoleon, deliriously muttering unintelligible words about battles, gave up the ghost, and when the news of his death arrived in Rome, the pope ordered, through Cardinal Fssha, a memorial service, which was supposed to serve as evidence that the emperor died reconciled with the church. Pius VII did not survive him long. He, like his other predecessors, did not live to see the “years of St. Peter,” that is, until the twenty-fifth anniversary of his reign. On July 6, 1823, he fell in his room and was forced to go to bed, and in delirium repeated the words: “Savona - Fontainebleau.” A wonderful feature is reported from the last days of Pius VII's illness. When they addressed him with the usual title: Santissimo padre (Holy Father), he was dissatisfied, and every time he said: “No, call me povero peccatore!” (poor sinner). With the death of Pius VII, Consalvi's rule also ended. The powers of the Secretary of State end at the very moment his master dies. Consalvi always made the cardinals feel superior, and now they were glad to get rid of heavy oppression - and they did not even hide this joy. But they were even more glad that the moment had come again when they could try their luck in the conclave, and before they had time to properly bury the deceased pope, intrigues and all sorts of tricks began among the cardinals, aimed at one way or another to get through and sit on the throne. Petra. 8. Second conclave of the 19th century. – Pope Leo XII Conclave at the Quirinal. – Cardinal Della Genga and his election under the name of Leo XII. – The anniversary year and celebrations during it. – Distinctive features of Leo management. XII. – Secret societies and the fight against them. – Internal administration, – Death of Leo XII. A week and a half after the death of Pius VII, on September 2, 1823, the second conclave of the 19th century took place, and the papal Quirinal Palace was chosen as the venue for its meetings, where the princes of the church proceeded in a solemn procession. In this procession one could see, first of all, Consalvi, bent over with grief and illness. He now had no prospects of becoming pope, because the cardinals were afraid of the all-powerful Secretary of State, and the people sang about the conclave in one mocking song: “Heaven, protect us from such a tyrant as Consalvi.” Among the other cardinals in the procession was one long, thin, pale-faced man with a swaying gait: he looked as if he had just risen from a sick bed. But his emaciated and pale features were in sharp contrast to the sparkle of his eyes and the extraordinary vivacity of his expression. His face belonged to the category of faces in which the eyes apparently move on some springs of a cold mask, without betraying the slightest movement in the soul hiding behind them. It was Cardinal Della Genga, about whom the same song said: “Do you want everything to be fine? Pray that Della Genga will be elected." – At about 9 o’clock in the evening, the doors of the conclave were locked, and in order to speed up the choice, an order was made - not to give the cardinals locked in the conclave access to the Quirinal gardens, for fear that invisible influences from the outside world, capable of penetrating even through stone walls and iron doors, would slow down the election of the “Vicar of Christ on earth.” There were two main parties in the conclave. One of them, the so-called Zelants, wanted to have a pope “whose policy would be as strict as his dogma.” Every time this party gained an advantage, a stricter church mood set in in the government. Their candidate was Severoli, Bishop of Viterbian. Della Genga also belonged to this party; but since before the conclave he broke up with one of the leaders of the party, the papal treasurer Cristaldi, at first there could be no question of his election. Another party, the so-called Moderates (moderates), followed in the footsteps of Austria and France, and wanted a softer-minded pope who would be more comfortable under the circumstances. This party hoped to elect Cardinal Castiglioni, Bishop of Frascata. In addition to the above-mentioned parties, there was also a small circle, concentrated around Consalvi, who wanted to elect either himself or someone else who would follow in his footsteps as pope. This party could rely on Naples, which was then zealously engaged in conclave politics. In the first vote, Severoli received eight votes, Castiglioni five. two Paccas and only one Consalvi; the remaining votes were distributed among various candidates. Meanwhile, day by day Severoli received more and more votes; On September 21 he had already received twenty-six votes, so his choice seemed certain. Then Cardinal Albani, who supported the interests of Austria, resorted to an exception, making a statement on behalf of the Viennese court that Austria did not want to have Severoli as pope. In the official written communication, Albani did not give the true motives of his government; but it said that they did not want Severoli there because he did not want to be present at the wedding of Napoleon with Marie Louise, although he was then the nuncio in Vienna; In addition, in Viterbo he showed himself too attentive to the Carbonari. Severoli calmly accepted his fate; but the Zelantians were furious that they had lost their candidate and took measures in revenge for this to fail the Austrian candidate Castiglioni. On the morning of the 21st he had eighteen votes, but in the evening he received only ten. It was decided to nominate someone else from the Zelant party, and the choice fell on Della Genga. Even on the evening of the 27th he had only 13 votes; but the very next morning he received 38, by which majority he was elected. Annibal Francisco Clement Melchior Girolamo Nicolao Della Genga was born on August 22, 1760 in the castle of Della Genga in the outskirts of Spoleto. Pope Leo XI, the happy rival of Cardinal Baronio in the struggle for the tiara, during his short papacy of only twenty-six days, elevated one of the ancestors of this Annibal Della Genga, a painter, to the dignity of nobility, and from that time this family possessed a castle and a coat of arms. In grateful remembrance of this kindness, Hannibal, upon his election to the papal throne, took the name of Leo XII. The future pope, who had nine sisters, having gone through various schools, entered the “ecclesiastical academy” in Rome and enjoyed the special favor of Pius VI. Already in 1783, he took holy orders and soon received a place at the papal court. When Emperor Joseph II died in 1790, Annibal Della Genga was commissioned, on behalf of the pope and the cardinals, to deliver his funeral oration in the Sistine Chapel. He carried out this delicate task with great tact, so that one could foresee that “he would become a faithful friend of kings.” After that, he began to climb higher and higher on the ladder of church positions. He was constantly with Pope Pius VI and had free access to the court. Noticing one day that he was wearing a robe that was too long, Dad said to him: “Your robe is too long.” “It’s nothing,” answered Della Genga, “Your Holiness can make it shorter, if you like.” A shorter robe was a sign of the next step on the church ladder. Very soon after this he was already a prelate, archbishop of Tire and nuncio of Lucerne. From here he, as Pakki's successor, was sent to Cologne in the same position, where, however, due to the war, he could not find premises for himself. Therefore he lived in Dresden and Augsburg. As nuncio he did not enjoy the reputation for such abstinence as he later had as pope, and the rumor he left in Germany was by no means entirely favorable to him. In 1805, the pope appointed him extraordinary nuncio to the Reichstag, which met in Regensburg. Later he was in Munich and Paris, and, during his journey from that city to Italy, witnessed Napoleon's violent measures against the pope. Arriving in Italy, he returned to Monticelli Abbey. There, the musically educated prelate found time to teach peasants Gregorian chant and organ playing; however, his health was in very poor condition. Already there he chose a place for burial, and soon wanted to retire, forgotten and unnoticed. But when the pope returned, Della Genga was again brought back from his seclusion and sent to Paris to greet Louis XVIII. Consalvi was then the papal envoy in Paris, and the latter was dissatisfied that another person was sent there with such a task. Between the cardinals, things came to a very lively scene, in which Consalvi used such harsh expressions that his scribe, who was present, even began to cry. Della Genga kept silent then, but subsequently was not averse to taking revenge on him. He complained about this to Louis XVIII, who, for his part, consoled him as best he could. However, he considered it best to return to Monticelli again and live there peacefully while his enemy was at the head of the church state. But Pius XII did not want to leave him alone. In 1816 he was appointed cardinal and then received the bishopric of Sinigaglia. However, he did not have to establish his permanent residence there, since soon after he was appointed cardinal vicar and had to live in Rome. Such was the past of the man who, under such unfavorable circumstances, had to ascend to the throne of St. Petra. When he was elected, and was approached with the usual question: “Do you accept this election?” he answered: “No! cancel it! You choose a corpse." But bodily weakness was never considered an obstacle to election, and in some cases it was even especially preferred for the person who was to govern the Roman Church. Since Della Genga was on the line between the bed of illness and the bed of death, this, precisely, was one of the circumstances that made his election possible. The cardinals thought that with such a weak pope they could do whatever they wanted, and immediately after his election they imposed on him a special council of cardinals, in the hope that this council would govern on behalf of the pope. However, Leo XII was still strong enough both physically and spiritually to do without such guardianship. He did not want to recognize the advisers imposed on him as a state council and never convened it for meetings. But the position of the newly elected pope was truly deplorable. Soon after his election, he fell into a long illness, as a result of which everything came to a standstill. The hemorrhoidal suffering of Leo XII, from which he had long suffered for several years, intensified more and more, and from loss of blood he became increasingly weaker. Under such circumstances, it was necessary to think about a new conclave, and diplomats had already begun their activities in this regard. Austria and France hoped for the election of one of the Zelants. The College of Cardinals met for meetings, and the inhabitants of Rome expected every day that the bells on the Capitol would ringing, announcing the death of the pope. Meanwhile, Leo XII recovered, but only to surrender entirely into the hands of the Jesuits, who from that time on actually stood at the helm of the Roman Catholic Church, guiding the ship of the apostle. Peter to the pier of the most extreme ultramontanism. The influence of the Jesuits was already revealed in his first district message of May 5, 1824, which he, according to the custom of popes upon accession to the throne, sent to all the patriarchs, archbishops and bishops of the Roman Church. There he, first of all, inspired them to act prudently in the matter of ordaining persons to the priesthood; and then exhorted them to also take care of their dioceses and constantly remain among the souls entrusted to them. During the difficult period of the Roman Church, many bishops, avoiding persecution, left their dioceses and lived either in solitude or at different courts, and thus church supervision weakened in many places. He then condemns those “who profess tolerance or indifference, not only in a civil sense, but also in an ecclesiastical sense, teaching: God has given man complete freedom, so that everyone, without prejudice to his salvation, can join the sect that most pleases him” - which expression, under the usual papal interpretation of it, was tantamount to a condemnation of all freedom of conscience and religion. The following year, Bible societies were again condemned because “they pervert rather than translate the Holy Scriptures.” And so that there would no longer be any doubt about where the pope was looking for his advisers, a few days after this, the famous institution of higher learning, the Collegium Romanum, was given to the Jesuits, “those excellent people who shine with holy morals, great qualities and learning.” Subsequently, they received more and more estates and power. At the same time, the pope began to introduce greater severity everywhere, which was expressed both in the mentioned admonitions to the bishops and in the issued command regarding more strict observance of fasts. In the matter of abstinence and frugality, dad himself set an example for everyone; his table cost him only one crown every day. Then measures were taken to introduce cheaper legal proceedings. The cause of public education was also transformed, and especially the universities were subjected to thorough reform. New departments were established, and, with the exception of a few theological professorships, the remaining departments were made available to everyone; Latin was the language of both the courts and the schools. As a small concession to freedom of thought, Galileo's writings were not included in the new "list of prohibited books" issued under Leo XII. Among the ecclesiastical positions in Rome, a different arrangement was made in order to more equalize the incomes of various priests. They also began to restore the burnt church of St. Pavel. By his thrifty management, Leo not only obtained the funds for this extremely expensive enterprise, but was also able to undertake the construction of large dams, with which it was intended to protect the area near Tivoli against the floods of the Anio River, and he achieved all this, although, at the same time, he eased taxes upon his accession to the throne. Leo XII sat at his desk from early morning until late evening, although from time to time he suddenly appeared in some hospital or other institution to personally verify whether his orders were being carried out accurately. Over the years, he became more and more distrustful and did not want to leave anything to others; he had a passion for getting involved in everything and getting personally involved in both the largest and smallest things. The illumination of the Cathedral of St., so beloved by the population. St. Peter's during Holy Week was abolished, and a doorman was posted in each of the main churches, who invited foreigners to remain quiet and was supposed to turn away "indecently dressed persons." By this, the pope alienated foreigners, who began to arrive in Rome in large numbers. But by one measure he aroused displeasure among his own subjects, namely, when he decreed that innkeepers should not allow their guests to sit in their establishments. Grates were placed outside in front of the doors of the taverns, through which wine was served to the guests; and it was not allowed to enter the tavern itself. By this he thought to put a limit not only to drunkenness, but also to constant fights, which were an ordinary occurrence in Roman taverns. But this police measure was extremely hated by the population, as a result of which it was canceled after the death of Leo. In some of Leo’s events, the people saw only the pope’s passion to make his power felt everywhere. The only somewhat gratifying event during the papacy of Leo XII was the celebration of the so-called jubilee. In the Mosaic Law it was commanded that every seventy-seven years, on the tenth day of the seventh month in the forty-ninth year, the trumpet should be blown, as a sign that the next year should be a year of jubilee, in which the earth should rest, the poor should again receive their paternal inheritance, and the slaves their former freedom. The year of jubilee was to be a year of all mercies, a healing and restoration of all that had been broken in the course of time through the fault of man, a restoration of the sons of God in true freedom, a liberation of every creature from the bondage under which it languishes for the sake of man. The papacy also adopted this idea of ​​a golden year of graces. Pope Boniface VII invited the entire Christian world to Rome for the first time in 1300 to celebrate the Jubilee Year. According to him, such a holiday should have been celebrated once every hundred years. And when Boniface summoned the oldest inhabitants of Rome, they told him that they had heard from their fathers how on the first day of the year 1200 everyone was granted complete absolution. In view of this, Boniface appointed a jubilee year, and thousands of people flocked to Rome, so that special measures had to be taken in order to prevent misfortune in such crowded conditions. The jubilee turned out to be so beneficial for Rome in all respects that already in 1342 Clement VI found it possible to shorten the interval between jubilees by fifty years, “so that so many people would not die without receiving the grace of the jubilee year.” Urban VI (1373–1379) decided to celebrate three jubilee years in each century, according to the number of years of the Savior (33 years). Finally, Sixtus IV declared a jubilee year in 1475, and from that time on, four jubilees were celebrated in each century. Following this rule, Pius VI celebrated the jubilee year in 1775, and only due to the difficult situation in which the papacy found itself at the beginning of the 19th century, the jubilee was not celebrated in 1800. What does the year of jubilee mean in the Roman Catholic sense? The famous Cardinal Wiseman gives the following explanation: “This is the year in which the Holy See does everything possible to make Rome religiously attractive and unique. Theaters are closed, public pleasures are suspended; even private entertainment is brought within the boundaries of the order adopted during fasting. But everything that can contribute to the sinner’s correction or pious progress, to strengthen his faith and strengthen his piety - all this is offered generously and abundantly. The pulpits are occupied by the most eloquent preachers, who awaken the conscience or instruct the ignorant; the confessionals are constantly occupied by priests speaking all languages. Pious societies or brotherhoods receive, entertain and guide the arriving parties of pilgrims one after another from sanctuary to sanctuary. The altars are besieged by sincerely repentant communicants, and indulgences are given out - however, under conditions that are by no means easy.” But this is an ostentatious side of the anniversary, behind which there is also another - purely economic - since the influx of pilgrims always greatly improves the papal finances. The Jubilee Bull was issued by Leo XII on Ascension Day, May 27, 1825. It reported that, according to the power granted to him, he decided to open all the deposits of heavenly treasure to the Christian world. “Let the earth hear the voice of my mouth, and let all the world hear with joy the sound of the high priestly trumpet, which announces the holy jubilee to the people of God.” According to custom, all measures were taken to prepare the ground for the anniversary and make it as solemn as possible. Eloquent preachers spoke in churches and in public squares, calling for repentance and reform. In Piazza Navona, Muccioli gathered up to 15,000 people with his penitential sermons, and the pope himself was present, teaching a blessing to everyone. However, to no small temptation for devout Catholics, he listened to these sermons from the beautiful balcony of the house of the “schismatic” - the Russian envoy. The churches and chapels in Rome were brought into the best condition, and places were built in the city and its environs for the expected numerous pilgrims. Next, a very strict order was issued, which forbade priests to wear round hats, or simple and short clothes and “secular” ties: and women were ordered to appear only in decent dresses, in order to make the eternal city a holy city during the jubilee year. Theaters were closed and all social entertainment was prohibited. The cheerful artists left the city dressed in a shroud and ashes. Finally, on December 24, 1824, the anniversary itself was opened. On this day, the cardinals and prelates gathered at the Vatican, and from there the procession moved to the Sistine Chapel. Leo XII himself walked ahead in full regalia with a tiara on his head. The Eucharist was displayed in the chapel, and candles were distributed to all the cardinals, prelates and officials. The pope himself, with a gilded candle in his hand, sang: Veni Creator Splritus, which was taken up by the choir. Singing, he mounted his stretcher and was carried under a canopy to the Cathedral of St. Petra. Arriving there, he left the stretcher and took a place on the path erected for him. Then he stepped down from the throne and went to one of the church doors, which was walled up. One cardinal gave him a golden hammer, and with it he hit the walled door three times, solemnly exclaiming: “Open the gates of Truth for me!” The choir answered: “I will go in there and thank the Lord.” The Pope continued: “I will enter Your house,” to which the choir sang: “In the holy church I will pray in Your fear.” Finally the pope said in a loud voice: “Open the gates, for God is with us”; and the choir added to this: “He who works piety in Israel.” The Pope then again handed the hammer to the cardinal, and again taking his place on the throne, gave the sign by which the masons broke down the walled door. The rubbish was immediately removed, and while the Te Deum was chanted, the pope, holding a cross in one hand and a lighted candle in the other, entered bareheaded through the open door into the church. He was followed by cardinals and prelates, with the Swiss Guard in St. Peter's and artillery from the castle of St. The angel announced the coming of the jubilee year with thunderous volleys. Having walked around the church, the pope stopped in front of the main altar and celebrated the first Christmas mass. At the end of the mass, he pronounced the Aaronic blessing to the entire multitude of people who entered the church through the open door. At the same hour, the papal secretary of state, with two cardinals, similarly opened the “door of grace” in the three other main churches of Rome. On the evening of Christmas, according to ancient custom, the pope blessed a hat and sword, intended as gifts to some sovereign or general who had rendered special services to the church. This time the Duke of Angoulême received the consecration, because it was under his leadership that the Spanish Revolution was suppressed in the name of the Holy Alliance 17 . Although the anniversary attracted many pilgrims to Rome (some up to 400,000, and others up to 900,000), it was much less than expected. Before Easter the tide from abroad was insignificant, but between Easter and Whitsun it increased. The vast majority of pilgrims came from neighboring countries. Naples gave 44,973 pilgrims. Further lying countries and especially Protestant states sent few pilgrims, but even from Roman Catholic Austria only 20 arrived. The emperor himself was traveling in northern Italy; but “for the sake of political circumstances” he did not visit Rome. The spirit of Joseph II was still felt in this country. On the contrary, the Infante of Spain, King Francis I of the Two Sicilies, arrived. and the Dowager Queen of Sardinia, and the latter received a consecrated rose as a reward for her piety. The propaganda acted smartly, and the number of people who converted during the anniversary was up to 150 people, partly Protestants, partly Jews. Large monetary collections were made among the believers, and significant sums were assigned for missions among the pagans. But behind the ostentatious side of piety, there was, however, a lot of wickedness. A Frenchman distributed pornographic images, and so-called “white pilgrims” of the worst kind arrived in Rome. Disbelief and a spirit of denial are deeply rooted among students. Once, when, according to the program, students of the University of Rome walked in a procession through the city from church to church, among the young people they noticed a free spirit that was not in harmony with solemnity. As punishment for this, no prizes or doctorates were awarded at the university that year. Outside Rome, outrages were committed to an even greater extent. In Forlì, during missionary sermons, outrageous writings were heard, and the mob desecrated the images of saints on display. In Ferrara, even during processions, obscene songs were sung, and in Bologna, students committed the most rude antics. The church state was not entirely devoted to the pope. Even among the pilgrims, some later became enemies of the Roman Church. Not long before the anniversary year, Abbot Lamennais was received with delight by the pope and the cardinals; the pope was so fascinated by his piety and learning that he ordered his portrait to be hung in his bedroom and intended to reward him with the hat of a cardinal for his writings, with which he had rendered great services to religion and brought the whole of Europe into joyful surprise. However, soon afterwards this pious and illustrious abbot was excommunicated as a heretic. But to attract pilgrims they also resorted to various kinds of pleasures and amusements. So, in June 1825, on the occasion of the coronation of Charles X in Reims, large celebrations were organized. The French envoy, the Duke of Laval, organized a brilliant celebration at the Villa Medici, for which the famous Egyptologist Champollion built an obelisk in the Egyptian style, and on it Charles X was glorified in hieroglyphs. There is nothing to say about the numerous different church processions and celebrations. Members of the Viterbo Brotherhood of Sacconi, in white robes, silently and quietly walked through the streets of Rome with their heads wrapped, and a dead head and bones were carried before them. Both the Romans and many foreigners looked with surprise at these strict monks who belonged to rich and noble families, who, by vow, never speak a word and before meals partly scourge themselves, partly listen to a sermon. Only one thing was little in harmony with their apparently so great piety that in this very year the severe Sacconi from Viterbo lived not with their Roman brothers in the order, but with the so-called stigmatics, because they disagreed with the former on the question of which of them should go ahead in the general procession, whether the brothers from Rome or the brothers from Viterbo. On the same day, a large procession of 5,000 women was seen, and since they did not take a vow of silence, wherever they passed, a restless, far from pious chatter was heard. All these processions were led by the Jesuits, who gained more and more influence over the affairs of the Roman church. During the Jubilee year there was no shortage of beatificationes, and the Roman calendar was enriched with several new “blesseds.” Both during canonization and during canonization, the matter is conducted with great caution, and the dignity of the candidates is subjected to the strictest examination in advance. Acts on the case of a saint sometimes fill 4,000 pages and cost more than 50,000 rubles. “Dear child,” said one poor woman at the canonization of her son, “be whatever you want, but not a saint; it costs too much." The costs of pleasing are less, but also sometimes reach 40,000 rubles. A necessary condition for “satisfaction” is the presence of three miracles, the reliability of which is examined in a special court with the participation of two lawyers, one of whom is called the devil’s lawyer, and the other - the lawyer of heaven, and in addition judges and witnesses. The lawyer of heaven begins the “trial” with a commendable speech about the virtuous life of the person to be blessed and proves the reality of the miracles he performed, and conscientious witnesses also come forward and testify in favor of the candidate for beatitude. After them, the devil's advocate comes forward and makes his objections, sometimes so serious that the very right of the person to please is apparently undermined. The lawyer of heaven defends him, after which the lawyer of the devil attacks again, and the trial continues until the judges pronounce their “admittitur” (permitted). The Pope is then presented with the signature of the bull of beatitude, three miracles are depicted in the Cathedral of St. Peter, are exposed to everyone, after which a solemn service is performed, after which the name of the blessed one is first mentioned in the litany “Oremus”. On Spiritual Day 1825, Franciscan Julian 18 was elevated to the rank of blessed. Later the famous Jesuit Rodrigues and Hippolyte Galantini were beatified. The Jubilee year ended on December 24, 1825. On this day, the cardinals and prelates again gathered in the Vatican, and, led by the pope, they moved with lighted candles through Peter's Square to the threshold of St. Peter's Cathedral, where a magnificent throne was arranged for Leo XII. Then the procession entered the church and left through the “door of grace.” When everyone left, dad blessed the stones and mortar that had already been prepared for walling up the doors, placing the first stone with prayer with his own hands. Some of the highest dignitaries of the church state also laid a stone, and then the hole was covered with a carpet. Finally all the candles were extinguished, and a mighty Te Deum rang out over the assembled people. After all these celebrations, the Pope felt so tired that he entrusted the celebration of the Christmas Mass to another person, although he nevertheless appeared on the balcony of the church and gave a blessing to the masses of people who were waiting for him. Despite his physical weakness, Leo XII was energetic enough to begin the fight against the greatest evil of the church state of that time - robbery and secret societies. At that time, along the seashore and in Campania, robbers and murderers carried out attacks even during the day. To put an end to this disgrace, the pope sent several cardinals with great powers to these areas, and thanks to the measures they took, banditry has since weakened significantly. Jealous of the fulfillment of the desire of “St. father,” one Abbot Pellegrini, completely alone, went to the mountains near Sezza and boldly preached repentance and forgiveness to the robbers. These admonitions of the abbot made an irresistible impression on the hardened souls, and when he gave them his priestly word as a guarantee that their lives would be spared, they laid down their arms. Like a lamb at the head of a pack of wolves, the abbot led a whole gang of robbers into the city, where they obediently surrendered into the hands of the authorities. The fight against secret societies was more difficult. In March 1825, Leo XII issued a bull against them, in which he repeated all the curses pronounced on them from the time of Clement XII to Pius VII. The bull, by the way, said that since the time of Pius VII, the societies of Carbonari and Freemasons have increased and become even more dangerous, and have become especially widespread in universities, where some teachers think more about destruction than about the correct education of their students, and even directly seduce them into sects that reject religion and power, distribute books that say that all Christianity is based either on deception or on stupidity, that there is no God, and after real life there is no life eternal. In the person of the Carbonari and the Freemasons, the Pope wanted to defeat unbelief, which at this time of reaction sought refuge in secret societies. Not limiting itself to words, the papacy did not hesitate to take the most severe measures. On August 31, 1825, Cardinal Rivarola pronounced the death sentence on 500 people suspected of participating in secret societies 19. Some of them were sentenced to death, many were imprisoned for a more or less long time, and the majority were placed under police supervision. A very strict police order was issued, by virtue of which all suspects were sent to the places of their homeland, and they were forbidden to go beyond the threshold of their houses before sunrise and after sunset. All those registered in this way were required to report to the police every two weeks, go to confession monthly, and annually perform the prescribed spiritual exercises in the monastery. Leo XII treated the Jews with particular severity. By virtue of one papal decree, all trade agreements between Jews and Christians were declared invalid. Jews were also deprived of the right to acquire land property, and what they owned had to be sold at a certain time. Jewish quarters were surrounded by walls and locked with gates, and their residents were obliged to go to church. The Jews of the cities of Pesaro and Ferrara sent commissioners to Rome and petitioned for a relaxation of the laws issued regarding them, but the pope did not even give them an audience. The consequence of this was that many of the richest Jews moved to Lombardy. Venice, Trieste and Tuscany. Leo XII kept his officials under strict discipline. In terms of savings, he, first of all, limited the salaries of the members of the College of Cardinals, assigning them only 4,000 scudi. It was the custom of Roman officials to give themselves long holidays in the hotter months: this was now prohibited. When some of these spiritual dignitaries, who had devoted themselves especially long to the pleasant dolce far niente, returned to their places after the summer holidays in 1826, it turned out that their places had already been taken by others. Measures were also taken to eradicate outrageous bribery, for which an extensive espionage system was introduced. But most of these activities remained a dead letter, and the system of government of Leo XII found expression in a popular proverb that said: “one half of us commands, and the other does not listen.” Leo XII tried in every possible way to elevate the importance of monasticism, and therefore was very strict towards those monks who, with their lives, cast a shadow on monasticism. But the fight against the shortcomings of debauched monasticism was very difficult. The island of Sardinia had a particularly bad reputation in this regard, and in response to a complaint from the Turin court, Leo XII sent Archbishop Ranaldi there to investigate the state of the matter. But the Sardinian monks soon got rid of the inconvenient visitor. On Christmas Eve they sent him some sugar cookies as a gift, and after tasting them he died. Later, a similar fate befell Cardinal Tsurlu in Silicia. Neither the monks nor the people really liked one order, namely, that only the blind and paralytic were allowed to beg, and, moreover, only at certain, precisely indicated church doors; but the foreigners felt significant relief, since the annoying pestering of beggars stopped in Rome. Another order of the pope also caused a lot of discontent, namely, when Roman housewives were forbidden to dry their laundry directly on the streets, which had been practiced for a long time. The Italians were also greatly dissatisfied with the pope's strictness towards theaters. Actors for any addition to what was not contained in the prompter's book were sentenced to a five-year punishment in the galleys; and if anyone allowed himself to express approval or disapproval in public, he would also face imprisonment for two or six months. The theater again became a place for both political and anti-church agitation, and that is why Leo paid the strictest attention to it. Even private performances, often staged in the homes of the nobility, were subject to strict censorship. In one play, intended for home performance, the phrase: “you have a soul like an angel” had to be corrected: “like a hero”; otherwise the play would not have been allowed. Science was also under the heaviest yoke. An ignorant censor once confused Galvani with Calvin, and therefore confiscated several of the great physicist's works. As for Leo XII's relations with foreign states, he was very happy. The prevailing wind of reaction was favorable to the course on which the ship of St. sailed. Petra. In France, Louis XVIII was a friend and patron of the church, and even more so, Charles X. The Jesuits again gained decisive influence there for a long time; but the closer things got to July 1830, the stronger the opposition became, and therefore Charles X had to yield to this opposition. The Spanish colonies in America, having achieved freedom, turned to the pope with a request to appoint bishops, which was done in 1827. Likewise, the papal throne, at the request of Emperor Don Pedro I, entered into relations with Brazil. In Paraguay, on the contrary, a desire arose to break ties with the pope. Dr. Francia allowed his subjects to be whatever they wanted, as long as they were not Catholics; Without renouncing the Roman Catholic faith, he wanted to suppress monasticism and break ties with the pope. In Germany, the idea of ​​a German state church was suppressed, and its leader, the noble Wessenberg, after the closure of the bishopric of Constant, had to say goodbye to his flock 20. A new concordat was concluded with Hanover, and in England the idea of ​​​​the emancipation of Catholics in parliament and outside it received more and more votes in its favor. Holland also concluded a concordat with the pope, and it was precisely similar to Napoleon’s concordat: but when the papacy, on the basis of this concordat, wanted to return the old Catholic Dutch community (the archbishop of which had and has his residence in Utrecht) to Roman Catholicism, he did not succeed. In his own interests, the pope wanted to take advantage of the Greek war for liberation, promising them help if they agreed to accept the union; but this matter had no success. The Greek captain Kefela, who arrived in Rome with the goal of selling good Cypriot wine cheaply, was not averse to helping the cause of union, but had more success in his first enterprise than in his second. Constantly sickly, although dignified in appearance, Leo XII died on February 20, 1829, under such suspicious circumstances that there was talk of poisoning among the Swiss Guards guarding the doors of the papal chambers. The news of his death was received in Rome “with indecent joy.” Popular wit said that Leo XII caused them threefold sorrow, namely, that “he took upon himself the papal dignity, lived too long, and died just during the joyful time of the carnival, in order to make the people mourn himself.” In general, under Leo XII, the respect with which the people usually treated popes weakened extremely, and after his death several satires were written against him. 9. Popes Pius VIII and Gregory XVI Conclave of the Quirinal and election of Pius VIII. – Short-term papacy. – New conclave and election of Gregory XVI. – From the former life of the newly elected pope. - Revolution in Rome. - The difficult situation of the papacy. In February 1829, a conclave was again held in the Quirinal, at which Cardinal Castiglioni was elected pope with the usual ceremonies. Francesco Xaverio Castiglioni, who took the name Pius VIII, was born on November 20, 1761 in Cingola; At first he studied in Jesuit schools, where he especially benefited from the teaching of the famous learned librarian Father Zaccaria. then he went to Bologna to study canon law, but from there he soon moved to Rome. There Castiglioni entered into close relations with one of the first canonists of the time, the lawyer Devoti, whom he helped in his publications. Pius VII already in 1800 appointed him Bishop of Montalta in the Roman Marches, and later Bishop of Cesena. There he turned out to be a champion of the Sanfedist party and an open opponent of the Carbonari. Since he did not want to submit to Napoleon, when the French conquered Italy, he was imprisoned, from which he was released only after the overthrow of Napoleon and, in compensation for the disasters he suffered, was elevated to the rank of cardinal. As a cardinal, he lived in Rome for several years in extreme alienation; but Pius VII, a year before his death, made him bishop of Frascata and great penitentiary (confessor). He was a very learned man who, in addition to canon law, especially studied numismatics (like his teacher Zaccaria) and biblical literature. In his personal manner he was extremely amiable, but suffered from a chronic disease in the back of his head, which forced him to tilt his head to the side and down, so that it was impossible to clearly see his entire face. Having become pope, he issued an order to his relatives to immediately leave the places where they were, so as not to be reproached with nepotism. Not only that, he went further and hesitated for a long time to make St. Bernard "teacher of the church" - simply because he came from the French surname Chatillon, a branch of the Castiglioni. Later he overcame these hesitations, and Bernard of Clairvaux received the honorary title of “Teacher of the Church” during his papacy. The papacy of Pius VIII lasted only one year and 8 months, so it could not have any special significance; but it did not pass without outstanding events, especially in that strange and turbulent time. Following the example of previous popes, he issued a district message, which condemned indifference in matters of faith, biblical and secret societies. After a while, he had the good fortune to reap what he had not sowed. In April 1829, a bill for the “emancipation” of Catholics was passed in the English Parliament. As a result, every Catholic there received the right to sit in parliament and hold almost all public positions, and he only had to take an oath of allegiance to the state. The joy in Rome on this occasion was extraordinary, although only a few residents of Rome understood the very expression “Catholic emancipation”, which was everywhere displayed in banners during the luxurious illumination made in Rome on this occasion. More accessible to understanding was the question of the legality of so-called “mixed marriages,” on which Pius VIII gave a preliminary decision in his brief of March 25, 1830. This issue was very confusing and led to unpleasant clashes with non-Catholic governments. Therefore, in order to avoid trouble, the papacy tried to turn a blind eye to marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. New circumstances, however, required a more definite solution to the issue, and the bishops of Prussia, where such marriages occurred especially often, asked their government to contact Rome on this issue. Pius VIII, with his wide acquaintance with canon law, wanted to get out of the complicated issue through the mentioned breve, the meaning of which was that Rome generally does not approve of such marriages and would like to prohibit them if it had the power to do so - but, for the time being, leaves the matter to the discretion of the local church authorities 21. Meanwhile, turbulent times have come again in Europe. The July Revolution broke out in Paris, and the king had to flee, followed by the Jesuits and Trappists from France. It was only when Louis Philippe established himself on his new throne that an agreement beneficial to both sides was established between the papacy and the bourgeois monarchy. When the revolution later broke out in Belgium, it was in view of the role played there by the Ultramontanes, etc. namely, as allies of the liberals, prospects for new benefits opened up; but neither the Belgian nor the July Revolution (in France) brought the Roman Church such victories that would bring it tangible fruits. The movement even spread to Rome itself, where a Carbonari lodge was opened with 26 members, although it did not come to a revolution. But in turbulent times, “experienced pilots” also appeared. In July 1829, Jesuits from all over the world gathered in Rome to elect a new general of the order. After a short meeting, they elected Father Rootaan, who was 44 years old. The Ultramontals rejoiced at the news of this election, because Rootaan had all the qualities necessary for a Jesuit general: cunning, knowledge of people and political talent. The Jesuits who gathered in Rome then developed a plan of action in those countries where the Roman Church was in danger, and from this very time a particularly strong propaganda of ultramontanism began, as the Jesuit theory of the papacy. Pope Pius VIII was always weak in body to such an extent that he could hardly take part in church festivities. On December 1, after a 20-month reign, he was already on his deathbed. In the last moments of his life, he was particularly saddened by his failure to canonize Alfonso Liguori, the famous founder of the Redemptorist order, a branch of the Jesuit order. On December 14, 1830, a new conclave convened, and the most prominent candidate was Cardinal Capellari. This cardinal was born on September 18, 1765 in the Venetian region. In 1783, with the name Maura, he joined the Camaldulian order and settled in a Venetian monastery, from where he later moved to Rome. With a lively mind, he was a thoroughly learned man who had extensive knowledge of both theology and secular sciences. At the advent of the new century, he published an essay entitled “The Triumph of the Holy See and the Church over the Attacks of the Innovators,” directed against the unbelief and radicalism of that time. In 1805 he became abbot of the monastery of St. Gregory on the Caelian Hill; and for more than twenty years, immersed in scholarly pursuits, he lived as a simple monk. When Napaleon occupied Rome, all orders were closed, and Moor Cappellari had to leave his monastery: but he found refuge with the architect Gasparo Salvi, to whom he once taught geometry. After the restoration, he returned to Rome again and again plunged into his studies. In difficult cases, the papal government often used his advice when it came to theological or canonical questions, and under Leo XII he was entrusted with the supervision of provincial universities. In 1825 Leo appointed him a cardinal, and soon afterwards he became prefect of propaganda. Thus, the conclave wanted to elevate to the throne of Peter a modest monk who, unfamiliar with the affairs of the wider world, was completely immersed in books and ancient inscriptions. His chances (“aura”) became noticeable from the very first days of the conclave, and, indeed, on February 2, 1832, he was elected pope, and in honor of the founder of propaganda, Gregory XV, took the name of Gregory XVI. But as soon as he was crowned, a revolution broke out in Rome. Already immediately after the death of Pius VIII and before the meeting of the conclave, an attempt was made to occupy the Castle of the Angel, with the intention of proclaiming Jerome, the eleven-year-old son of the former king of Westphalia, king of Rome and Italy. Most of the participants in this uprising were Voltaireans or indifferentists in religious terms, sensualists in philosophy, and adherents of the constitution in politics. Few had a firm, philosophically or politically sound plan or a sublime national vision; most thought only of unrest and destruction. The uprising then failed; but after the conclave, which gave Rome a very unsympathetic, stern monk, the uprising broke out again. On the night of February 13, about fifty conspirators gathered in Column Square, who, however, were soon dispersed by soldiers. The next morning on the street. Corso and in many other places, posters were displayed with the colors of the Italian Republic and the inscription: “It’s this or death”! These troubles mainly came from foreigners, but Pope Gregory managed to suppress them. In order to gain the favor of the people, Gregory further lowered the duties on salt and grain products. The event reported by Reuchlin seems rather strange, namely, that during this uprising, many Bibles were imported into the church state. Was this exclusively the work of biblical societies, or was it the need of the very life of the people, who longed to directly penetrate the source of life? In general, at this time there was no shortage of protests against the papacy turning the kingdom of Christ into a purely earthly kingdom, and for example, the President of Bologna, Giovanni Vicini, issued an appeal in which he reminded the pope that Christ, however, gave Peter and his successors the keys and the right to bind and decide in spiritual matters or in matters of conscience, but the Lord at the same time directly said that His kingdom is not of this world. Now, it was said further, Rome “is only a dying hydra, which is exhausting its last strength in the struggle that has begun.” In addition to political unrest, many areas of the church state were struck by extreme misery. Trade and crafts, which were no longer particularly prosperous before, now, as a result of political unrest, fell to the extreme, and in Rome poverty surpassed all limits. According to a long-standing custom, the bread made from bakeries was transported daily to places in large baskets loaded on donkeys; This caravan was attacked by a street crowd who, emptying baskets, shouted: “We want bread! We are dying of hunger! When Gregory XVI appeared in public, he was surrounded by pale, emaciated figures who bombarded him with all kinds of requests; but he had nothing to give away. The state treasury was empty, and making a loan was becoming more difficult day by day. The largest capitalist, Torlonia, was himself in great difficulty. Then I had to turn to the king of the stock exchange, Rothschild, and this financial king of modern Israel finally agreed to arrange a successor to St. Peter two significant loans to cover the most glaring needs. However, Dad received only about 71 percent of the borrowed amount and had to pledge some of his indirect income. And then almost all of the cardinals, without exception, were without funds. The only man who had any fortune was Albani; but his possessions were leased, and, moreover, he was extremely stingy. When then the hail, having devastated the fields, ruined many villagers and made them poor, and cholera left many orphans, the pope could provide only the most insignificant help to the needy. The pope tried to introduce some reforms in the disordered state, but they were far from satisfying the educated classes of the population. Therefore, after the removal of the Austrians, fermentation began again. Armed gangs formed in the outskirts of the cities, and soon bloody clashes erupted between them and the papal troops. Universities had already been closed in 1831, and young people captured with weapons in their hands were deprived of the right to occupy public positions, and some were even sent into exile. Many of them received their education abroad, so that, with the onset of calmer times, they would return to their fatherland; but for the most part, they brought with them to their homeland a hostile mood towards Christianity and the church. In the church state itself, public education fell to the extreme, although this did not in the least increase obedience to the pope and the clergy. Since the country was also occupied by foreign soldiers, this caused a lot of annoyance to all patriots in general; and therefore everyone was glad when, in 1838, Bologna was cleared by the Austrians, and Ancona by the French. But this only added fuel to the fire, and the throne of St. Petra soon again needed the help of foreign bayonets. Despite, however, the political weakness of the papal state, the actual strength of the papacy grew rapidly and began to make itself felt strongly everywhere. Since, under the influence of the Jesuits, it began to become increasingly isolated in medieval forms and alienated from modern culture, sooner or later a struggle must arise between the papacy and the spirit of modern times. And this struggle first emerged under Gregory XVI, presenting a striking picture of the internal inconsistency of the papal system with the spirit of modern times. 10. Papacy in the fight against the spirit of new times The role of the Jesuits in the Roman Church. - Their desire to return the ship of St. Peter to the Middle Ages. – Inevitable clashes with the spirit of modern times. —The awakening of free thought in Germany and the efforts of the Jesuits to suppress it. – Hermes and his theology. – The struggle of the Jesuits against Hermesianism. - An ardent champion of the papacy. – Question about mixed marriages. – Arrest of two archbishops. – “German Catholicism” and the essence of this movement. – Other attempts to found national churches and the reasons for their failures. – Gregory XVI and Emperor. Nicholas I. – Gregory’s love for sciences and arts. – Death of Gregory XVI. When at the helm of the ship Peter became the sons of Loyola, then its course changed abruptly, and the ship rushed with full sail towards the restoration of that spirit and those forms that were considered already outdated and found their ideal in the Middle Ages. This direction completely coincided with the personal mood of Gregory XVI, who in the 19th century wanted to be a completely medieval pope. Already in 1832, he published an encyclical in which he declared an irreconcilable war on modern science and all the demands of modern times - with his ideas of freedom of conscience and the press, and his entire papacy represented a persistent desire to implement these medieval principles into the surrounding reality. This naturally should have led the papacy to a series of clashes with modern states, and this clash was revealed especially sharply in Prussia, where it directly took on the character of a fierce struggle, representing an interesting page in the relations between the papacy and modern states. When, according to the Treaty of Vienna of 1814, the Rhine and other German regions densely populated by Roman Catholics were ceded to Prussia, this state politically combined two completely opposite forces in spiritual and religious terms - Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. These forces are essentially irreconcilable, but, due to constant contact, some spiritual communication had to occur between them through mutual influence, and it was expressed in a number of remarkable phenomena, and Protestantism partly contributed to the revival of intellectual initiative among Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholicism, for its part, contributed to the softening of harsh orthodoxy and the revival of the spirit of churchliness among Protestants. But if the Roman Church was quite pleased with the influence of Roman Catholic principles on Protestants (especially when the latter directly converted to the fold of the Roman Church), then it was all the more jealous of all the influences of Protestant thought on Roman Catholics, and true to its medieval ideal, it mercilessly punished and suppressed all spiritual movements, seeing in them a dangerous tendency of spiritual self-determination according to the principles of Protestantism. Meanwhile, under the influence of rapprochement with Protestantism, the newest intellectual trends penetrated into the area of ​​the Roman Church, and among its theologians there were often persons who, not satisfied with the outdated methods of theological thought, were not averse to fertilizing it with the methods of new philosophy. Such was the famous Bonn theologian Hermes. But his theology aroused strong suspicion among the Jesuits, and as a result they took all measures to suppress this new spirit, which they achieved with heartless cruelty. Hermes, having survived the difficult school of unbelief and skepticism that prevailed at the end of the 18th century, came to the conviction that the old methods of protecting religion and the church had lost their meaning in modern times. New times also required new methods. Therefore, he delved into the study of modern philosophy, especially Kant and Fichte, and came to the conviction that even if not everything among these philosophers was suitable for theology, then their method was excellent and could provide important services to the cause of religion, giving it the opportunity to find for itself indisputable foundations in the very laws of our thinking. From this point of view, he wrote a number of excellent works (such as “Introduction to Christo-Catholic Theology” 1829, “Christo-Catholic Dogmatics” posthumous edition 1831–4, etc.), in which, applying the philosophical method to theology, he successfully overcame unbelief and skepticism in its very fundamentals. He also applied this new method in his professorial activities. His lectures on theology were distinguished by their extraordinary vitality, and since they placed theology on a completely unusual basis of purely rational research and justification of the most essential truths of Christianity, they made a huge impression. His auditoriums were constantly crowded with enthusiastic listeners back in Münster, where he was a professor in 1807 - 1820; but his fame especially increased when he moved to the famous University of Bonn. This university, founded (in 1818) by the generosity of Frederick William IV, who in his philanthropy decided to eclipse all other German universities with his brainchild, indeed, quickly took a leading position among other universities and attracted the best forces from everywhere. Its theological faculty received particular fame, since it, more than other universities, provided freedom of theological speculation - partly, perhaps, due to the fact that Bonn, by its very position, stood, so to speak, on the international frontier, in which trends converged not only from Germany, but also from neighboring France and Holland, to which it at times belonged. In this new church of science, freer from old traditions than all other universities with their more or less medieval structure, there was complete scope for the free theological speculation of Hermes, which not only corresponded to the living demands of the time, but captivated both with the internal power of persuasiveness and the peculiar freshness of the method itself. The youth were delighted with the new professor, and soon a circle of enthusiastic students gathered around him, who completely adopted the teacher’s method and subsequently became its distributors throughout almost all of Germany, as the best of his students gradually occupied university departments in other cities 22. It is clear what an unprecedented revival this brought to the hitherto dead scholasticism of Roman Catholic theology, which was numb in photophobia and did not go beyond a mechanical repetition of the dry formulas of medieval dogma. For many, this was an extremely gratifying revelation, and provided clear proof that theological science could consist of something other than the repetition of scholastic propositions, that it could become on a par with other sciences and boldly call upon reason to justify and affirm the eternal truths of Christianity, that in one word it could be as vital as ever-living Christianity itself. But it would be surprising if there were not those who were dissatisfied with such a renewal and revitalization of theological thought. All this revival of theological thought seemed suspicious to them, and the enthusiasm for it on the part of young people even seemed downright dangerous. In fact, here theology was reduced to a philosophical basis, its accomplices were thinkers such as Kant and Fichte, who attached too much importance to reason, destroyed the old worldview, the very proofs of the existence of God, on which dogmatics had rested since ancient times, were considered insufficient and everything was subjected to merciless criticism and doubt. Is it not because the theology of Hermes received such vitality that it was completely imbued with the skepticism of the new philosophy and, thus, kindled doubts in young minds? And so the opposition was not slow to appear and became hostile towards the popular theologian. First quietly, and then openly, rumors began to spread that not everything was going well at the Faculty of Theology in Bonn, and that a trend had arisen there that was extremely dangerous for the Roman Church. The main spreaders of this rumor were the Jesuits, who, after the restoration of their order in 1814 (“at the request of the entire Christian world,” as Pope Pius VII, with almost insane naivety, put it in his famous bull Sollicitudo of 1814), decided to justify the hope placed on them as the best guardians of “orthodoxy.” And openly and secretly, the Jesuits managed to form a fairly strong party, which was dissatisfied with Hermes and his theology. Secret denunciations flew to Rome, and from there quite clear expressions of discontent were heard. The Munich nuncio was instructed to investigate this matter. Fortunately for Hermes, the Archbishop of Cologne, who was in charge of the Bonn Theological Faculty, was Count Spiegel, a very educated and enlightened man, who was himself interested in the theological lectures of Hermes and repeatedly personally talked with him on theological issues. He did not find anything dangerous in the views of Hermes, and in this sense he wrote to Rome more than once, reassuring the zealots with the assurance that he himself valued the truth, and would be the first to suppress error, but he did not find such either in the teachings of Hermes himself or his disciples. However, the opposition did not calm down and began to spread the rumor more and more persistently that the Bonn Theological Faculty had become a hotbed of a new dangerous heresy - Hermesianism! One can imagine how much grief and trouble this underground hostility of the Jesuits brought to the famous theologian, who so deeply took to heart the interests of theological science, to which he devoted the best years of his life, working on resolving the most significant issues for every Christian. The most unpleasant and dangerous side of this opposition to the new direction was that it was in the full sense underground: some dark forces were undoubtedly working to crush and strangle the new theological and philosophical direction, various dark rumors and rumors were spreading everywhere, denunciations were flying to the archbishop and to Rome; but who these enemies were remained essentially unknown. They were elusive. Moreover, the very accusations rained down on Hermes and his school were dominated by extreme vagueness and uncertainty: he was accused of rationalism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, but no one could definitely say what exactly. All these griefs and troubles could not help but respond to Hermes, who fell ill and died in 1831, mourned by his many students, many of whom, as already said, occupied university chairs in various cities of Germany, especially southern Germany, and even more joined the ranks of the clergy, carrying away the ideas of their glorious teacher. The death of Hermes not only did not calm his enemies, but only further encouraged them in their campaign against his school. During his lifetime, they did not dare to openly oppose him, since the charm of his personality and authority was too great in science and educated society to allow them to reveal their hostility towards him with impunity. Therefore, they acted underground, limiting themselves to secret denunciations and insinuations. But when he himself left the stage, things took a steeper turn. The enemies began to act openly and shamelessly, and their campaign became even more bitter when Archbishop Spiegel died, who until the end of his life remained unconvinced in his opinion about the trustworthiness of Hermes and his disciples, and in his place was appointed Clemens August von Droste-Wischering, a man of completely different views, narrow-minded and suspicious, and, moreover, had long been hostile to Hermes, with whom he had clashed back in Münster, where, as vicar general, he showed clear disapproval of the lectures of Hermes: when, after Hermes moved to Bonn, some theology students expressed a desire to follow him and move to the same university, he even threatened them with deprivation of the right to occupy priestly places. This was a man better than whom the Jesuits could not have found, and it was they who nominated him to the see of the Archbishop of Cologne in the hope that he would root out the ulcer of freethinking and heresy that had arisen in Bonn. And he fully justified the hopes placed on him. But how much the matter had already taken a turn unfavorable for the school of Hermes is shown by the fact that as soon as Archbishop Spiegel died (Aug. 2, 1835), and had not yet been appointed, but only a new archbishop was in mind, in Rome the matter was already decided on the account of Hermesianism. Under the influence of numerous denunciations, in which the enemies of Hermes did not cease to prove all the harm and danger of his school, it was entrusted to investigate this issue from the scientific and theological side in Rome, so to speak, to a jury, completely trusted dogmatist in the Vatican, the famous Jesuit scientist Perrone, the author of the most popular and hitherto in the Roman Catholic world “Dogmatics”. And this learned Jesuit-dogmatist, although it was known about him that he knew almost no German, presented a detailed analysis of the works of Hermes and with amazing shamelessness, holding back his thoughts and directly distorting his expressions, proclaimed the German learned theologian a dangerous heretic who fully deserved condemnation. This verdict of the jury of dogmatists decided the fate of Hermes: a decree was made in this sense in the Vatican, which was issued in the form of a papal breve of September 26. 1835. In it, Pope Gregory XVI, pouring out the bitterness of his heart in complaints about all sorts of intrigues of enemies against the church and saying in general about Hermes that he belongs to those people who “always study and never come to the knowledge of the truth,” condemns and prohibits both his “Introduction to Christo-Catholic Theology” and “Dogmatics,” where the pope sees expressions inconvenient and contrary to the teachings of the church about the essence and rules of faith, about St. Scripture, tradition, revelation and the teaching position in the church, about the foundations of reliability, about the proofs of the existence of God, about the essence of God, His holiness, righteousness, freedom and the purpose of creation, about the necessity of grace, about the distribution of its gifts, about rewards and punishments in this life and the afterlife, about the primitive state of the first parents, about original sin and the powers of fallen man. As a general feature of Hermesian errors, the pope notes a clear inclination towards skepticism and indifferentism, disdain for the old theological school, deviation towards heretical opinions, restoration of old, already condemned errors. In a word, from the height of the papal throne, the teaching of Hermes was declared false and harmful both in its very essence and in its application to all the essential truths of Christian dogma, and all of his main works were included in the “Index” of prohibited books. This official condemnation of Hermes from the height of the papal throne was an extreme surprise for all his students and admirers, of whom there were already quite a lot - both among professors and educated clergy, and in general the enlightened secular society, which happily rested on these works, sparkling with the freshness of theological thought, from the boring and deadening scholasticism of official Latin theology. No doubt, fear of the power of his followers explains the fact that the breve condemning Hermes was published only in Rome itself, and in Bonn, where it was undoubtedly published. would be met with extreme disapproval. transmitted only confidentially, addressed to the Deputy Archbishop of Cologne, as the main head of the theological faculty at the University of Bonn. Nevertheless, the fact happened and the breve became known in Bonn, and when everyone became familiar with its contents, they were not only amazed, but also completely indignant. It became clear to everyone that the “Holy Father” had become a victim of the blind enmity of the Jesuits towards the theologian they hated. Among the closest students and followers of Hermes (and many of them, as already said, occupied university chairs and enjoyed great influence), the papal breve aroused all the more indignation because the secret machinations through which this condemnation of their famous teacher was achieved became clear to them. This condemnation was a matter of the most shameless slander, because their teacher never adhered to those errors that were attributed to him by papal decree. They were ready to condemn all the errors listed in the breve themselves, and indeed condemned them, but the fact is that neither they nor their late teacher ever taught anything like that, and if Hermes were alive, he would indignantly renounce all those errors and heresies that were attributed to him in such an authoritative document as the papal breve. Obviously, some strange misunderstanding occurred here, or some malicious slander was at work, which misled even the pope himself. Things took a very unpleasant turn. A constant controversy began between supporters and opponents of Hermes, and the latter, defending the correctness of the papal breve, began to directly expose all his disciples and followers of dangerous heresies, accusing them of allegedly deciding to mislead the opinion of all of Germany and on this basis create a scandal - to the humiliation of the head of the Roman Church. At the same time, the opponents of Hermes stopped even sparing individuals, and began to directly name those professors and adherents of Hermes who were obvious continuers of his delusion and opposed the verdict of the infallible pope. Such polemics naturally irritated the “Hermesians” even more, and passions threatened to flare up to an extraordinary degree. The dispute spread to the clergy, who were also divided into parties over the teachings of Hermes. In order to calm the passions somewhat, the Deputy Archbishop of Cologne, Husgen, intervened in the matter and issued a district message to the deans and priests, in which, recalling that the pope had condemned the writings of Hermes, and that it was the duty of each of the faithful to sacredly obey the verdict of the Holy See, he strictly forbade interfering in this matter at all, mentioning it in public conversations and in teachings. Nevertheless, the controversy between the adherents and opponents of Hermes flared up more and more, and while the university professors, defending not only the honor of their teacher, but also their professorship, continued to argue in favor of the theological school of Hermes, proving that it had been condemned due to a misunderstanding, their opponents were already directly appealing to the zealots of the church, calling on them to make united efforts to fight the dangerous “heresy” that had arisen in Bonn, who not only does not want to admit her error, but even dares to rebel against the verdict of the infallible pope! The excitement from the professors spread to the students, among whom parties also formed, and various polemical pamphlets and handwritten notebooks on the issue of Hermesianism were even passed around. This was the situation when, in the summer of 1836, the newly appointed Archbishop Clemens-August, from the family of barons Droste-Wieschering, arrived in Cologne. Everyone knew about his relationship with Hermes, and it was no secret to anyone that even in Munster, as vicar general, he had shown obvious hostility towards him. It is not surprising if the opponents of the Hermes theological school raised their heads and loudly expressed the hope that the new archbishop, as if by the Providence of God, was called to eradicate the plague of heresy that arose at the University of Bonn. The archbishop himself was also aware of the importance of the mission ahead of him, and his mood was soon revealed when, in November 1836, dissatisfied with the defensive article in favor of “Hermesianism” in the 20th issue of the Bonn “Journal for Philosophy and Catholic Theology,” 24 which had become the main organ of the Hermesians, he wanted to subject this journal to his censorship, citing the resolution of the IV session of the Council of Trent. The professors, however, opposed this, pointing out that by this decree only editions of the Holy Scriptures and anonymous works were subject to episcopal censorship, and at the same time they also referred to the Prussian state law, according to which only religious and edifying books, and not purely scientific works, need episcopal approval. Such a rebuff from the professors of the theological faculty, which according to the charter was subordinate to his jurisdiction, apparently irritated him; but he did not resort to direct action through the Ministry of Public Education, although he could declare to it his right to oppose the spread of such teachings, which, in his opinion, were harmful to the student youth as being inconsistent with the teachings of the church - and, in all likelihood, because he did not hope to find support for himself in the ministry, which stood at the point of view of indifference to scientific disputes at the university. Here, obviously, one of those fatal collisions was presented that are inevitable when pursuing the theory of papal supremacy. Every Roman Catholic hierarch is fatally presented with a dilemma - who to serve: the pope, or the government of the country? Since these two powers are essentially inconsistent with each other, then, trying to be a faithful papist, he became a bad citizen, and trying to be a good citizen, a faithful servant of the state, he betrays his supreme head - the pope. Quite a few honest hearts were broken over this fatal dilemma, those who did not want to compromise with their conscience. The position of Archbishop Clemens-Augustus was also extremely difficult. When he was elevated to the important post of Archbishop of Cologne, he took an oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia and the fundamental laws of the country, and one of the paragraphs of these laws directly states: “No foreign bishop or other church authorities can arrogate to themselves the right to legislative power,” and another decrees that “no bishop can make new regulations in matters of religion and church without the permission of the state, or accept those from foreigners.” church authorities." Meanwhile, in view of the disagreements between the papacy and Prussia on significant issues of social life, Rome exerted irresistible pressure on the archbishop, forcing him to act contrary to these laws, just as the papacy itself acted contrary to them. Thus, according to § 118 of Prussian legislation, “all papal bulls, breves and all orders of foreign authorities, before their publication and execution, must be submitted to the state for consideration and approval”; Meanwhile, the papal breve condemning Hermes was not only not presented to the government for consideration and approval, but was not even brought to its attention, but was directly presented to the spiritual authorities for execution as a legislative act. It is clear that the Prussian government was jealous of such attacks. And in the Hermesian dispute, it sided with the professors of the University of Bonn and, seeing them as victims of papal autocracy, of course, was not averse to supporting them in the fight against the secret papal power. Archbishop Clemens-August fully understood and felt this, and since he, both by his character and by his sympathies, was a pure papist, for whom the voice of the pope is the broadcast of the infallible, he henceforth decided to act exclusively in the interests of the papacy, sacrificing to them his duties towards the state. As a result of this collision, a striking episode of the church-political struggle took place, which led to a catastrophe that caused a lot of noise in its time. That is why, instead of resolving the discord that had arisen at the university through a direct agreement with the ministry, the archbishop decided to resort to a different method of influencing professors - through secret pressure on their listeners, students of the theological faculty. For this purpose, he sent a circular to the confessors of the city of Bonn (dated January 12, 1837), in which he ordered them to instill in theology students not only not to read the works of Hermes, as condemned by the pope, but also not to attend lectures by professors known to be adherents and students of Hermes. The measure had its effect, and the professors of the Bonn Faculty of Theology, to their surprise, saw how their classrooms began to empty. It became clear to everyone that the archbishop sharply opposed the Hermesians, and when the true text of the circular became known, they saw from it that the Hermesians were already directly equated with “sectarians in general.” To formally condemn Hermesianism, the archbishop, some time later, issued 18 theses, which set out a kind of Roman Catholic confession of faith, deliberately contrasting it with “Hermesianism.” But these theses were not presented to either the government or professors, but were simply proposed for signature by confessors and priests. The 18th thesis read: “I promise and swear to show my archbishop, in everything that concerns teaching and discipline, due respect and obedience, without any internal reservation, and I acknowledge that according to the rank of the Catholic hierarchy, I cannot and should not appeal to anyone other than the pope.” The archbishop dealt very harshly with those who refused to subscribe to these theses. Thus, when Chaplain Weber, in Cologne, expressed doubt about the legality of the signature of these theses, as containing a confession of faith not approved by the pope, then, although he taught free of charge at the institute for the deaf and dumb and conscientiously performed his pastoral duties, he was deprived of his place and transferred to a worse parish, and, in general, the archbishop went so far in his zeal against Hermesianism that he began to persecute many among the clergy on the mere suspicion of sympathy for this teaching, and on the same suspicion fired all the teachers of the theological seminary in Cologne. Thus, Clemens-Augustus's relationship with the Hermesians became extremely strained. The government was worried about this, fearing that all this might lead to some kind of unrest. His position was very difficult. Although, according to the laws of Prussia, as stated above, no foreign order could be valid until it was presented to the government of the country and was approved by it, however, in this case everything was done in addition to and contrary to the government of Prussia. First of all, a papal decree appeared, which not only condemned the teaching of one of the best professors of the University of Bonn, but also entailed the secret persecution of almost the entire theological faculty by the archbishop, and the latter apparently did not want to enter into any explanations with representatives of the government authorities, but directly referred to the papal authority, considering it superior to the authority of the government. Moreover, this papal decree was not presented to the government at all, as was certainly required by the laws of the country, in order to give it force and legality of action and, however, by virtue of this papal decree, officially unknown to the government, the archbishop considered himself to have the right to almost close the entire faculty and publish theses and orders tending precisely towards this goal. In order to get out of this difficulty and not further complicate the situation, the trustee of the university, on the instructions of Minister of State Altenstein, decided to try another measure. Having gathered all the professors of theology, he demanded from them that, under pain of losing their positions, they should not dare to mention the works of Hermes either in lectures or in private conversations in the performance of their duties, and also stop talking about the papal condemnation that fell on these works and generally avoid all polemics for and against Hermes and his theological school. The professors signed the protocol he proposed in this sense and carried it out in good faith. But the government was mistaken in thinking that with such an event it would achieve pacification of the raging passions. The main organ of the enemies of Hermesianism. 25 was not satisfied with this. With purely Jesuitical persistence, he began to expose the inner life of the university, and argued that the professors did not even think of fulfilling the promise given to them, that, although they did not call Hermes by name in their lectures, they continued to teach in his spirit, meaningfully called him a “great thinker,” and in general bypassed the protocol in every possible way, continuing to preach Hermesianism. In view of this, the newspaper would have wanted more and - finally, directly demanded that all professors suspected of Hermesianism resign, and if they do not resign voluntarily, then the government should force them to do so. The archbishop himself, apparently inspired by the same body around which all the threads of Jesuit intrigue against Hermesianism were concentrated, continued to act in the same spirit, and in order to undermine the authority of the Hermesian professors, he issued a secret order to the students of the hostel so that they should not dare attend any lectures at the university, except for the lectures of professors Klee and Walter, known enemies of the new theological school. But here the order of the archbishop met with the difficulty that the director of the hostel was Professor Achterfeld, one of the most ardent adherents of Hermes, who subsequently made a posthumous publication of his dogmatics. The dormitory students found themselves in an extremely difficult situation and did not know who to listen to, the archbishop, who forbade attending lectures by anyone other than the two indicated professors, or the director, who, relying on the fact that the programs of all professors of the theological faculty were approved by the government, considered himself to have the right to demand that students attend all lectures required by the charter without distinction. The matter was even set up quite abruptly, and at the beginning of the six-month semester the students of the dormitory were directly given the choice of either attending all lectures or leaving the dormitory. Most of the students declared that they considered it their duty to adhere to the orders of their archbishop and their confessors, and, indeed, out of the seventy students in the hostel, sixty left it, and many of them, having no means of subsistence, had to leave the university completely. The result was sad, but it nevertheless brought considerable joy to the enemies of Hermesianism, since with the graduation of such a large number of theological students, the entire theological faculty of the University of Bonn was essentially emptied - and this was all the Jesuit party sought, seeing in this faculty a dangerous hotbed of freethinking for it. However, the matter took such an unpleasant turn, and the public excitement was so strong, that the government found it necessary to intervene in it and make another attempt to settle the difficulty through an agreement with the archbishop. But now it was too late. The archbishop no longer wanted to enter into any compromises and stood his ground. His relationship with the government became completely hostile. This was facilitated by the still very aggravated issue of mixed marriages, in which the archbishop did not want to know any demands of the government and, with the inflexibility of a faithful servant of Rome, acted in the interests of the latter. Since resolving the issue of mixed marriages was especially important for the government, because it was associated with significant state interests in maintaining the preponderance of Protestantism, as the main spiritual and popular element in Prussia, it, in hopes of persuading the archbishop to its view on this issue, even promised him to help suppress the Hermesians. But that didn't help either. Clemens-August increasingly arrogantly rejected any proposals from the government, directly declaring that he obeyed only his supreme head, the pope, and followed his orders. Then the government had no choice but to take repressive measures. It invited the archbishop to resign, promising him a pension of 12,000 thalers, but he arrogantly rejected this offer, saying that “it would be better to live on alms from the faithful, like the ancient bishops, and still fulfill his duty.” With this, the government's patience was overflowing, and on November 15 an order was issued to arrest Archbishop Clemens-Augustus, who, under escort of dragoons, was escorted to the Minden fortress. Such a catastrophe ended the struggle that arose over Hermesianism between spiritual and secular authorities. But although the latter’s main opponent was eliminated, the Jesuit party was not broken, and, on the contrary, with even greater bitterness continued to crush the enemies of the church, i.e., the Hermesians and praise its valiant champion, Archbishop Clemens Augustus, whom the extreme papists did not fail to proclaim even “Athanasius the Great” of the 19th century 26. The Hermesians continued to defend the honor of their teacher and his school, but how difficult it was for them to fight against the pricks was shown by a very curious episode of this struggle, which occurred several months before the arrest of the archbishop. The most staunch and zealous defenders of Hermes and his theology were professors Elvenich and Brown, and especially the first, who, back in 1838, published an essay in Latin in which, having laid out the philosophical and theological system of Hermes with philosophical thoroughness, he showed the entire groundlessness of accusing him of heresy. But since it was obviously impossible to obtain the truth from Clemens-Augustus for their teacher, who was innocently convicted, in their opinion, these courageous professors even decided to go to Rome to personally express their reasons in favor of Hermes and his theological school there before the pope. The government, which began to be very burdened by these disputes, gave them permission to do this, and they actually went to Rome, where they arrived at the end of May 1837. But all measures had already been taken to ensure that their mission would end in nothing. And indeed, there they were immediately thrown into the very hornet's nest of their teacher's worst enemies and placed at the disposal of the Jesuit general Rootann, who was entrusted with investigating their case, although he was in charge of the whole intrigue against Hermes. With his characteristic skill, he began to exhaust the patience of the professors, trying to drag out the matter as long as possible. Only a month later they managed to achieve an audience with the pope, who, however, did not give them any definite answer, only noting to them: “I think that you did not come to Rome to teach St. throne, but to learn from him.” Meanwhile, the Jesuit general continued to push them around with proud disdain. First of all, he instructed them to translate all the works of Hermes into Latin. The work was enormous, but the professors sat down to it. When they, however, translated part of them (namely, part of the “Introduction”) and presented Rootanna with an explanatory note, the latter, on behalf of the pope, expressed displeasure to them that they were conducting the matter too slowly and deliberately delaying it. They should have done this translation earlier and brought it with them to Rome, but they only now started it. In addition, they started with the positive part of the “Introduction”, but they should have started with the philosophical one, in which, precisely, the main misconceptions of Hermes lie. Why all these delays and subterfuges? “In all this,” the Jesuit general wrote to them, the holy father saw useless delays and behavior that was not accustomed to in Rome. If there could remain any doubt whether the teaching of Hermes was correctly condemned, then in view of the Acta Hermesiana (works of Elvenich) it should disappear. Why further negotiations? This unabashedly arrogant attitude showed the professors that their cause was lost. From Rome, obviously, they could not hope for an impartial study. They tried once again to appeal to the pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Lambruschini, begging him to investigate the matter, and filed a note addressed to the pope himself. But Lambruschini returned their last letter to them unopened, accompanied by a note in which, among other things, he wrote: “You have entered the path of error. Instead of submitting, you cling to the distinctio juris et fact invented by the Jansenists! Don't write to me in future. The matter is over - causa finita est, and may the delusion itself end with it.” Thus Roma locuta – causa finita! The ill-fated professors had to get out of Rome as quickly as possible. They were finally convinced that there was no more truth in Rome, and upon returning to their homeland they continued, at their own risk and peril, polemics with the opponents of their school, in their “Journal of Philosophy and Catholic Theology,” but their cause was obviously lost, and in 1844, two of the main champions of Hermesianism. Professors Braun and Achterfeld (publisher of Hermes's Dogmatics) were prohibited from further lecturing, and they were forced to resign, although the Prussian government, to calm public opinion, retained their full professorship. Finally, in 1847, Pope Pius IX fully confirmed Gregory XVI's verdict on Hermesianism. In vain, the unyielding defender of the honor of his colleague, Professor Elvenich again brilliantly proved the entire groundlessness of this new condemnation and irrefutably showed that the entire condemnation of Hermes rested on a misunderstanding, since in fact the teaching of Hermes in essential points was identical with the teaching of the pope himself - the matter was hopeless and inevitably had to perish under the weight of a double condemnation, and indeed it perished. Little by little the theological school of Hermes was completely suppressed. This is how the first attempt at free theological self-determination in the depths of Roman Catholicism in the 19th century ended sadly. It was completely strangled by the Jesuits. Meanwhile, the example of Archbishop Clemens did not remain without imitation. Following his example, Archbishop Dunin of Poznań refused to obey the order of the Prussian government on the issue of mixed marriages, and like him, in his opposition he went so far as to issue a secret message to the subordinate clergy with the threat that if any of the priests dared not exactly fulfill the papal breve on this issue (breve of 1830, in which Roman Catholic priests ordered to give his blessing to mixed marriages only under the condition of an obligation to raise children in the Roman Catholic faith), he will be immediately removed from office. For this opposition to the government he was removed from office and imprisoned in Colbury fortress (1839). Both archbishops were soon pardoned, but these events showed how the papal system, in its consistent implementation, was contrary to all the demands of modern culture. But this was of no concern to the strict zealot of this system, Pope Gregory XVI, who in a secret consistory pronounced a formidable allocution against the despotism of rulers who allegedly sought to oppress the church. Two more events caused Gregory XVI a lot of grief, namely the emergence of an anti-papal movement under the name of “German Catholicism” and the return of Western Russian Uniates to Orthodoxy. The first of these events was a direct echo of internal trends in Germany against the direction that was adopted in the Roman Catholic Church under the influence of the Jesuits, which were increasingly gaining power. Signs of muted fermentation and discontent had already appeared early, and even under Pius VII, when, after the restoration of the Jesuit order, their harmful activities were immediately revealed, Wessenberg, the vicar general of Constance, began to oppose their efforts to turn the church back to the Middle Ages. He paid for this opposition by the fact that when the chapter elected him vicar of the bishop (after the death of Bishop Dahlberg in 1817), the pope did not approve this election. This, however, did not dampen Wessenberg’s energy and he began to openly advocate for the founding of a “national German church,” which could be under the control of a German primate and independent of the pope. Wessenberg came to the Vienna Congress with this project, but achieved nothing, since the “papal siren” Cardinal Consalvi managed to turn the members of the congress against a project dangerous for Rome. Subsequently, Wessenberg published a large work: “The History of the Great Church Councils of the 15th and 16th Centuries,” in which he scientifically proved the illegality of the popes’ claims to supremacy over the church, since this supremacy can only belong to ecumenical councils. For this he was subjected to fierce persecution and died a private man (1860). “Nevertheless, his ideas did not disappear and were subsequently revived in a whole movement called “German Catholicism.” The reason for this movement was the following circumstance. In August 1844, Bishop Arnoldi of Trier exhibited the so-called “unsewing tunic,” Christ, for solemn veneration, and made it a source of enormous income for the department, as he attracted up to 1½ million admirers not only from all over Germany, but also from distant countries of the Roman Catholic world. In vain did historians prove the dubiousness of the authenticity of this tunic, and Siebel published a sensational brochure entitled: “The Holy Tunic of Trier and Twenty Other Unstitched Chitons”: the newest Tetzels continued to glorify this tunic and reap a bountiful harvest. All roads, both dry and water, were crowded with masses of pilgrims hurrying to worship the tunic. But then, in local Saxon newspapers on October 16, 1844, an open letter from a Roman Catholic priest to Bishop Arnoldi appeared. In this letter, he reproached the bishop for making the shrine an object of trade, and warned him that this could have the most disastrous consequences for the church. If thousands resort to it, then hundreds of thousands may turn away from it with indignation. The letter made a huge impression everywhere, and soon everyone learned that its author was the banned Silesian chaplain John Rogge. The name of the new reformer was on everyone’s lips, and wherever he appeared, he was enthusiastically greeted by everyone who was outraged by the Trier temptation. Rogge then published a series of pamphlets in which he openly preached that it was time to throw off the yoke of the papacy and its minions: the time had come to found an independent national church, that is, resting on the foundation of the universal church. This is prompted not only by the duty of care for the salvation of the soul, but also by the duty to take care of one’s offspring. After all, a foreign ruler, the Pope 1) turned religion into an instrument of his dominion and distorts it with abuses; 2) he keeps his subjects in spiritual slavery; 3) destroys harmony among the people and undermines the well-being of the fatherland. His appeals to the clergy and people were distinguished by their fiery character. “Take courage,” he wrote to the lower clergy, “You must be men filled with love for your calling, burning with the desire to make people happy. “Now you are not like that: now you are slaves of the pope, freedom of mind, will, and heart have been stolen from you. Therefore, oppose the tyrannical power of the Roman hierarchy: destroy superstition, this poison of free activity, free virtue; break the shackles of conscience and religion that disgrace you; fight for the spiritual and physical good of your fellow citizens, and this will benefit both you and the people.” The appeal did not remain fruitless. Rogge was joined in Poznan by Vicar Czerski, who lived in a secret marriage and was defrocked for this. Having broken ties with the Roman Church, he published a brochure in which he justified his step, proving that he abandoned only papal errors and did not want to be either a Protestant or a Calvinist, but remained a Catholic Christian, a Catholic priest, but according to the word of Holy Scripture, according to the commandments of Christ and His Apostles. About 25 members of his former parish joined him, and by January 1845 the number had risen to 85. This first "Christian-Apostolic-Catholic community" immediately drew up a confession of faith in which all Roman errors were openly denied, such as the deprivation of the laity of the chalice, the Latin language in worship, celibacy of the clergy, papal vicarhood. All seven sacraments were withheld; but, unfortunately, in their protest against the papacy, the authors of this confession did not keep within boundaries, and rejected the veneration of saints, secret confession and other customs of the universal church. Little by little, communities began to form in other places. The community in Breslau grew to several thousand people, elected Rogge as its priest, and held its first service on March 9, 1845. Within a few months, up to 35 communities were formed, headed by priests who had separated from the Roman Church. The movement promised great success, as it corresponded to the urgent need to free ourselves from the spiritual oppression of Jesuitism. Unfortunately, various dubious elements did not fail to join this movement, who tried to take advantage of the religious enthusiasm that gripped the masses in political forms. Radical demagogues began to speak at meetings of German Catholics, trying to incite the masses not only against the church, but also against the socio-political system in general. Under the influence of these elements, radical trends began in religious terms: the leaders of “German Catholicism,” not limiting themselves to protesting the errors of the papacy, began to generally rebel against superstitions, which included miracles. In a word, rationalism boldly raised its head, and since the communities failed to protect themselves in time from this pernicious spirit, they thereby allowed elements of decay into themselves. When the general revolutionary ferment began in Germany, the “German Catholics” were completely carried away by this spirit, and the entire movement, which promised so much at first, perished in the storm of the revolution of 1848. But although this movement ended in failure, nevertheless, it was a serious warning to the papacy and, as Gaze put it, served as an expression of “what lay in the bosom of the future.” That the need to free oneself from the oppressive yoke of papism was truly felt is shown by the curious fact that around this time there were also attempts in other countries to found “national Catholic” churches with a popular representative at their head. Thus, in France, Abbot Chatel made an attempt (in connection with the July Revolution of 1830) to found a national “Franco-Catholic Church,” in which he himself wanted to appear as the “Primass of Gaul.” He also drew up a special confession of faith for his church, but so radical that Christ was considered in it simply as an “extraordinary man”, and “natural law” was recognized as the norm for cult and morality. Small communities of Chatel's followers formed in 30 departments, but the police soon closed them down. – In Brussels, also, Abbot Gelsen attempted to found an “Apostolic Catholic Church,” the purpose of which was to free Christians from the power of the “Roman Antichrist” and bring them back to Christ. He also formed several communities, which, however, soon (1837) disintegrated. The reason for the failure of these movements was partly in the lack of active and serious leaders who would really rise to the height of their calling. The existing leaders, like Rogge, Chersky, Chatel and others, did not have enough strength to organize the movement on a positive basis, went to extremes and were carried away by rationalism, which repelled more serious people. This, of course, was successfully used by the Jesuits, sowing discord among the leaders themselves, inciting the government and police against them and thus nipping them in the bud. But all the satanic cunning of the sons of Loyola was not enough to prevent the imminent liberation of entire millions of Western Russian Uniates from the papal yoke. This event, which took place in 1839, was a very heavy blow for the papacy, since it immediately lost up to two million spiritually enslaved slaves. Gregory XVI made a formidable allocution on this occasion, in which he tried to arouse the public opinion of Western Europe against Russia, but the allocution did not produce the desired effect, and Europe came to terms with the accomplished fact. In Rome itself, however, a very bitter mood against Russia and its emperor prevailed for a long time, and when Nicholas I arrived in Rome in 1845, the police had to take the most active measures to protect him from the poison and dagger of some fanatic fanaticized by the Jesuits. Emperor Nicholas I, with his knightly open heart, paid a visit to the pope. The audience took place in the presence of the Russian envoy Butenev and Cardinal Antonelli. What the conversation was about remained a mystery; but the Vatican did not fail to create a whole legend about this visit. They said that Emperor Nicholas went to an audience with a proud and important posture, and returned from it pale, bent and with wrinkles on his face. The Pope subsequently said on this matter: “I told him everything that the Holy Spirit inspired in me.” If the pope really reproached the emperor for converting the Uniates to the faith of their fathers, then it becomes clear what this “spirit” actually was and what exactly it instilled in him. Thus, the papacy in the person of Gregory XVI had to pay for the guilt and errors of a number of centuries. Dad himself, as far as he stood outside the system, was a man devoted to art and science. He collected and brought into order Etruscan and Egyptian works of art, expanded Rome's museums and restored several churches; He also expanded the library in the Vatican, although he did not make access to it any easier. He did not recognize the freedom of science, and did not tolerate scientific meetings in his area, since they could be dangerous for the Roman Church. He also did not have a favorable attitude towards railways, since they brought Rome more into the turbulent whirlpool of the life of this world. His subjects, however, did not at all like to live in ecclesiastical alienation from the rest of the world; on the contrary, foreigners were pleased to see that Rome was hiding from the trends of modern times, trying to preserve the type of ancient city, which was more attractive to artists and art lovers. There was no shortage of scientists of the old school in Rome. A remarkable linguistic genius was Giuseppe Mezzofanti, who could read and speak fifty languages. In appearance, he was very homely, had an awkward head with narrow eyes. When one phrenologist noted that the structure of his skull indicates, precisely, a special gift for studying many languages, Mezzofanti ironically said to this: “but the phrenologist, by saying this, of course, already knew that I know more than 50 languages.” Angelo Maio, later papal librarian, became famous for his learned and fortunate discoveries in the field of classical and patristic literature. In the Ambrosian Library in Milan, among the manuscripts under later writing, he discovered ancient, difficult to read writing, which he, however, brought to readability with the help of various chemical means. This discovery of the so-called palimpsests was of great scientific importance; but only the strange jealousy with which Mayo was distinguished, as a librarian of the Vatican, for a long time prevented other scientists from sharing the honor of research with him, and he himself, with his haste, only belittled the importance of his research. Gregory XVI died on June 1, 1846 on Spiritual Day. “For 15 years,” writes Ranalli, “the pope’s subjects had peace without tranquility, sleep without refreshment, a crown without government.” They didn't like him at all. Although his household bore the imprint of a monastery, it was said in Rome that it was not monastic discipline that prevailed. When the famous Irish apostle of temperance, Mathew, sent Gregory XVI a medal for his encouragement of temperance, the pope declared that he had never drunk wine since his accession to the papal throne. But the famous historian Gaze personally heard from the papal physician that Gregory XVI was in fact a great lover of wine, and the doctor with great difficulty managed to limit his wine consumption to two bottles. When he died, the people circulated all kinds of gossip about him, which, of course, as popular rumor, cannot have a place in history. Election of a new pope. – Cardinal Mastai on the papal throne. - “Liberal” dad. - The fragility of people's love and the flight of the pope. Return with French bayonets. - A revolution in the Pope's beliefs. – Proclamation of the new dogma of the “immaculate conception.” – History of the issue. – Decomposition of the church state and movement towards the overthrow of the secular power of the papacy. After the death of Gregory XVI, the position of the papacy was sad: inside there were signs of decay everywhere, the party became more and more powerful, even striving to overthrow the secular power of the papacy, and externally, relations with all both Catholic and non-Catholic states worsened. Everyone felt that a pope was needed who would have enough mind and heart to settle all these relationships and establish internal and external peace. The choice of the conclave settled on Cardinal Mastai, who was elected on June 17, taking the name Pius IX. Austria rebelled against his candidacy, and with the expression of its veto, the Archbishop of Milan, Geisruk, was sent, who tirelessly raced on the crossroads, and however was two days late, and the election took place. Giovanni Maria Mastai was born on May 13, 1792. As a child he suffered from seizures and melancholy, which once almost led him to suicide - but, having entered the service of the church, he quickly climbed the hierarchical ladder, which led him to the papal throne. In appearance he was a very respectable man, had a loud voice and loved to show off his wit. Humbly accepting the choice that fell to him, he decided to gain the love of the population, and achieved this by skillfully flattering “young Italy.” To do this, one had to become a “liberal”, and Pius IX became one. One young theologian from Turin, Gioberti, a court chaplain suspected of connections with young Italy, was arrested in 1833 and lived as an exile in Paris and Brussels, earning his living by teaching languages. In 1843, he wrote and sent home an essay: “On the moral and civil primacy of the Italians.” In this work, he eloquently outlined what Italy, now overthrown and almost forgotten, did for the civilization of peoples, how the Italian people from ancient times were highly gifted in comparison with other peoples, was for them the bearer of the noblest gifts of God; but even now he only has to rise up, throw off the yoke of foreigners and superstition, restore the unity of his religion and culture, in order to again become a great torch of civilization, the guarantee of the triumph of reason and freedom. This book made a strong impression on the educated part of Italian society, although it, in essence, spoke in favor of the primacy of the pope: without him nothing is possible, but with him everything is possible. Only the former dictatorship of the pope must become spiritual, the pope must become a mediator between the peoples of Italy and, as the head of the union of sovereigns of Italy, must carry out reforms that would bring its peoples into harmony and unity. And then he will act as a true successor not only to St. Peter, but also Alexander III, the great demagogue on the papal throne. Cardinal Mastai liked this book very much, he even took it with him to the conclave, and it became the program of his entire reign. Thousands of especially educated youth, compromised by the revolution, languished in prisons and correctional homes or fled to foreign lands. Now the people vigorously demanded their amnesty. And the pope gained popular love for himself when he gave this amnesty unconditionally and with complete confidence. This return of the youth who dreamed of a republic was not without danger. The mayor of Rome, Marini, reported to the pope that a committee had been formed to collect money for the benefit of those released from prison, he took out a list of signatories and wanted to know what to do with them. To this dad said: “give me this list”! Taking the paper, he signed 100 scudi from the Mastai family, 10 scudi from Marini and ordered the subscription sheet to be put into circulation further. For this he was enthusiastically glorified by the Roman population, who never tired of asking for his blessing when he appeared on the balcony of the Quirinal. Few other popes have enjoyed such love from the people as Pius - this “beloved sovereign who looses all bonds and at the same time the vicar of Christ”! Italy called him its liberator. All the sovereigns of Italy were forced to echo the popular enthusiasm. However, this love turned out to be completely fragile, and when the “liberal” pope decided to free the Jews from the quarter they occupied - the Ghetto, a narrow part of the city in the lower reaches of the Tiber, where they lived closely in unhealthy air, the artisans and industrialists of Rome rebelled, several Jews were killed, and everyone was threatened. Their emancipation had to be cancelled. The prelates were also not happy when they saw that under the “liberal” pope they were threatened with the taking away of various lucrative positions. A printed libel appeared and began to be distributed everywhere, which said that “the government is exposed to danger by this annoying pope, since the pope opposes the will of the Almighty. Heaven will help us against him, since we also have a secular hand for ourselves - Austria and Naples.” The author of this lampoon turned out to be Della Genga, nephew of Gregory XVI. When the printer was opened and he was forced to name the author, Pius objected: “I don’t want to know him”! In the summer of 1847, the whole city was swarming with conspiracies. Symbolic daggers of the conspirators appeared, with the intention of carrying out a rebellion, then calling on the Austrians and transferring the regency to Cardinal Della Genga. There were rumors that crowds of conspirators were already secretly roaming around the city. Against this real or imaginary danger, the pope resorted to a bold means - to arm the citizens, as “citizens.” guards", numbering more than 10,000 people in Rome, and other large cities immediately followed him in this regard. Thus, power passed into the hands of the people - that passionately excited people who amused themselves with the game of weapons. Cardinal Lambruschini remarked to the pope: “Soon they will turn these weapons against you.” And his prediction soon came true. This was on the eve of the general revolutionary fire that swept across Western Europe in 1848. And first of all, a fire broke out in Italy. In the autumn of 1847 in Munich, on the walls of the Capuchin monastery (known for producing very good beer), it was written in large letters: “the current pope is a slacker”! A brochure was sold in Vienna: “On his pseudo-holiness Pius IX.” Gioberti, who was then the minister of the President of Piedmont, also rebelled against him. In his essay “On Modern Jesuitism,” he collected all the accusations against the Society of Jesus, attributing to it all the humiliation and shame of Italy. Excited by this, the people stormed the house of the Jesuits in Piedmont and threatened them also in Rome; Dad considered it his duty and honor to protect them. It was in vain that the Jesuits insisted that they always promoted progress and freedom. In March 1848 they were expelled from several cities of the ecclesiastical state; their main school in Rome was burned several times. In vain one Jesuit menacingly denounced the Nevers in his church: “These people are not averse to disgracing the Ever-Virgin herself. Soon the banner of Mohammed will fly in the Vatican, and the Protestant Eucharist will be introduced into St. Petra." Pius had to allow the closure of the Jesuit monasteries in the ecclesiastical state in order to save the lives of their inhabitants. But even this did not pacify the passions, and the fashionable word “spapare Italia” - “to secure Italy” appeared among the people. And soon an attempt was made on the life of the papal minister, and then a revolution broke out in Rome. The Quirinal was besieged by a stormy petition. The people demanded a new administration of the church state and Italy through an assembly elected by common vote. When Pius opposed this, the people stormed the gates of the Quirinal. The doormen defended the pope for a long time, and gunfire rang out for a whole hour. One prelate was shot dead in the pope's hallway. When the cannons were deployed against the Quirinal, Pius said: “Do what you please: but do not attack religion!” With sorrow he added to this: “Is this really a reward for my love”? He agreed to the establishment of a new ministry and allowed the disarmament of the Swiss, whose lives he barely saved. He himself was held captive in the Quirinal under the supervision of the Civil Guard, and the cardinals fled. The resulting Republican Party wanted to deprive the pope of secular power. Then the captive had the idea of ​​escaping, which was accomplished with the help of the Bavarian and French envoys: Count Spaur and his household chaplain asked for an audience in the evening to receive permission to marry a Bavarian princess. The door to the Pope's office was half open, so that the Civil Guard officer from the hallway could see everything. The French envoy then arrived and took the officer aside to speak with him. At this time, dad managed to disguise himself as the envoy's house chaplain, walked with him past the guards, got into the prepared carriage of Countess Spaur, and the next morning (in November 1848) they were both already in the Neapolitan region, in Gaeta. From there, the pope declared that he was now free and was taking back everything he had agreed to under duress. However, in Rome, a national assembly was held, at which Prince Canino, the son of Lucian Bonaparte, the famous naturalist, exclaimed: “Long live the Republic!” A proposal was immediately made to separate secular power from spiritual power. During the debate, someone said: “The Pope is an obstacle to the unity of Italy,” and this phrase was soon on everyone’s lips. On the night of February 9, a roll-call vote was cast: out of 141 present, 136 voted for the deposition of the pope as a secular ruler. 120 for the immediate proclamation of a republic. The decree read: 1) “The Papacy is deprived, in fact and legally, of temporal power in the Roman State; 2) the Roman high priest will receive all the necessary guarantees for independence in the exercise of his spiritual office; 3) the form of government of the Roman state should be pure democracy and will bear the glorious name of the Roman Republic; 4) the Roman Republic will maintain contact with the rest of Italy, which constitutes one common nationality." Pius IX's only hope remained in his beloved daughter, France. But there, too, a republic was established, and at the constituent national assembly in Paris, hesitation was noticed in the debates. Rollin said: “Without the burden of worldly dominion, the Pope will be even greater and more powerful.” Thiers objected to him that “the spiritual head of the Christian world cannot be independent without secular dominion; Rome has no right to deprive the Catholic world of the independence of the Pope." Even Cockerell, the Protestant minister, exclaimed. “We must protect not only the pope, but also freedom’s best friend.” The matter was decided by the newly elected president of the republic, Napoleon, who agreed to send troops to Rome, and hoped that the republican government itself would immediately go over to the side of France in order to get rid of the Austrians. But all the fugitives and democrats gathered in Rome, and it was courageously defended by Garibaldi. The French general Oudinot was defeated at the Battle of St. Pankraty therefore received the mocking nickname “St. Pankratia." Then the question was already about the honor of French weapons. While Garibaldi defeated the Neapolitan army, and the Spaniards sent to help the pope had not yet arrived, new troops landed from France. Rome held out for two months, although for the destructive weapons of that time it, with its ancient walls, did not constitute a fortified city. The Republican government maintained good order, and the French carefully directed their shots so as not to break the monuments of ancient Roman glory and not to hit the shrines of the Middle Ages. Finally the inevitable happened. Once again, after 300 years, Rome was stormed by a friendly power. Garibaldi with his troops and other compromised persons barely had time to escape through the opposite gate. Thus, Rome was again open to the pope, who returned to it by Easter 1850. When he entered Rome and some dared to shout: “Long live Pius IX”! “Evviva Pio Nono,” then the crowd, using a play on words, shouted. “No! No"! (no no). In general, a gloomy silence reigned. The people guessed with their instinct that Pius IX now returned completely different. Difficult experience taught him how dangerous it is to rely on fickle people, and therefore he decided from now on - to be guided exclusively by the proven wisdom of the Jesuits, who became his closest and best advisers. Upon the pope's return to Rome, peace apparently reigned everywhere, albeit supported by the French army. But at the same time, up to 30,000 people were languishing in exile, and the pope no longer wanted to know about mercy. Since 1852, Cardin began to manage civil affairs. Antonelli, who himself came from a family of robbers. It is said that in his youth he saw so many members of his family hanged that he decided to take the priesthood. The pope completely immersed himself in church interests, in which he found consolation and hope for the restoration of its former splendor. In gratitude for his return to Rome, on the advice of the Jesuits, he decided to proclaim a new dogma about the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The new dogma has its own history, which goes back to the Middle Ages. Even then the Franciscans were strong advocates of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and it was the subject of a long dispute between them and the Dominicans. In the 14th century, two prophetesses appeared with opposing views. The northern prophetess, Birgitta, saw in the Most Holy Mary “the horror of the devils,” “sinless, in whom the fire of God’s love always burns,” and “conceived without sin.” The southern prophetess, Catherine of Siena, on the contrary, ranked the Mother of God among the fallen race of Adam, who needed redemption. Soon after the death of these two prophetesses, the teaching of the Dominicans was dealt a serious blow, since the University of Paris took the side of the Franciscans. In vain did one Dominican in Paris argue in his sermon that the teaching of the Most Rev. Mary is alien to original sin, contradicts both Holy Scripture and tradition: the university condemned the opinion of the Dominican and brought a complaint against him to Pope Clement VII in Avignon. The preacher, meanwhile, stood firmly on the Scriptures, and demanded the Parisian scientists in Avignon so that they could prove their right there to declare his teaching heretical. The higher school sent Peter d'Ailly and Gerson there, and they spoke so persistently and threateningly to the pope that the latter did not dare to disagree with the university. As a result of this, in 1338 he excommunicated the brave monk, and from that time on the University of Paris considered it its special pride to be the defender of the honor of the Virgin Mary. In the dry scholastics, a part of the knightly spirit was still alive. The Franciscans, now reinforced by new allies, again began to propagate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. They told how one Dominican, who spoke against the Immaculate Conception, was struck dumb during the sermon itself, and another was even eaten by a wolf in church. Such stories were in the taste of the people, and the spirit of chivalry at the same time forced the knights to bow before the “Heavenly Lady.” Scientists began to lean in favor of the teachings of the Franciscans also because at the university in Paris it was impossible to obtain a degree, position, or allowance without declaring one’s consent to condemn the Dominican view. But the difference between those arguing became so subtle that it almost amounted to nothing: was the Most Rev. Was Mary sinless at the very moment of conception, or immediately after this moment? - this was the point of contention between the two monastic orders. The Basel Council took the side of the Franciscans; but the Dominicans continued to fight against the teachings of their rivals and brought forward various arguments in the taste of the Middle Ages. So they said that one novice in the Berne monastery had a vision that many Franciscans were languishing in hell for their teaching about the conception of the Virgin Mary: but the Franciscans, for their part, argued that the Blessed Virgin herself then appeared to the same novice and told him that her Son could no longer tolerate being deprived of her honor. So gradually this teaching was increasingly developed, and in 1622 Pope Gregory XV even issued a bull in which it was strictly forbidden to speak against the immaculate conception, even in private conversations or private writings. But the matter moved especially strongly when the Jesuits took up it, who did not fail to invent many different visions and legends in favor of the teaching they ardently took to heart. One Spanish nun, Maria d'Agreda, allegedly received a direct revelation from the Blessed Virgin and wrote down the story of her life. There, by the way, it was said that the Most Holy Mary helped the apostles in drawing up the apostolic symbol, went to Saragossa to visit James, but died in Jerusalem, leaving her will. After that she was resurrected and ascended to heaven. This fabrication did not find resistance, and in 1661 Pope Alexander issued a bull, which was the last preliminary step towards the approval of the dogma. But only Pius IX had the honor of giving ecclesiastical significance to the doctrine of the virgin birth. During his papacy, “miraculous medals” were already being sold in honor, “Immaculata,” and these medals were especially considered useful against “canine rabies and Protestantism.” Thus the ground was prepared for the proclamation of a new dogma. Although this teaching was strongly disputed, however, with a certain mood, and especially with the help of the Jesuits, little by little it penetrated into the general consciousness of the Roman Catholic peoples. Of course, even from the point of view of Roman Catholicism, it would be necessary to propose this teaching for discussion at an ecumenical council. But Pius IX did not do this; he decided to simply limit himself to surveying the bishops in order to autocratically decide the matter on the basis of their reviews, and since most of the bishops were only happy to serve the pope, the Vatican received 576 reviews - mostly in favor of the projected dogma, and attempts were also made to justify this teaching with references to such passages of Holy Scripture as Gen. 3:15 (Vulgate), Cant. 4:7 and 12 and Luke. 1:26. Despite this servility, however, there was by no means a lack of voices, especially from France and Germany, in which doubt was loudly expressed as to whether it was now time to elevate such a controversial doctrine to the level of Roman Catholic dogma. But these voices remained a voice crying in the wilderness, and those bishops who expressed their consent were invited to Rome to a kind of deliberative meeting, and it was promised that reason, criticism and science would be brought in to help them. Many bishops immediately gathered in Rome and took part in the conferences that took place on November 20, 21, 23 and 24 in the great hall of the Vatican. Cardinal Brunelli read a speech in Latin, in which he said that the pope was with the greatest joy at seeing the assembly of these bishops who had come “from all countries” to be present at the determination, that is, the confirmation and proclamation of the dignity of the Blessed Virgin, and to express his views regarding the bull he had issued. However, the assembled bishops should not think that they constitute a council, or that they themselves have the right to examine the question, or to determine when the proper time is to proclaim this dogma; the decision of this belongs to the pope alone. Then the secretaries read the bull, paragraph by paragraph, and those present made certain comments on it. Someone noticed that the bull said a little too much, as if the Holy Scriptures teach about the virgin birth; another found it doubtful to cite inauthentic writings under the name of Ambrose and Augustine as evidence from the holy fathers. Some would like to completely eliminate the entire commentary, which contained various weak points; others expressed the desire that “the wishes and opinions of the entire episcopate be known,” which was an extremely modest attempt to put a limit to the assertion of papal infallibility, the idea of ​​​​which lay at the basis of the whole undertaking. To this came a decisive answer: “If the pope makes such a decision on his own, then this is a practical demonstration,” serving to “demonstrate the supreme authority of the church over teaching and at the same time the infallibility with which Jesus Christ invested His vicar.” On November 24, the assembled bishops unanimously exclaimed: “St. Peter, teach us! strengthen your brothers! and that was the end of the meeting. On December 8, 1854, the new dogma was openly proclaimed. The Pope, surrounded by cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops and bishops, was solemnly carried into the Cathedral of St. Peter and sat down on his throne. After he had celebrated the Mass, Cardinal Macchi, accompanied by the Patriarch of the Greeks and the Armenian Patriarch, who were in union with Rome, approached the papal throne and knelt before His Holiness to include the mystery of the Immaculate Conception of Mary among the rest of the Catholic dogmas and thereby bring joy to heaven and earth. In response to this, Pius sang “Veni Creator”; and when the singing ended, and the help of the Holy Spirit was sought, he stood up and read the main part of the bull “Ineffabilis Deus”. It said: “In honor of the holy and indivisible Trinity, for the glory of the virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of Christian religiosity, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, St. ap. Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, proclaim and determine that the doctrine that the most blessed Virgin Mary, at the first moment of her conception, through the special operation of the grace of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, was cleansed from all defilement of sin, was revealed by God, wherefore it should be for all believers an article of firm and undoubted faith. If some, God forbid, thought in their hearts differently from what we have decreed, then let them know that they are condemned by their own sentence, that they have suffered shipwreck in faith and fallen away from the unity of the church, and, moreover, are subject to legal punishment if they dared, verbally or in writing, or in any other external way, to declare what they think in their hearts.” “Roma locuta, causa finita” - “once Rome has spoken, the matter is over.” On December 8, a teaching was proclaimed as Roman Catholic dogma, which the ancient Orthodox Church did not know, which for entire centuries was rejected by the majority of Orthodox teachers of the church, and doubt in this papist myth is called “shipwreck in faith.” In eternal memory of the new dogma, in the Piazza di Spagna in Rome, in front of the Palace of Propaganda, a tall antique statue of green marble was erected, on which St. The Virgin (without the Child Jesus) stands in a brilliant gilded robe with a blessing hand. At the foot of the statue sit four white marble figures representing Moses, David, Isaiah and Ezekiel, who, according to the Roman interpretation, were supposedly the heralds of a new dogma. In the choir of the Church of St. Peter, a copper plaque was inserted into the wall, the inscription on which states that Pius IX, by proclaiming this dogma, satisfied the wishes of the entire Christian world. That these words, in any case, said too much was soon revealed when, three years later, a fanatical priest stabbed to death the Parisian Archbishop Cibourg in the Church of St. Stephen, exclaiming “down with the goddesses”! The blow of the dagger was directed incorrectly: after all, it was Sibur who was one of the opponents of the new dogma; but the killer's exclamation found a sympathetic echo in many places. Meanwhile, the situation remained vague and difficult. The church state was disintegrating more and more, and under the influence of new ideas, the idea of ​​​​the need to unite all Italian regions under one head, at least under the nominal supremacy of the pope, increasingly fermented. But extreme nationalists went further and wanted to do away with the papacy completely. A revolution broke out in Romagna, and the revolutionaries invited the Sardinian king Victor Emmanuel to assume dictatorship over this papal region. Since he rejected this proposal, the region formed its own independent government, which did not want to know anything about the pope. It was in vain that Pius IX, in his encyclical, addressed the European courts with a statement about the need to maintain the power of St. Peter, in vain he pronounced the “great remission” on all participants in this matter. Public opinion was not in favor of the papacy, and a fierce controversy began in literature. The prelude to this polemic was an article in the Moniteur, where the entire absurdity of the pope's secular rule was exposed with evil mockery and all-crushing wit. In December of the same year, on the occasion of the meeting of the congress meant to settle affairs in Italy, a full campaign against the temporal power of the pope was opened in the pamphlet “The Pope and the Congress,” and although the need for independence for the pope was recognized, it was proposed to limit the power of the papacy only to Rome and its immediate environs. Rome then, under the paternal rule of the pope, standing aloof from political storms, would become the basis of the world, and the international budget from the Catholic states would provide sufficient funds to maintain the splendor of the cult in Rome and satisfy the needs of the papal court. This brochure, which sold hundreds of thousands of copies within weeks, was followed by Dec. 31. 1859, a handwritten letter to the pope from Emperor Napoleon III, who, pointing out to the pope the inexorable logic of facts, advised him to abandon the rebellious provinces. To this, the pope issued an encyclical in which he resolutely declared that he would never give up anything that was the property of the church. The National Assembly in Romagna, meanwhile, demanded the annexation of the region to Sardinia, and Victor Emmanuel had to agree to this. Then a revolt broke out in Umbria and the Marches, and Victor Emmanuel occupied these papal provinces (1860), so that of the five legations the pope had only two left (Rome and Campania), and even those could be kept in obedience only with the help of French bayonets. The situation became more and more difficult. In vain did the pope place the eternal city under the special protection (1866) of St. Catherine of Siena. When, in the same year, French troops, due to political complications in Central Europe, were recalled from Rome, the pope was left defenseless against the anti-papal movement; headed by Garibaldi. For a while, Napoleon sent a detachment to protect the pope, and this detachment, defeating the Italians (at Menton), delayed the fall of the papal state. His hour, however, was approaching, and it struck almost at the very moment when the papacy apparently wanted to achieve its highest apotheosis, having achieved the declaration of itself infallible at the Vatican Council. The idea of ​​convening an ecumenical council. – Selection of scientific forces. - Bull about the cathedral with an invitation to it. – Different currents. – Protests against a supposed dogma. – That’s what their tricks are for. – The main representatives of the opposition and their efforts to prevent an undertaking dangerous for the church. - Fierce struggle between parties. Dad's personal participation in it. The triumph of infilliblists - supporters of infallibility. – Text of the dogma on papal infallibility. - The last day of the cathedral. – A revolution in the history of the papacy and its loss of secular power. It is difficult to say when Pius IX actually first had the idea of ​​convening an ecumenical council. Already in 1846, he allegedly expressed it, and when he was busy with the question of proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, therefore between 1850 and 1854, to the objection of one Dominican that the new dogma implied the declaration of papal infallibility, the pope replied: “It will come too.” According to the Jesuits, Pius was convinced “that he had a special mission - to elevate both – the virgin birth and infallibility into dogmas.” Be that as it may, preparations for the council had already begun long ago, and the spirit of the autocracy that animated the pope, and which was intended to be given legal justification by a council definition, was clearly expressed already in the encyclical of December 8. 1864 and especially in the “syllabus” attached to it or the list of the main errors of modern times, among which, among other things, all claims to freedom of religion, conscience, speech and science, to the independence of secular power from spiritual ones were condemned - in a word, all the principles of modern state and social life Three years after this, namely, in 1867, solemnly celebrating the anniversary of St. Peter, he did not fail to definitely declare that he had long had an idea - to convene an ecumenical council to heal the many evils from which the church suffers. To this, the 500 bishops present in Rome at that time responded that they were extremely happy to hear that the pope wanted to find healing in such a cathedral. At the same time, some could seriously hope that the council would finally put an end to the endless unrest and unrest and, by establishing the correct relationship between spiritual and temporal authorities, the pope and the council, the papacy and the episcopate, heal all the discord that was depressing the church. But their hope was not destined to come true, since the Jesuits had already taken all measures to make this cathedral an instrument for the apotheosis of the papacy, and since the papacy was already entirely in their hands, to finally establish their leadership in the Roman Catholic world. To prepare for the council, many Roman Catholic theologians were summoned to Rome; but in their selection less consideration was given to their scientific thoroughness than to their attitude to the idea of ​​infallibility. The main role in the dogmatic committee was played by the Jesuit Perrone, a narrow-minded scholastic and intolerant of other people's opinions; next to him stood the Dominican Spada, famous for his defense of the eternity of hellish torment, - Cardoni, a strict lawyer who made it obligatory for bishops to live like a monk, - Bartolini, who proved that the holy house in Loretto is the same one that used to stand in Nazareth, - Bilio, who was credited with the main participation in the compilation of the syllabus. From England they called the unfortunate, half-crazed Talbot, from France the eloquent Abbot Freppel, who for many years gave brilliant lectures on patristics at the Sorbonne. Schrader and several other Jesuits were summoned from Germany, and only when Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague objected, pointing out the one-sidedness of this selection, were other scientists also invited to Rome, especially Hefele, Bishop of Rottenburg, and Abbot Haneberg. All the assembled theologians were divided into seven commissions, each of which was chaired by a cardinal; the tasks assigned to these commissions were very different. Hefele was given the task of collecting documentary data about the actions and ceremonies at the Council of Trent: Hahneberg and Theiner were compiling a little relevant report on the monasteries of the East. Clemens Schrader, Franzelin, Schwetz, Göttinger and Alzog also sat on the dogmatic commission. All theologians were required to take an oath of silence, so strict that violation of it led to immediate excommunication. Contrary to any custom, bishops were almost completely excluded from the preparatory work for the council. When the German bishops gathered for a preliminary meeting in Fulda (1867), in the message sent to them, the pope demanded that they submit their opinions to him individually, and not from a general meeting, and at the same time he urged them to keep everything in the strictest confidence. On June 29, 1868, Pius issued a bull by which he formally invited bishops to Rome for a council, which was scheduled to open on December 8, 1869. Pointing to the dark circumstances of the time, the pope declared: “At this ecumenical council there must be carefully and thoroughly examined everything that relates to the glory of God, to the purity of faith, the dignity of worship, the eternal salvation of people, church discipline, the useful and thorough education of the clergy, obedience to church laws, the care of morality, the Christian training of youth, peace and, above all, eternity.” The invitation was first answered by the Dutch and Belgian bishops with a general message, which aroused great joy in Rome. Other bishops responded less readily, and at the same time two hostile trends immediately emerged: the liberal one, which put the good of the church above the splendor of the papacy, and the ultramontane one, which stretched all sails to achieve recognition of the infallibility of the pope. In order to “bring the lost to the path of truth,” an invitation was also sent to the Eastern churches and Protestants. Abbot Testa had an audience with the Patriarch of Constantinople on October 5 (17); but the latter, already knowing from the newspapers about the invitation sent out by the “bishop of ancient Rome,” declared that he “does not want to cause new pain by opening old wounds.” The pope found equally little readiness to respond to his call from other Greek patriarchs of the East. Protestants also did not want to follow the pope’s invitation to “return to the one flock of Christ.” As a response from the German Protestants, the supreme church council in Berlin, in opposition to the claims of the pope, issued an invitation for donations in favor of the Gustavus Adolphus League, which has as its task the maintenance of evangelical communities in Roman Catholic countries. In addition, theologians in Groningen, the Evangelical Union and the clergy in Geneva issued a written statement that they could not take part in the council. Only one Protestant pretended to take the invitation seriously: it was the Anglican Bishop Cumming, a famous apocalypticist. He asked Archbishop Manning of Westminster about the conditions under which Protestants could take part in the council. Manning sent this question to Rome, from where the answer came that Protestants could only return to their father's house, like prodigal sons. Later, the pope added that there would be several theologians in Rome who would not mind entering into debates with the Protestants towards their conversion; but at the council the cause of the Protestants will not even be reported. Some of the Jews turned to the pope with a request to invite Israel as well, but received in response that the actual time of suffering for Israel had not yet come; however, dad hopes to collect several grapes from it too. In opposition to the proposed church council, the Italian Union of Free Thinkers in Milan decided to convene its own special “council” in Naples, and Count Ricciardi sent out an invitation to it. Quinet, Littre, Martin, Michelet, Moleschotti, Uhlich, the Berlin Hegelian Michelet, Garibaldi and several Italian university professors and representatives of student societies in Bologna responded to the call. The “Council” did take place, but, despite all the religious and political radicalism it preached, it did not receive any further significance. He only showed that in Italy there was a large radical party that vigilantly followed all movements in the papacy and tried in every possible way to counteract it. Meanwhile, in the Roman Church itself there was no shortage of perplexities. None of the invitation messages mentioned above explained what the actual purpose of the council was. Since the bishops were offered some disciplinary issues for discussion, it could be assumed that these would be discussed at the council. But in this case, was it worth convening a council because of this? The Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, directly inspired by the pope himself, already in 1867 proposed that all good Catholics should make a vow to God - to firmly adhere to the doctrine of papal infallibility and to confess it, even if for this they had to shed their blood. In February, 1869, this magazine carried a letter from France, in which it was hoped that the doctrine contained in the syllabus would be solemnly confirmed, and the infallibility of the pope, which, of course, Pius himself could not propose for discussion, would be recognized with unanimous exclamations. Archbishop Manning of Westminster and Deschampmeheln simultaneously declared in their pastoral letters that infallibility would be proclaimed at the upcoming council; and other well-informed bishops and clergy made a statement in the same sense. There was no doubt that Rome had decided to take the last step on the path to self-deification and autocracy. The excitement this produced in all countries, both among theologians, laymen and diplomats, was enormous. An inscription appeared on the Pascinian Column in Rome; , JNRJ ' with the following interpretation: "Jo Non Riconosco Jnfallivilita" ("I do not recognize infallibility"), and voices were heard everywhere that agreed with this voice of the Roman column. The more independent Catholics met and founded alliances "to resist the ultramontane aspirations", and the assembly of the laity in Koblenz sent an address to the bishop of Trier, in which they protested against the Jesuit assertion that they are “in the proper sense Catholics.” Especially great excitement was caused by the anonymous work entitled “The Pope and the Council” by Janus, in which enormous church-historical scholarship was put forward in refutation of the supposed dogma, and even then many saw the hand of the later famous Prof. Döllinger, together with other Munich professors. This book greatly alarmed the curia, and instead of any answer to Janus’s fundamental doubts, it was included in the index. banned books. The Munich philosopher Froshammer, condemned as a heretic, was no longer silent, and his excellent colleague Huber illuminated the relationship between the papacy and state power in a polemical work that was a response to the “Anti-Janus” of the ultramontane-minded Professor Hergenreter 27 . The University of Bonn stood with the majority of Munich professors and submitted to the Archbishop of Cologne an address drawn up in the same spirit as the Koblent address. In France, Bishop Maret of Sours, dean of the Parisian theological faculty, published a learned work directed against inerrancy, the sale and further distribution of which, however, was strictly prohibited by Rome. Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans strongly opposed raising infallibility to the level of dogma, but other French bishops took the opposite position. A dispute flared up, but it was put to an end by the statement of the curia that Dupanloup could no longer write on this subject without the permission of the Roman censorship, and at the same time the censorship was persuaded not to give him permission to do so. Nineteen bishops of Germany again gathered in Fulda and “from the tomb of St. Boniface" issued a general pastoral message, which was intended to calm the flock worried by dark rumors. In it, the bishops solemnly declared that. firstly, the council will not establish any other provisions other than those that are already firmly written in the hearts of all Catholics by their faith and conscience; 2nd, he will never proclaim teachings other than those contained in Holy Scripture and in the apostolic tradition; thirdly, the purpose of the council is none other than “to bring into clearer light the old and original truth.” It was further stated that the council would not introduce any new dogmas and would not interfere with civil order; finally, the pope wants to give the council complete freedom in its deliberations. All this was apparently clear; however, even here there was a certain ambiguity, due to which anyone and everyone could subscribe to this pastoral letter. Bishop Ketteler of Mainz (d. 1877), leader of the Ultramontane party in Germany, declared that it would be “unwise” to now raise the question of infallibility, but added to this that he, for his part, believed in this dogma. The bishops gathered in Fulda at the same time composed a private letter to the pope, in which they asked the pope to refrain from his intention. However, many bishops avoided signing, and Rome did not like this message to such an extent that they tried to show that it had not been received at all. The Hungarian and most of the Austrian bishops, meeting under the chairmanship of the far-sighted Cardinal-Archbishop Schwarzenberg, also sent a similar representation to the pope, to which, however, no attention was also paid. Diplomats were also alarmed. The Bavarian Minister-President, Prince Hohenlohe, whose brother was a cardinal, having received information about what was afoot in Rome, issued a diplomatic circular on April 9, 1869, in which he proposed to the governments to form a conference to agree on a common action. At the same time, he proposed several questions to the theologians and lawyers of the University of Munich regarding the subjects that were likely to be discussed at the council. The answers he received, for the most part, decisively went against the obvious plans of the papal court. Other governments, however, showed no willingness to follow his proposal. The Prussian government was glad that the issue was raised specifically by the Roman Catholic state, but believed that now it would be “not the right time” to take preventive measures. The basis of this response, no doubt, was then Prussia's reluctance to alienate and alienate the Ultramontane Catholics in Germany. Austria, which thought that Bismarck was behind Hohenlohe, also rejected the case. Hohenlohe's proposal was met with little sympathy in Belgium, Holland, and France. Switzerland and finally in England. Russia simply forbade her Roman Catholic bishops to take part in the council, and Italy expressed the desire that there should be a solemn declaration of the rights that the state had in relation to the church. The Italian government secretly sent Janus's work to "all the most educated and influential clergy" in the country. On the morning of December 2, 1869, the pope had a preliminary meeting in the Sistine Chapel, and after his speech to the audience (in Latin, that is, the traditional language of the curia and the cathedral), all the officials of the cathedral took the oath. At the same time, a papal message was distributed, which more precisely defined the course of classes. According to this message, three types of meetings were to take place during the council: meetings of commissions, general meetings (general congregations), and finally, public meetings. In the first, resolutions had to be prepared, adopted at general meetings, and then proclaimed at public meetings. The Pope did not fail to declare that the right to make proposals actually belonged to him alone, but that he also granted the fathers some share in these advantages. The first half of the pope's statement contained a clear abuse of power. At the ancient church councils and even at the Council of Trent, the pope by no means had the exclusive right to make proposals. What at the Council of Trent was the fruit of a free vote was here offered to the members in the form of a papal bull. The other half had no meaning in terms of concession. According to the papal letter, all proposals on the part of the bishops were required to be submitted in writing to one of the commissions appointed by the pope, therefore, not directly to the council, and Pius retained the right to decide whether the proposals received should be subjected to research and discussion or not. The Vatican Council, therefore, was by no means a free council. Equally little ensured freedom was the fact that Pius IX, in contrast to the order of paperwork at previous councils, did everything to shroud the paperwork at the council in the strictest secrecy - which secrecy was made the duty of all members of the council. And so at this so-called ecumenical council, which received the name of the first Vatican Council, as many princes of the church gathered as they had never gathered at any of the previous councils. When the Council of Trent opened, only 4 archbishops and 21 bishops were present; at the opening of the Vatican Council, 723 members were present, and soon after, by mid-January, their number increased to 744. There were up to 50 cardinals, 10 patriarchs, 130 archbishops, 522 bishops and 30 generals of orders 28. Among them, 541 were Europeans (and more than half of them Italians), 113 Americans, 83 Asians, 14 Africans and 13 Australians, and the famous Ultramontane publicist Louis Vailho rejoiced at the thought that the Patriarch of Babylon met the Bishop of Chicago on the threshold of the Vatican. Some of these foreign bishops then lived entirely at the expense of the papal treasury. It was calculated that this hospitality cost the pope 2,500 francs daily, so he did not buy infallibility cheaply. For general, as well as public, meetings of members, the right side of the huge choir in the church of St. Petra. An altar was erected at the entrance, and in front of it a platform for speakers. Along the longitudinal sides of the room there were places for archbishops, bishops and abbots; in front of them sat a number of order generals, and in front of the latter there were seats for the secretary of the cathedral and his assistants. A few steps higher were the seats of the patriarchs and cardinals; and opposite the entrance, on the opposite wall, a papal throne was erected, near which a place was built for Cardinal Antonelli. Above the throne of the pope there was a picture depicting the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and under it the inscription: “I prayed for you, that your faith may not fail.” On the walls hung, in addition, several images of former church teachers and those popes who had previously convened ecumenical councils. When “public meetings” took place, places were also arranged for the public - theologians, singers, diplomats, Roman princesses, etc., and then the entrance door to the room remained open. On the morning of December 8, cannon salvoes from the Castel Sant'Angelo and the ringing of bells announced the opening of the cathedral. The brilliant procession moved from the ceremonial premises of the Vatican, singing prayers to the Holy Spirit, to the Church of St. Petra; but a heavy downpour made it impossible to properly perform the prescribed ceremony. The fathers of the cathedral passed through the church to the rooms appointed for each, and there a solemn mass was celebrated, the secretary of the cathedral bringing the Bible and placing it on a magnificent lectern. Before the opening of the cathedral, Archbishop Pasavalli, a Capuchin from the diocese of Trent, expressed greetings from the homeland of the last cathedral, and preached a sermon on the text of the psalm: “Those who sow with tears will reap with joy; those who bear seeds weeping will return with joy, bearing their sheaves” (Ps. 126:5, 6). After the sermon, all the bishops of the cathedral, one after another, approached the pope, bowed before him and kissed his knee. Then Pius himself, in deep emotion, delivered a speech, which finally turned into an enthusiastic prayer to the Mother of God. The entire congregation knelt down and sang: “Vepi Creator”! At the wave of the pope, the decree on the opening of the council was read, and the bishops expressed their approval with the liturgical proclamation of “Placet”. The next public meeting was scheduled for Epiphany the following year. The pope was so confident in the success of his venture that he had already laid the foundation for a monument in honor of this cathedral. Meanwhile, everywhere in France, Germany and Italy, on this very day, December 8th, demonstrations against the cathedral took place in many Roman Catholic countries. At the opening of the council the opposition consisted mainly of the four princes of the church. Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague, brought to Rome an essay whose purpose was to advise against the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility, because it would encounter great difficulties, even among the most pious Catholics; on the other hand, it proposed to give a new formulation to the index, more favorable to freedom and science, as well as recommended the introduction of public worship in churches, similar to what had recently been allowed in Hungary. On the side of Schwarzenberg stood the Bishop of Orleans Dupanloup, Maret and the Parisian Archbishop Darbois. About the first of them, the famous Count Montalembert wrote (1869) among other things: “You, without a doubt, admire the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup); but you would admire him even more if you could form an idea of ​​the abyss into which the rest of the French clergy had fallen.” Darbau had already been looked upon unfavorably in Rome because, after the publication of the syllabus, in a complacent letter he advised the pope to adhere to moderation. Pius wrote Darbois a harsh reply and did not give him the cardinal's hat. “I don't need a hat; I didn’t catch a cold,” protested the undaunted archbishop when told of the pope’s opposition in this regard. This was the last Gallican. If we consider that these four princes of the church, both in Rome and in their immediate circle, had to fight against open opposition, it will not be surprising that they were not successful, although little by little they acquired for themselves many efficient and courageous like-minded people among the prelates of the council. Moreover, the members of the opposition themselves were not decisive enough: they did not dare to directly rebel against the idea of ​​​​infallibility, but only tried to prove that it was now untimely to raise the question of raising this idea to the level of dogma. But if the question was only about the favorability or unfavorability of a given moment, then, obviously, one could not expect anything other than the complete triumph of Rome. It has long been the custom there not to be constrained by means in achieving goals; They are used to winning over to their side, either by threat or by affection; both were fully applicable to prelates. That is why, little by little, the Vatican Council turned into nothing more than a council of flatterers. On December 10, the “first general meeting” took place, and it was not entirely successful. The room turned out to be acoustically inconvenient, so many could not hear a word. Moreover, some Englishmen had such an impossible Latin accent that others could only barely understand what they were saying, and many prelates were quite weak in Latin. The desire to move the meeting to another place was loudly declared, to which, however, the pope did not agree. Several unimportant changes were made that did not improve matters at all. The subjects discussed in the first “general meetings,” namely the elections to the commission, already clearly showed that supporters of the dogma of infallibility were in the majority and acted harmoniously among themselves. Conrad Martin of Paderborn, Manning, Depian and other advocates of infallibility had previously received a place and a voice in the dogmatic commission, to which not a single representative of the opposition was appointed. Lithographed ballot cards were distributed to everyone, and some also had blank ones; many did not have the courage to vote against the wishes of the curia. Bishops Dupanloup of Orleans and Strossmayer of Bosnia, later one of the most prominent members of the opposition, tried in vain to obtain the word, with a view to changing the course of the matter. They received an answer that since the order of classes established by the pope could not be subject to further change. Some French, German and Austrian prelates also turned to the pope with a request to change the order of business, but their request was not satisfied. The projects (schemes) proposed for discussion also aroused a lot of displeasure. The first draft contained a proposal to “dogmatize” the syllabus, which the free-thinking bishops were so afraid of. But the opposition spoke out sharply against this project put forward by the Jesuits Schrader and Francelin, so the Jesuits were defeated. And in general the first meeting was a great disappointment for them. According to their plan, it was assumed that Archbishop Manning would, from the very beginning, invite the members of the council by means of exclamations to recognize the infallibility of the pope, so that this proclamation might give the impression of divine inspiration. Meanwhile, such a friendly proclamation was now out of the question. Archbishop Darbois even allegedly stated that he and his like-minded people, if something like this happened, would protest and leave the cathedral. The proclamation, according to the Jesuit plan, was to take place on the day of Epiphany, after the preachers, through artistic comparisons of the Baby in the manger with the old man in the castle, had brought everyone into the proper mood. When all this failed, the Jesuits came up with a new plan and, in order to achieve a statement of the unanimous desire for peace, began agitation in favor of presenting to the pope an address expressing a desire for the speedy proclamation of the dogma of infallibility. The address collected 400 signatures, but the opposition, for its part, did not hesitate to draw up and submit a counter-address, which pointed out the inconvenience of the dogma in mind, and found it not only unnecessary, but even of little practicality. This counter-address contained 137 signatures, among which was even the signature of the Maint Bishop Ketteler; In addition, four other addresses, written in similar terms, were given to Pius. The latter was prudent enough to reject all such addresses. Therefore, written representations and addresses had no further significance other than indicating the strength of the parties in the eyes of the council. From that time on, the council turned into an arena of struggle between two opposing parties, one of which tried to implement the dogma of infallibility in one way or another, and the other tried to upset it. Among the leaders of the opposition were Cardinals Rauscher of Vienna, Prince Schwarzenberg of Prague and Mathew of Besançon, Prince-Bishop Förster of Breslau, Archbishops Scherr of Munich, Melchers of Cologne, Darbois of Paris, Kenrick of St. Louis, Bishops Ketteler of Mainz, Hefele of Rottenburg, Strossmayer of Sirmium, Dupanloup of Orleans and others. All these were the most prominent and learned prelates of the Roman Church, with whom the leaders of the infallibilists could not be compared. But on their side was the pope and the all-powerful Jesuits, who did everything to fail the opposition. At the same time, they were not shy about their means: when the question “On Faith” was raised (March 22), things came to such passionate antics and outrages that involuntarily recalled the notorious “Robber Cathedral.” When Bishop Strossmayer began to argue that the widespread current prevalence of indifferentism, pantheism, atheism and materialism would not be justly blamed solely on Protestantism, deafening cries of indignation were heard among the infallibilists, they stamped their feet and many rushed to the oratory with raised fists, shouting: “Down with the heretic,” so that the chairman had to close the meeting. But the opposition continued to hold out, and found support from its like-minded people, who raised encouraging voices from different countries. In France, the learned Oratorian Gratry wrote a letter against infallibility at the same time that the Pope imposed silence on Bishop Dupanloup regarding the historical facts he had revealed. forgeries made by the Archbishop of Mecheln in majorem gloriam sedis apostolicae. In this and three other letters, Gratry explained the unpleasant history for the papacy of the condemnation of some popes for heresy. Many bishops of France proclaimed the brave Oratorian a heretic: but others enthusiastically welcomed his independence. Count Montalembert sent from his deathbed "grateful and enthusiastic greetings to the eloquent and intrepid priest and the great and highly venerable Bishop of Orleans." In Germany, Döllinger issued an open letter in the Augsburg General Newspaper of January 21, 1870, and raised a serious objection that “in the future, 180,000,000 people, under the threat of exclusion from the church and the sacraments, and eternal condemnation, will be forced to believe and profess what the church has not previously believed and taught.” The city of Munich gave him the right of an honorary citizen for this, and he also received sympathetic addresses from Braunsberg, Cologne, Bonn, and Prague. Fearing that the opposition would intensify and grow into a formidable social force, the Jesuits decided to quickly implement their favorite dogma. And so, the question of the church was put forward, in which the question of infallibility was already directly raised in the 4-term. On this occasion, a detailed “scheme” was drawn up, in which the saying of the Savior by the apostle was cited as proof of papal infallibility. Peter: “I have prayed for you, so that your faith will not fail; and you, having once been converted, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32); Then some places from St. were selected. fathers and mainly the logical conclusion was made that the pope is the vicar of Christ and for that very reason must be infallible. On the basis of all this, the following draft resolution was drawn up, and extremely unexpectedly for many: “Therefore, we teach with the consent of the council and put forward, as a member of the faith, that the Pope - if he, in the performance of his office, as the supreme teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his authority determines what the whole church should contain in matters of faith and morals - cannot sin; and that this advantage of infallibility extends as far as the infallibility of the church extends.” A fierce struggle began over this project. The pope himself intervened in it and openly said that he “believes in papal infallibility,” and also referred to the “voice of the church,” which was a series of addresses he received from different parts of the Christian world, in which both clergy and laity expressed their devotion to him, along with an expression of faith in his infallibility. The opposition, however, did not lose heart. Dellinger, Dupanloup, Rauscher, the North American Bishop Kenrick and Newman made new statements to prevent the proclamation of a new dogma, and Bishop Hefele historically proved how Pope Honorius I (d. 658) taught heresy, therefore was not infallible. The opposition made itself known even in Italy. The Milanese clergy expressed public gratitude to their bishop for his opposition to the dogma of infallibility, and asked him to protect the dignity of the episcopal see of St. Ambrose the Great. But the stronger the opposition became, the more persistently the Jesuits asserted, in accordance with their peculiar logic, that in order to overthrow the opposition it was necessary to quickly establish the dogma. The debate on this issue continued for more than a month, with the Jesuit party resorting to the most strange arguments and forgeries. Thus, Bishop Natoli of Messina proposed a number of legends that supposedly certify the truth of the dogma of papal infallibility. “Ap. Peter, he said, was known to have preached in Sicily, where he had already found several Christians. When he told them that he was infallible, the Christians, who had not yet heard anything about this member, somewhat doubted it. They sent an envoy to the Most Holy Mary to ask if she had heard anything about the infallibility of Peter, and she assured them that she remembered well how her Son had granted this advantage to Peter; and this testimony reassured the Sicilians.” An ardent supporter of infallibilism, Bishop Deschamps of Mechel, famous for his historical forgeries, went so far as to call opponents of the dogma bad Christians who do not have the fear of God. Manning spoke in the same way, declaring that those who do not submit to the majority will face excommunication soon after the proclamation of the dogma. Hefele, Schwarzenberg and Darbois spoke openly and boldly against infallibility. At the last meetings, two strong speakers spoke out against the new dogma: the North American Archbishop Connolly of Halifax and Strossmayer. The first arrived in Rome as an adherent of dogma; but a thorough examination of the evidence relating to him led him to a different view. Both Scripture and ancient tradition testify, in his opinion, against infallibility. Strossmayer argued that the dogma was in conflict with the government of the church, with the rights of bishops and councils, and finally, with the unchangeable teaching of the faith. In accepting it, he saw the danger of undermining the infallibility of the church. At the meeting of June 6, the speech made against infallibility by Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, made a huge impression. He began with the proposition that the personal infallibility of the pope, in its separation from the episcopate, was unknown to the church until the fourteenth century, and even cited sayings from Perrone and Bellarmine that directly contradict it. This factual truth seemed too impudent to the majority. “If a bomb had fallen among the majority, it would have made less noise,” says an eyewitness. The cathedral fathers began to make a furious noise and endow Guidi with such epithets as birbanto (rogue) and brigantine (robber). But he boldly continued, even brought forward Thomas Aquinas against the inventions of modern Rome, and ended with the sentence that whoever thinks that the pope can decree Definitio (definition of teaching) sine consilio, vel sine concilio Ecclosiae (without council or without a council) - let him be anathema. According to this proposal, the pope himself could be subject to anathema, and as a result of this, such a noise arose that it is difficult to imagine. After lunch that same day, Pius IX ordered Cardinal Guidi to be summoned to him, and passionately greeted him with the following words: “You are my enemy. You are the luminary of your opponents and therefore an ungrateful person. You are proclaiming a heretical doctrine." When Guidi replied that in his opinion he relied on tradition, the pope cried out: “La tradizione son io” (tradition is me), as if parodying the saying of Louis XIV, and then reproached Guidi for making friends with Strossmayer, and speaking in such a way as to “please the world, the liberals, the revolution”... Meanwhile, the last hour of the council was approaching, and tension on both sides reached the extreme. Seeing the unbearable pressure from the Jesuits and the pope himself, the French bishops even wanted to leave Rome completely; but the more moderate ones found this step too drastic, and therefore decided to limit themselves to protests. On July 13, the final vote took place in the general meeting and there were 371 affirmative votes (Placet), 61 conditional votes (subject to some changes in the decree) and 88 negative votes (Non Placet). This vote showed that the Jesuits had triumphed and, in order to express the meaning of “infallibility” even more sharply, they included in the decree the words that the decisions of the pope are infallible and unchangeable “but not through the consent of the church.” This increase especially outraged the opposition and it decided to make another desperate attempt to save the dignity of the church and the episcopate and sent a deputation to the pope, begging him to soften the decree and cancel this increase. At the same time, Bishop Ketteler even fell on his knees before the pope and conjured him to return peace and lost unity to the church and episcopate. Pius was apparently touched to see the proud bishop of the throne of St. Boniface at his feet, and all the members of the deputation left the pope with a glimmer of hope. But having learned about this, the infallibilists immediately took measures to weaken the impression made on the pope by the deputation, and achieved their goal so much that when the Viennese Cardinal Rauscher came to the pope on July 16 with the goal of saying a word in favor of the minority for his part, he received the answer: “It’s too late! The formula has already been distributed and a meeting has been scheduled for final determination. You can’t act in accordance with the minority.” Then the members of the opposition decided not to take any further participation in the council and, among the 56 prelates, chose to leave Rome, making a written statement that they, as before, still remain unconvinced, but out of respect for the personality of the pope they do not want to express it in a public meeting. On July 16, the decree was presented in its final form, and, moreover, with the indicated addition, which further strengthened the absolute power of the papacy, and the fourth and last public meeting of the council was scheduled for July 18. In view of the fact that the main members of the opposition finally withdrew from participating in the council, the Jesuits could well celebrate their victory. The day was very gloomy, but they were happy at heart. According to custom, the meeting was preceded by the celebration of Mass, and then one bishop from the pulpit read loudly and clearly the ill-fated decree, which stated 29 that “the Pope of Rome, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, whenever he, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his highest apostolic authority, affirms the teachings concerning faith and morals as subject to acceptance by the whole Church, then with divine help promised to him in the person of St. Peter, he possesses that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer deigned to bestow on His church on all occasions when establishing the teaching of faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the pope by themselves, and not through the consent of the church, are immutable. If anyone, God forbid, dared to contradict this decree of ours, let him be anathema! After the decree was read, a vote followed, and it took place amid thunder and lightning, such a thunderstorm as rarely happens in Rome. Believing papists saw in this the highest voice of condemnation of Gallicanism, and others even saw in this the highest sign, by virtue of which the pope was elevated to the same height as Moses, who received legislation at Sinai under the same formidable natural phenomena. Of the prelates present, 533 said Placet, and only two, namely the North American Bishop Fitzgerald and the Sicilian Bishop Riccio, said “non placet”. At this last meeting, therefore, much more was said in favor of the dogma than at the meeting of July 13th. Where did this increase come from? Did several bishops change their minds during this time, or did they simply bow to authority? Even Guidi said “placet”. They said that dad looked sternly into his eyes during the vote and, when he heard “placet” from him, said loudly: “Buon uomo!” 30 or others: “Pover uomo!” 31. The latter expression was, of course, more applicable to him, as to other weak prelates. When the vote counters informed the pope of the result of the vote, he immediately approved the decree and made a short speech. In it, he expressed the hope that those who voted against the decree would come to a better conviction. Hinting at 1 Kings. 19:2, he pointed out the fact that the fathers of the council pronounced their sentence “in a storm,” and reminded them that several years before they pronounced another sentence, but then “in a calm wind.” The monks and nuns, who, together with the crowd of Zouaves, formed the main part of the meeting, shouted “bravo”! and applauded. The population of Rome, apparently, took only a small part in this celebration, and in general understood little about the whole matter. Diplomats were also largely conspicuous by their absence: only ministers from Belgium, Holland, Portugal and some South American states were present. The illumination arranged in the evening turned out to be very poor due to the bad weather. Only the pope's flatterers rejoiced and tried to inflate the triumph, not stopping at blasphemy. One northern Italian priest praised the pope's voice in a poem about the day's events as "the voice of God and not of man." For this reason, many bishops were far from in a good mood. Their conscience awoke and they, fearful for the deed they had committed, felt an inexpressible melancholy in their souls. Although the decree of July 18 was a triumph and apotheosis of the papacy, at the same time, ironically, events occurred simultaneously that led to the overthrow of the temporal rule of the pope. On the eve of the pope's declaration of infallibility, Napoleon III declared war on Prussia, and since this war turned out to be unhappy for him and he had to withdraw his troops from the Roman region to defend the fatherland, the Italians did not fail to take advantage of this circumstance. Victor Emmanuel, under the pretext of maintaining order in the papal region, moved his troops into this area and occupied Rome almost without resistance. In vain did the “infallible pope” appeal to the powers, protesting against the occupation of his capital by a usurper - everyone remained deaf to his protests, and his main defender, Napoleon III, ingloriously surrendered at Sedan. And the voice of the Roman population itself was against the pope. When a popular vote was taken in Rome itself, 40,785 votes were for the annexation of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy, and only 46 votes were cast in favor of the pope (in the entire region 133,681 votes). against dad and only 1.507 for dad). On September 20, a green, white and red banner hoisted from the Capitol. On December 5, Rome was proclaimed the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, and on June 2, 1871, Victor Emmanuel made a ceremonial entry into it. In the Quirinal, which at the beginning of the century was the residence of the pope, he received a deputation from all regions of the country, and before it, among other things, he uttered the words: “Now we are in Rome, and we will remain in it.” Then the pope, realizing the unbearable nature of the struggle, closed the cathedral, pointing out the impossibility of further office work with the freedom necessary for it, and he himself sat down in the Vatican, declaring himself a “Vatican prisoner.” From this time on, a new period began in the history of the papacy, which is interesting because of how the papacy, in the new conditions of its life, implemented the absolutism it acquired at the pseudo-ecumenical council. 13. Papal infallibility in its consequences for church and state Measures to strengthen the new dogma. – Jealousy of the German bishops. – The attitude of governments to Vatican dogma. – Inevitable complications. – Cultural struggle in Germany. – Expulsion of the Jesuits and the struggle in the field of public education. – Disobedient bishops and repressive measures against them. – Participation of Pius IX in this struggle. – The connection between ultramontanism and dark demagogic forces. – The Pope is like a Vatican prisoner. – Death of Pius IX. Despite the fact that fate itself seemed to take revenge on the papacy for its self-invented self-idolization, taking away from it, soon after the proclamation of the dogma, one of the most essential prerogatives of the papacy - secular power, the papacy did not at all want to sacrifice its infallibility, and, as if in the Medals knocked out by Pius IX in memory of the dogmas proclaimed by him: compensation for the lost secular power tried even more elevate your spiritual absolutism. Unconditional recognition of the Vatican dogma was demanded from all bishops, and even those who so staunchly opposed its acceptance to the end, in the end, fearing the possibility of terrible divisions in the church, found it more prudent to “sacrifice their reason” and recognize the Vatican dogma. And the German bishops were the first to succumb to these considerations of opportonism. Already at the end of August, they gathered in Fulda together with supporters of infallibilism and issued a general pastoral letter in which they solemnly declared that all true Catholics, without difference of opinion, for the good of the church and the salvation of their souls must, of course, submit to the definitions of the Vatican Council. At the same time, they demanded that professors and teachers of theology, teachers of the law and all clergy in general in their dioceses unconditionally recognize the dogma, threatening otherwise with excommunication and removal from office. Even the learned historian-bishop Hefele, who at first did not take part in the Fulda meeting and wanted in every possible way to avoid a dogma contrary to his convictions, had to submit with pain in his heart to the fatal necessity. He also issued a pastoral letter inviting the recognition of the dogma of infallibility, although he tried to give it a somewhat softer meaning - namely, that both the infallibility of the church and the infallibility of the papal teaching office extends only to the revealed teachings of faith and morals, and the field of inerrancy includes only definitions in the proper sense, and not introductions, justifications and applications. This was a pathetic attempt to avoid recognizing the Vatican dogma in its entirety, and of course it turned out to be impossible, so that later Hefele had to join the determined infallibilists who once again (September 1872) gathered in Fulda to confirm the Vatican dogma. Strossmayer held out longer than the others, but he, too, had to lay down his arms to the opposition in view of general submission. More courageous were the professors and associate professors of many universities, who did not want to sacrifice their reason and their science to papal autocracy, and they were the founders of the significant Old Catholic movement, which became a new important factor in church-religious life in the West and found a sympathetic echo in all churches independent of the papacy. But the lower clergy and the masses, brought up in the spirit of extreme ultramontanism, were in boundless delight at the new dogma and fell to their knees with fanatical reverence before “the Pope - God.” All the more worthy of mention is the courageous feat of one nun, Amalia Lasso, who, being the head of the sisters of mercy in Bonn and already lying on her deathbed, resolutely refused to accept the new dogma and for this was deprived of her position and even of burial, which was accepted by the Bonn Old Catholics. – As for the states, in essence, none of them recognized the Vatican dogma. Austria even took advantage of this opportunity to cancel the previous concordat and prohibited the proclamation of the dogma within its borders. France, shocked by the failures of the war, had no opportunity to deal with church issues. Prussia, although it continued to adhere to its principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church, nevertheless took measures to protect itself, and in this its statesmen showed remarkable foresight, since they soon had to wage a fierce struggle with papal absolutism, which boldly declared claims to dominance in the internal life of the newly established German Empire. This empire, after the pogrom carried out over France (1870-71), was composed of the union of Prussia with the southern German states, and since the population of these states was predominantly Roman Catholic, strong discord was immediately revealed in it, which had to be eliminated and softened so that the newly founded state building could have proper strength. The task was very difficult and only such a political genius as Prince Bismarck, on whose idea the empire itself was founded, could have successfully worked on it. Possessing an iron will that did not stop at any obstacles, the “iron chancellor,” as he was later called, decided to subordinate all the internal forces of the united states to one highest authority - imperial power. But if this idea is fully consistent with the spirit of Protestantism, it is by no means consistent with the spirit of Roman Catholicism, which always, and especially after the Vatican decree, recognized the will and power of the infallible pope as the highest authority. Therefore, when pursuing his unifying policy, Prince Bismarck inevitably had to come into conflict with this spirit. And indeed, such phenomena were soon discovered that clearly showed where they came from and by whom they were inspired. Thus, in Roman Catholic Bavaria, strong agitation soon began on the part of the Ultramontane party with the aim of making it difficult for that country to join Germany; and when its annexation nevertheless took place, the same party began to make completely incongruous claims, namely, that the Roman Catholic Church should be given all the rights and advantages that had originally belonged to it, and, moreover, a demand was presented to the imperial government that it should take care of satisfying the wishes of its Roman Catholic subjects regarding the restoration of the temporal power of the pope! With this request, a deputation with Archbishop Ledochovsky at the head was presented to Emperor Wilhelm back in Versailles, and one ultramontane body wrote on this occasion: “not humbly as a favor, but imperatively as our right, we Catholics demand this... Either you return to the Catholic Church all its rights, or not one of your current governments will stand”... This threat was by no means empty: the Roman Catholicism, which is often considered a conservative force, by its very internationality is a cosmopolitan force that can, depending on the circumstances, side with either state power (as long as it is submissive to it), or the most extreme anti-state elements, if with their help it hopes to achieve its goals. Bishop Senestrey of Regensburg spoke quite frankly in this sense when in one speech he directly said: “If the sovereigns do not want to know the mercy of God, then I am the first ready to overthrow their thrones. War or revolution can help us.” Not long ago, the newspaper Geneva Correspondence, approved by the pope, wrote: “If the sovereigns do not assist the papacy in restoring all its rights, then it will renounce them and directly turn to the hearts of the people. Do you understand the terrible power of this change? Your hours, sirs, are numbered! Berlin's ultramontane "Germany" even had the audacity to point out the possibility of a vengeful war on the part of France, in which the government allegedly could not count on the sympathy and support of its Roman Catholic subjects. And in this sense, the Ultramontanes carried out intense propaganda everywhere, abusing freedom of the press and speech in newspapers, private and public meetings, and even from the church pulpit. One Bavarian priest, Lechner, preached from the church pulpit that it was difficult to say by what kind of mercy the German sovereigns reigned, whether by the grace of God or by the grace of the devil - with a clear hint of the possibility of the latter. As a result of all this, relations between church and state in Germany became increasingly tense. In vain did the emperor, who longed for inner peace after the military storm, try to take a conciliatory position. In April 1872, he appointed Cardinal Hohenlohe, who had lived in the Vatican for many years as a very influential prelate and was a friend and close adviser of Pius IX, as German envoy to the papal court. Having become a cardinal, he parted ways with the Jesuit confidants of the pope, and Bismarck could therefore think that his high ecclesiastical position could be used for the benefit of the empire, as well as the church. The Pope, however, rejected Hohenlohe's appointment as German envoy to the Vatican, although this cardinal had previously headed the Austrian and French embassies. Regarding this, Bismarck spoke in the Reichstag on May 14, 1872: “In view of the recently proclaimed dogma in the Catholic Church, I consider it impossible for the secular authorities to achieve a concordat without causing damage to the secular authorities in some way.” Then he uttered his notorious phrase, which echoed so loudly throughout Germany: “Don’t worry, we won’t go to Canossa!” Taking up this expression, the ultramontane Berlin newspaper “Germany” wrote about this: “These are words of extraordinary meaning. Catholic dogmas are the work of the Holy Spirit, are absolutely obligatory for every Catholic, and are unchangeable for all times. If these dogmas also contain demands that the secular authorities cannot or do not want to agree with, then this declares a war between church and state, and, moreover, a war of life and death.” And indeed, a fierce struggle began between church and state, called the “cultural struggle.” The first step of this struggle was the expulsion of the Jesuits, who, as extreme representatives of the syllabus and papal infallibility, fanatically incited the Roman Catholic population of Germany against the government. Although many German bishops have given glowing testimony to the beneficial activities of these priests in their dioceses, a law on this subject, adopted by a large majority, was issued by the Emperor on July 4, 1872, and read: “The Society of Jesus and congregations allied with it are excluded from the territory of the German state. They are prohibited from establishing new institutions; existing ones are subject to closure within six months. Members of these communities, if they are foreigners, are subject to expulsion from the state, and if they are natives, they may either be completely refused or ordered to stay in a certain place. Any activity of the Jesuit Order, especially in church, school, as well as in missions, is not allowed. Such a decree, naturally, created a whole storm in Roman Catholic society, and ultramontane newspapers fiercely incited everyone to defend the supposedly trampled Roman Catholic Church, and State Chancellor Bismarck was exposed as Satan incarnate. The agitation did not remain without a trace: strong excitement began among the Roman Catholic population of Germany, and this excitement was expressed in the fact that not only the former Roman Catholic unions were revived, but on July 6, 1872, a new “Catholic Union” was founded. This union, for membership in which only six pennies were required, having its center in Mainz, was under the leadership of the aristocratic-hierarchical party, and against the law on the Jesuits it immediately issued a sharp protest, which said that 1) “this law is a grave insult to the Catholic Church, which approves of the society of Jesus and accepted him into its ministry, and is an insult to all Catholics who adhere to the same rules of faith and morals with them; 2) this is an unjust attack on personal freedom, the condemnation of innocent citizens; 3) this is an act of ingratitude for which the state becomes guilty; 4) this is disrespect for the voice of the people, who loudly spoke out in favor of the Jesuits in more than 2,000 petitions; 5) this is a violation of religious peace, an attack on the peace and security of the state, and, finally, 6) we, Catholics, will never agree to leave the most sacred thing that only we have to the discretion of the majority hostile to the faith.” Meanwhile, the Minister of Confessions Falk issued an order that in all Prussian schools in which members of the Jesuit order were teachers, the latter should be removed and other persons appointed in their place. Gymnasium students were prohibited from joining spiritual unions. The Ultramontanes went on a rampage and the Augsburg Postal Newspaper wrote about this: “The world of religious life has been shaken and war has been declared on a force that is older than Nuremberg Castle.” The Ultramontan Vaterland in Munich wrote: “The Jesuits hand over the German state to the Masons and Jews. We do not love your German state, we do not want to know anything about it - for us it is only a fleeting thundercloud. Think about the truth of God, about the international force that will take revenge on you for the rights of God and people.” It is clear with what feeling they reacted to this decree in Rome, and Pius IX on June 24, 1874 told the deputation of the German “Reading Union” the following: “We are dealing with persecution, which, prepared long ago, has now broken out. The persecution was led by the first minister of a powerful government. I would like him to know that triumph without moderation has no vitality, and the struggle against truth is madness. Who knows whether a stone will fall from a height without human hands and destroy the legs of this colossus.” By colossus we meant, of course, the German Empire: the stone, which, according to the pope, could fall on the empire without human hands and destroy the clay legs of the iron colossus, was taken, of course, from the vision of the prophet Daniel. Nevertheless, many Jesuits and those ranked among them by spiritual kinship are Redemptorists, Lazarists, priests of the Holy Spirit and members of the Society of St. The hearts of Jesus hastened to go abroad - to Belgium, Holland, France, Turkey and America, in order to wait for a more favorable time for them. When the hostility of the Roman party was finally revealed against the German state, the Catholic department in the Ministry of Cults, consisting of extreme papists, was destroyed. Since January 1872, Falk introduced four bills into the House of Representatives, which, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal pacification of the state. True, they did not entirely agree with the 15th paragraph of the fundamental laws, which grants self-government to all churches, but this paragraph, in view of the intricate relations between church and state, required a more precise definition, which, according to his proposal, should be as follows: 1) “The Evangelical and Roman Catholic Church, like any other religious society, independently establishes and manages its affairs, but remains subordinate to the state. laws and is subject to legally established state supervision; 2) The law guides the state in its orders regarding the education, appointment and dismissal of the clergy and ministers of religion in general, and firmly establishes the boundaries of church disciplinary power.” After lengthy debate, these laws were adopted and were popularly called the May Laws (May 11–14, 1873). Their main points are as follows. Only Germans who have received a certificate from a German gymnasium and have spent three years in some German university or in a state-approved theological educational institution, after a scientific state test in the subjects of general human education (i.e., philosophy, history and literature), are admitted to ecclesiastical positions. The ecclesiastical authority informs the Chief President of the province of any such significance or transfer, and in case of refusal on his part, may file a complaint with the Minister of Confessions. For the granting of a ecclesiastical office without such application and approval, the offender is subject to a fine of 200 to 1000 thalers, and whoever performs spiritual acts without such approval is subject to a fine of 100 thalers: episcopal seminaries and hostels are closed. Theological seminaries, if the Minister of Confessions finds them suitable, can replace theological faculties, but must be under strict government supervision. Disciplinary power over the clergy belongs only to German clergy. Everything must be done in accordance with the established procedure and with the right of appeal to state government agencies. Everyone is free to leave the church, subject only to a judicial application. As one would expect, the Roman Catholic bishops declared these May laws hostile to the church, and therefore unnecessary for themselves: without making the statements required by law, they continued to perform spiritual functions through the clergy they appointed. The government had no choice but to resort to repressive measures, and it came to the point of many monetary fines that were imposed on some bishops. But such measures only further increased the excitement in Roman Catholic society; voluntary offerings began to be intensively collected among the population, with which fines were paid or mortgaged church estates were redeemed. However, for some bishops the fines reached such a high amount that those fined were arrested until the fine was paid, as this especially happened with Bishop Martin of Padernbor, who through this even received a kind of aura of martyrdom in the eyes of the people. “Not since the time of Diocletian,” he wrote in a pastoral letter to his clergy, “has there been such severe persecution for the name of Jesus Christ.” Pius IX, who had previously been in friendly correspondence with the King of Prussia, wrote to the German Emperor on August 7, 1873: “All measures taken for some time by your Majesty’s government have as their goal the destruction of Catholicism. Reflecting with myself about what reasons could have caused such cruel events, I admit that I am not able to find them. On the other hand, I am informed that Your Majesty yourself does not approve of the actions of your government; and those letters that Your Majesty previously sent to me sufficiently show that you cannot approve of what is happening now. If, therefore, your Majesty does not approve of your government continuing to take cruel measures against the religion of Jesus Christ, then will your Majesty come to the conviction that these measures have no other effect than undermining your Majesty’s own throne? My banner is truth, and I speak of fulfilling my duty, which is to tell the truth to everyone, even to those who are not Catholics. After all, everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope in a sense.” Pius IX either really thought that the emperor did not sympathize with these harsh measures, or he simply used a fiction to achieve the abolition of such measures. The last statement, that everyone, by virtue of baptism itself, belongs to the pope, constitutes a natural conclusion from the principle of papal unlimited autocracy. The Emperor sent the following reply to this letter (September 3, 1873): “I am glad that Your Holiness has given me the honor of writing to me, as in former times. I am glad, especially since I have an opportunity to correct the mistakes that, judging by the content of your Holiness’s letter, penetrated into the report made to you about German affairs. If there were only truth in these reports, it would be impossible for your Holiness to give room to the assumption that my government was taking measures of which I do not approve. According to the constitution of my states, this cannot be, since laws and government measures in Prussia require my consent. To my deep sorrow, some of my Catholic subjects two years ago organized a political party, which, through actions hostile to the state, is trying to disrupt the religious peace that has existed for centuries. Unfortunately, the highest Catholic clergy not only approves of this movement, but also joined it to the point of openly opposing the existing laws of the country.” Then the emperor, having further spoken of his duty to “protect internal peace and maintain respect for the laws,” continued: “I cannot leave one more expression in your Holiness’s letter without refutation, if it is not based on false reports, but is based on the faith of your Holiness that everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope. The evangelical faith, which, as your Holiness should know, like my ancestors, I profess along with the majority of my subjects, does not allow us to accept another mediator in relation to God than our Lord Jesus Christ. This difference in faith, however, does not prevent me from living in peace with those who do not share our faith.” In order to break the opposition of almost the entire Roman Catholic clergy, the Prussian government found itself forced to resort to further legislative measures. Since the priests dismissed by the court continued to perform their spiritual service, the Chancellor demanded from the Reichstag an exceptional law that would give the government the right to order such dismissed ones to stay in certain places, or even expel them from the state. Such a law was indeed issued on May 4, 1874. Since after the frequent resignations of clergy it was impossible to think about immediately replacing them with other persons of legal capacity, the Prussian law of May 21, 1874 granted the election of pastors to the respective communities. This gave the communities broad freedom to elect their own pastors, but due to extreme irritation among the Roman Catholic population, the communities preferred to remain without pastors. Opposition from the highest hierarchy reached such an extent that the government found itself forced to arrest and defrock the Archbishop of Poznan Ledochowski and Bishop Martin of Padernborn. Then Pius IX, in his encyclical of February 5, 1875, glorifying the hierarchs who had been subjected to such cruel punishment, declared from the height of the papal throne the May laws, which had caused so much harm to the church, invalid, as contrary to the divine establishment of the church. This encyclical, the publication of which was not allowed in Prussia, although, thanks to the cunning of one commissioner, it was read in the Landtag, accelerated the publication of further cultural laws: namely, firstly, by virtue of the law of April 22, 1875, all appropriations from the state treasury in favor of the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy were suspended, with the exception of those who promised to completely obey the government. Such an event under these circumstances was difficult even for patriotic clergy. Secondly, paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 of the main state law on the independence of churches were completely repealed, so that from now on the government began to establish boundaries between the state and the church at its own discretion. These laws were also passed by a large majority, although of course there was no shortage of pathetic complaints on the part of the Roman Catholic party about the persecution of the Church, even of Christianity itself. The May laws were adopted and took effect in almost all states that are part of Germany. At the end of 1877 in Prussia, out of twelve sees, two were vacated due to the death of bishops, and due to aggravation in relations between the government and the papacy, they could not be occupied; five sees lost their bishops by court verdict, and the cathedral chapters refused to appoint diocesan governors. Seminaries and hostels that did not want to accept government supervision were closed, and numerous communities were left without pastors. There were cases when the dying asked St. in vain. Mystery, since not a single priest dared to perform the sacrament. As a result, legislative measures, which were aimed at breaking the power of the Roman Catholic clergy, had a heavy impact on the population itself. Some priests, of course, obeyed the government, but by doing so they endangered their future, since any such priest was threatened with papal excommunication. The Roman Catholic population, supported by spiritual alliances, open and secret, became more and more excited by the stories of the clergy about the persecutions their church was suffering - persecutions reminiscent of the times of Nero and Diocletian. At the general meeting of all Catholic unions (1874), it was announced that the necessary consequence of such persecution would be the complete destruction of all social order, as well as the imminent fall of the German Empire. The papist press, led by the Civilta Cattolica, preached that God himself, in his wrath, would destroy the wicked empire. Pope Pius IX even harbored the hope that some meek female hand would appear as an avenger in the form of a new Judith. In July 1876, he eloquently described to one deputation of German pilgrims how Antiochus Epiphanes ended his life miserably for his oppression of the people of God and the sanctuary, and everyone understood the meaning of this description. The Ultramontane party, opposing the government, was not averse to entering into contact even with the languid forces of communism and socialism, and expected salvation from the revolution. In a well-ordered state, discontent, of course, could manifest itself only occasionally and only locally in violation of order; more often and more openly it manifested itself in the fact that stubborn opponents of the laws of the land were glorified as a kind of martyrs. Although there was no shortage of extremes in this struggle, in reality, it was only a struggle of the new state against the medieval church in its Jesuitism, and in personal terms, a difficult struggle of the Protestant emperor against the Pope of Rome, who spoke with the authority of infallibility. This cultural struggle continued until the death of Pius IX, who remained adamant in his opposition to the end. What gave particular bitterness to the cultural struggle on the part of Pius IX was the sense of resentment, understandable from a human point of view, that the pope, deified by the voice of the “ecumenical council” and proclaimed infallible, in reality found himself deprived of his centuries-old heritage - was not a pope - a king, possessing two swords - spiritual and secular, but was simply a “Vatican prisoner”, since after the papal region was taken away from him and There is nothing left in Rome except the Vatican and the palaces connected to it. But the more furiously the pope from his imprisonment thundered anathemas against the perpetrators of this “robbery of God,” trying to incite governments and peoples to take revenge for the desecration of his rights. However, everything was in vain, and the Vatican prisoner could only helplessly lead a hopeless opposition to the established order of things. The position of the pope in Rome, however, was precisely determined, and everything was done on the part of the Italian government to place him in conditions of the free exercise of his spiritual power. For this purpose, a guarantee law was drawn up in the spirit of Cavour’s ideal (1871) of “a free church in a free state,” but the pope indignantly rejected it. This bill granted the pope in perpetuity all the rights and honors of an independent spiritual ruler: the sacredness and inviolability of his person, his own guard, his own postal and telegraph department, free communication with foreign powers, extraterritoriality of his palaces, namely the Vatican, the Lateran and the summer palace of Castel Gandolfo, then annually, equal to previous income, free from all duties and taxes a lease of 3 1/2 million francs, finally, unconditional and unlimited freedom in the exercise of all the rights of church primacy with the complete renunciation of state interference in the occupation of episcopal sees and the distribution of benefits. The right of the lower clergy to appeal to the secular court was then eliminated, and from all state rights in church affairs, only the right of exequatur in electing bishops was left to the king, i.e. the bare right to introduce prelates appointed by the pope into the possession of the house and income belonging to the see. But even such a breadth of rights could not at all satisfy the pope and force him to come to terms with the loss of secular power, and therefore this bill, even before its presentation to parliament, was proclaimed by the Vatican as absurd, insidious, deceptive and insulting to the successor of the prince of the apostles - St. Petra. The pope rejected the government lease as an insult to himself, and then, refusing all relations with the predatory Quirinal. Having become the residence and main palace of the new government, considering the very soil of Rome as if defiled by the presence of the thief of the temporal power of the papacy, Pius IX was imprisoned in the Vatican and, as a Vatican prisoner, scattered curses on all enemies and complaints to the Roman Catholic people about his difficult prisoner situation. In this sad situation, he was consoled by the happiness that befell him, unparalleled in the history of the papacy, to live to see the 25th anniversary of his papacy, which was until then considered unattainable for popes, since this, according to Roman tradition, was the limit of papacy for the apostle himself. Petra. This was not without all sorts of demonstrations from enthusiastic fans of the papacy. The latter offered him a golden throne and the title of “great,” which he, however, humbly refused, but with a special sense of gratitude accepted the golden crown of thorns made for his anniversary by noble Parisian ladies. In order to visually depict the pope's captivity, in Belgium, in favor of Petrov's denarius, even straws from the pope's prison were sold for ½ franc apiece and for the same price special photographic cards on which the “Vatican prisoner” himself was depicted behind an iron grate on straw. Pious Catholics from the common people, of course, believed this myth, diligently spread by various priests, and did not know what kind of notorious prison the pope actually had. And in this “dungeon,” that is, the Vatican, as we know, there are 13 large halls, 11,500 rooms, 236 staircases, 218 corridors, 2 chapels, several museums, archives, libraries, large magnificent gardens, etc., which all give a completely different idea of ​​the life of a Vatican prisoner. Pius IX had even greater consolation in the numerous enthusiastic declarations of devotion to him on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the episcopacy (in June 1877), when not only did masses of congratulators arrive from all countries, but the papal treasury was replenished with the strengthened denarius of Peter, which reached the venerable figure of 16 ½ million. francs This militant head of the Roman church died on February 7th. 1878, 86 years old, after almost 32 years of papacy. In his person, the ancient saying with which from time immemorial until 1846 was addressed to every new pope at his coronation collapsed: “Non videbis annos Petri” (“you will not see the years of Peter”). He not only saw them, but also survived this limit for several years. One can get some idea of ​​the pope's supposed misery as a Vatican prisoner from the fact that his secretary of state, Cardinal Antonelli, who died in 1876, left behind a personal fortune of 100 million, of which 30 million in diamonds and other precious stones. Election of a new pope. - Its characteristic features. The opposite of its predecessor. Dad is a diplomat. – Settlement of relations with the powers. - The situation in Italy. – 50th Anniversary. - Dad is like a teacher. – His numerous encyclicals. – Encyclical on the Union of Churches. – General characteristics of Leo XIII. When Pope Pius IX died, short-sighted people imagined that the papacy itself had gone to the grave with him. He ended his life as a dethroned ruler who was at odds with almost all the states of the earth, cursing the entire new direction of culture, although it could no longer be turned back, and declaring himself the infallible vicegerent of God. The thought involuntarily appeared that the papacy, inseparably associated with it, would perish along with the church state, especially since this system, taken to the extreme, could only count on rejection by all educated humanity. But at the same time they forgot that human affairs, partly due to the inability of people, and even more due to selfish interests, consist of contradictions and are never brought to completion. The conclave for the election of a new pope took place in Rome itself in the usual manner and took place with such calm and freedom as had never been seen before. And only one thing reminded us of the unusualness of the ended papacy, that extreme cardinals, such as the Jesuit Francelin, thought that the new pope could only be called Pius again. But even this fantasy, as if the papacy would die without Pius, shattered before the sober attitude of the newly elected one to the cause. Unloved by Pius and feared by his all-powerful secretary of state Antonelli, the newly elected pope, Cardinal Joachim Pecci, out of gratitude to Leo XII, who had assisted him in his career, called himself Leo XIII 32 . Joachim Pecci was born on March 2, 1810 in Carpineto, a small town in the diocese of Anania. Coming from the patrician house of Siena, he studied first with the Jesuits in Viterbo, then at the Roman College under their leadership, and finally at the noble academy in Rome, leaving the school of papal diplomats. He passed all courses with honors; Among his comrades, he stood out for his talent and especially for his diligence, not alien to ambition. The repeated illnesses which weakened his health for the rest of his life were probably the result of overwork on his delicate frame. The Jesuit education of his mind corresponded to his upbringing in purely monastic-ascetic piety. His mother, herself a member of the Third Order of St. Franziska already laid the foundation for this in her parents' house. Not the slightest breath of the newest spirit had yet touched the young man when, already at the age of twenty, the household prelate of Gregory XVI, he embarked on the path of a papal government career. On New Year's Day, 1838, he celebrated his first Mass and then slowly rose through the usual hierarchical ladder until Pope Pius IX finally brought him closer to the Vatican. However, neither Pius IX himself liked him, nor hated him like books; he seemed too devoted to literature and science, and for the latter he was too smart, and both seemed too pliable in his political mode of action, in which he tried in every possible way to avoid fundamental issues. When, shortly before his death in 1877, the pope appointed him as his camerlengo, that is, head of administration during the vacancy of the papal see, he clearly showed that he did not want to see him as his successor. Like the Secretary of State, the camerlengo is usually not taken into account in new papal elections. And, however, experts on the state of Roman affairs had already predicted his election. Everywhere he went, he discovered great, and at the same time, reasonable energy. Among the Italian cardinals he was considered indisputably the most capable. All those who were dissatisfied with the passionate flaunting of the former pope specifically in relation to secular governments now wanted to see a pope who would at least act in more moderate forms, and this is exactly what everyone noticed in Pecci in all his actions. In general, he seemed to be the most suitable person to ascend to the vacant papal throne, especially since there were generally few cardinals suitable for the papacy. And he was elected by the third vote on February 20, and out of 61 votes he received 44. He had no shortage of ardent opponents who did not fail to expose his weaknesses. They said that, while a bishop in Perugia, he only occasionally celebrated Mass and, moreover, did not perform a prayer of thanksgiving after it, that he was ambitious and arrogant. They also pointed out that the ladies did not find him handsome enough: having become accustomed to the full forms and elegant movements, to the pretty face and magnificent organ of speech of Pius IX, they could not imagine Joachim Pecci, almost entirely made of skin and bones, with his angular, undisciplined manners and his hoarse voice, as the wearer of the papal robes. His mouth and ears seemed too large, and with his sharp, penetrating eyes, his artificial smile gave the impression of a grimace. His most ardent opponents are the cardinals of Monaco and Berarti. they were so forgotten that they even mockingly reproduced his voice and manners. Soon disappointments with the new pope began. According to custom, the elected pope places his cardinal's hat on one of his favorites, thereby performing the first act of his papal jurisdiction, namely the appointment of a cardinal. Everyone was expecting this act with great tension, and further thought that they already knew the luckiest one. Meanwhile, Leo XIII, having put on the papal robe, took off his cardinal's hat and hid it in his pocket. The second disappointment he inflicted on the people, who were expecting his first papal blessing from an open bier in Peter's Square, but had to rush to the basilica, since it became known that the pope would perform the blessing from a bier in the church. The third disappointment was experienced by strict experts in ritual when they noticed that the pope did not strictly adhere to the established rules in this ceremony. The completion of the complex enthronement ceremonies was the coronation, which Leo XIII ordered to be performed on himself on March 3, not in the church of St. Peter, and as a “prisoner of the Vatican” - in the Sistine Chapel. A triple crown was placed on his head, as a sign of world domination, with the well-known proud words: “Accept this tiara decorated with three crowns and know that you are the father of princes and kings, the ruler of the earthly circle, the vicar of our Redeemer Jesus Christ on earth.” With the death of Pius IX, to the great chagrin of the magnificent prelates, the reign of abundance in Rome ended, as well as the financial exploitation of the highest positions, which Cardinal Antonelli had once shamelessly used. Already as Camorlengo, the new pope introduced the most stingy management in the Vatican. He made sure that not a single penny was wasted. By this, of course, he weakened the external splendor of the Vatican, but he managed to significantly increase its importance with his wise, diplomatically conciliatory policy. First of all, he drew attention to Prussia, where the so-called cultural struggle was still being waged aimlessly, which, however, began to weigh heavily on both sides. The old emperor, under the influence of his wife, who, being in her romantic mood inclined to ultramontantism, did not sympathize with this church struggle from the very beginning, longed for reconciliation with his Roman Catholic subjects. A stronger union of Bavaria with the empire, the already projected union with Austria, in Bismarck’s opinion, required the elimination of this struggle. Just at this time the Russian-Turkish war ended; but all of Europe was still sparkling with bayonets, and Germany, which now dominated it, made every possible effort to achieve peace. At the same time, social democracy was raising its head more and more, so that in this new internal struggle it was impossible to do without the participation of the clergy. When, on June 2, 1878, there was a vile attempt on the life of the venerable German emperor in his own residence, the politics in the empire changed sharply and from liberal became conservative. Already on March 24 - no doubt, after Bismarck brought information to Cardinal Hohenlohe - the emperor complimented the pope that he would consider his greatest happiness if the highest leadership in church affairs was now in the hands of the pope - which began peace negotiations between representatives of both sides. The warm welcome provided by Herm. to the Crown Prince in the Vatican (1883) indicated a complete turn of events. Prussian church laws were gradually abolished, like parts of a building being sold for scrap being taken away. Only small fragments remained, which, given the direction of the government favorable to ultramontantism, were not harmful to the curia, although, under the circumstances, they could serve as a real tool for repelling larger hierarchical claims. That the pope tolerated laws on royal supervision over schools, the management of church property and the obligation to declare the appointment of clergy - this, of course, true ultramontants could not forgive him. Meanwhile, Leo precisely achieved the dominance of ultramontanism in Germany, and the government has not yet succeeded in weakening the center making ever new demands, although even the pope himself, in an allocution of May 23, 1877, declared the cultural struggle with Prussia over. The most interesting, but for both sides - both for the pope and for Prince Bismarck, the most regrettable episode during these peace negotiations was the latter’s attempt to use papal authority to achieve one completely non-spiritual matter in the Reichstag. When in Berlin (at the beginning of 1887) the question was raised whether military service should be limited to three years or, as the government wished, extended for seven years, and the center, led by Windhorst, came out for the first opinion, Bismarck turned to the help of the pope to force the center to agree to the government's wishes. Leo was weak enough to humiliate his authority by bringing it to the service of this cause (with the goal, it was thought, of achieving, with the help of Bismarck, the restoration of his secular power). Bismarck had clearly hinted at this to him when two years earlier (1885) he had given him the opportunity to demonstrate papal authority to an unprecedented degree. It was Bismarck who asked him to take charge of the dispute between Germany and Spain over the Caroline Islands. The pope agreed to this with complete joy, because popes had not been in such a position since the Middle Ages, and even then such papal claims were often rejected with disdain. In Rome, again, the memory of the 15th century was suddenly resurrected, when Eugene IV, Nicholas V, Six IV could autocratically provide the king of Portugal with all the newly discovered lands between the Cape and the East Indies, Nicholas V (1454) annexed the West African coast, Alexander VI (1493), drawing a meridian along the globe, gave all the lands to the east to Portugal, and those to the west - Spain, and Leo X (1514) prepared for the King of Portugal three deeds of gift for the lands that were still subject to discovery. Didn’t Bismarck really want to return these times and again restore in full force the title of “ruler of the earthly circle”, which was given to Leo XIII at the coronation? Leo, apparently, was at least not averse to dreaming about it. He decided the matter in favor of Spain, but Bismarck himself, whom the previous pope so often cursed as the “Antichrist,” awarded him the Order of Christ with Diamonds and, in memory of this medieval event that took place at the end of the 19th century, ordered a special medal to be minted. Having settled his relations with Prussia, Leo XIII could then, without much difficulty, restore good relations with other governments. The British government was grateful to him for the fact that in 1883 he expressed disapproval of the National League in Ireland, led by the Protestant Parnell, as a revolutionary movement. Under these circumstances, the English government even leniently reacted to the fact that in 1886 60 English martyrs were canonized, whom Henry and Elizabeth (“out of hatred of the faith”) ordered to be executed, and among them Bishop Fisher, Thomas More, the mother of Cardinal Paul, etc., and that at the same time preparations were being made for the canonization of 255 further victims of the Reformation in England. Leo XIII successfully settled the papacy's relations with Russia. In 1883, an agreement was reached on the occupation of episcopal sees. In order to attract the hearts of the Slavic peoples in general, the pope in 1880 proclaimed the memory of the highly revered Slavic apostles Methodius and Cyril as a holiday for the entire Roman Catholic Church and, as a result, received declarations of devotion in the Vatican from various Slavic tribes, especially from Bohemia and Croatia. To the displeasure of the Vatican, this papal triumph was significantly weakened by the fact that in 1886, with even greater solemnity, an anniversary celebration was held in Russia in honor of these Slavic apostles, who originally belonged specifically to the Eastern Orthodox Church. To flatter the Slavic peoples, the pope allowed the Roman Catholics in Montenegro to use the Slavic language even during worship and brought a magnificent copy of the Slavic service book as a gift to the Russian emperor (in 1893), although he did not fail to achieve a concordat that was beneficial for himself even with such a stronghold of Orthodoxy on the Balkan Peninsula as Montenegro. In general, Leo XIII began to conduct Roman propaganda in the East with particular zeal. It was actively carried out in all the Orthodox countries of the Balkan Peninsula - in Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, and did not disdain to enter into an alliance even with the darkest forces, like the Istanbul movement in Bulgaria. In Beirut, in Syria; he founded, under the leadership of the Jesuits, a school under the loud name of “Catholic University”; At the end of the schism among the Uniate-Armenians that arose after the Vatican Council, an Armenian college was opened in Rome in 1883. He sent Jesuits to Armenia itself to found an educational institution and a public school there, just as the Dominicans were ordered to establish a Chaldean seminary in Mosul. He also established good relations with Persia through the Lazarists, and in India he re-established a hierarchy with a large central seminary for the entire country (1886). In Constantinople, with the permission of the Porte, the Latin patriarchal vicariate was established, and the Latin patriarchate was renewed in Alexandria. On January 9, 1897, Greek Uniates celebrated their first divine service in Constantinople in their own church. To “convert” the Eastern Church, it was supposed to found two Catholic universities - in Athens and Constantinople, but the whole thing was limited to simple rumors. In Japan, Leo XIII established a special hierarchy, although consisting of only four bishops (1890), and even from China he achieved official recognition of the rights of Catholics. Numerous papal propaganda enterprises in the Orthodox East were further strengthened by the fact that the Berlin Congress (1878) made it possible, with the help of the Austrian government, to establish the Roman hierarchy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as to achieve significant church successes in Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro. The Austrian government also helped him transfer monasteries and schools to the Jesuits (1883) in Galicia, pushing away from them the Basilian monks of the Russian-Uniate church and thus tightening even more the dead noose in which the people of this primordially Russian and Orthodox region languish. In general, Leo XIII could be quite pleased with the newest states, because most of their constitutions were based on the principle of religious indifference, as a result of which ultramontanism received the opportunity for unhindered development in them. And this is not only in Europe, but especially in America, both southern and northern. Enjoying complete freedom in the United States of America, Roman Catholicism achieved unprecedented success over a century, turning from an insignificant handful of persecuted Catholics into a powerful church with a strong hierarchy. Even in the metropolis of North America - New York, the ultramontanes secured a majority in city government, and their strength was found so dangerous that in 1893 a special anti-papal society was formed, which set as its goal the fundamental ousting of Catholics in all areas. The Pope did not miss an opportunity to encourage the American bishops to derive the greatest possible benefit from the public freedom of the country. The great American cathedral - the Baltimore one, by whose decision a Catholic University was founded in Washington in 1887, took place according to a plan developed in Rome itself. The United States even received a papal nunciature in 1893. In 1887, the pope sent the Empress of Brazil a golden rose for enacting a law against slavery, and issued an encyclical of the same content to the bishops, and for this even the liberals glorified him, although they darkened the pope's joy by proclaiming freedom of religion in the same year and abolishing the fifth paragraph of the constitution, according to which the Roman Catholic religion was considered the state religion. But dad himself was not embarrassed by anything. As soon as the Emperor was overthrown in 1890. Don Pedro and a republic was proclaimed, as the pope hastened to recognize it in order to benefit from the new order of things. At the anniversary of the discovery of America in 1892, he wanted to take part in it by organizing a larger church celebration in Italy, Spain and all of America, because Columbus undertook this dangerous journey out of a pious desire to spread the gospel. By this he tried to give the holiday a papal church flavor. He spoke fundamentally in a special encyclical to the North American bishops in 1895 about the state of church affairs in their republics. These republics, in his opinion, arose with the help of Catholics, and since that time North America has enjoyed a well-ordered hierarchy. How beneficial the church is - this was especially revealed there. It cares not only for the salvation of souls, but also for the earthly welfare of the people, as if it were primarily instituted for the latter. Trying to settle his relations with various powers, Leo XIII strictly adhered to the irreconcilable policy of his predecessor towards Italy and continued to play the role of a “Vatican prisoner”. All his statements regarding Italy, as well as partly his conciliatory attitude towards other governments, even aroused the suspicion that his main interest was concentrated on the restoration of the church state. And this is absolutely true, as the pope himself and especially his many fans, both in the press and at public meetings, did not stop declaring that secular power is absolutely necessary for the pope and sooner or later history itself will come to his aid in this regard. The more outspoken of the papists directly stated that the question of restoring the temporal power of the pope was only a matter of time, and at the first shock of Europe by a great war, the papal state would again rise from its ruins as a necessary factor in the pan-European peace. How much the pope longs for this happy moment is shown by the psychologically curious fact that he was not averse to ingratiating himself even with Protestant sovereigns (such as Germany) and in the same secret hope he hastened to formally recognize the French Republic (1892), although its leaders did everything they could to offend the conscience of the French people with their anti-Christian antics. One cannot help but marvel at the persistence with which the papacy, even in the person of such a far-sighted representative as Leo XIII, strives to restore its secular power, which in reality has always been a pitiful ghost, making the pope with his puppet army a toy in the hands of clever politicians. As a spiritual shepherd, the pope can gain much more influence and importance among the people than as a tiny secular sovereign, as was discovered on the 50th anniversary of his priesthood, January 1, 1888. On this occasion, expressions of reverence and respect came to him from all over the world, such as had never befallen any sovereign before him, or even any other pope. It was truly congratulatio urbis et orbis, - “congratulations from the city and the whole world,” - as if in fact the pope was “the ruler of the earthly circle.” So many gifts from all countries flowed into the Vatican that it was hardly possible to receive more. Almost all states sent special embassies to congratulate the pope. It seemed as if the whole world had gone on a pilgrimage to the eternal city. Deputies with greetings were from Germany, Austria, England, Russia, France, Belgium, Spain. Portugal, Greece. Turkey, Morocco, China, Japan, Persia, etc. Countless parties of pilgrims joined them. Filled with deep joy at the sight of this great triumph, Leo founded a new order with the inscription: pro ecclesia et pontifice (“for the church and the high priest”). Much of this, of course, depended on the zeal of such ardent admirers of the “infallible” head of the church as the Jesuits: but it cannot be denied that the moral authority of the papacy increased significantly precisely due to the fact that the pope no longer acted as a puppet sovereign, but simply as the spiritual shepherd of a huge flock. The deprivation of the papacy of secular power had a beneficial effect on Leo XIII in that he, being freed from the burden of civil affairs, could concentrate more on activities more akin to his rank, namely teaching. And indeed, no other pope was as zealous for teaching as Leo XIII. From the papal see he made a kind of academic chair, from which he tirelessly taught orbem et urbem in his numerous encyclicals. Almost from the very moment of his accession to the throne, encyclicals were published on the most diverse subjects, often even touching on world issues that worried modern humanity. Already on June 1, 1879, Leo issued a letter to the bishops of Upper Italy against the law on civil marriage. In this message he says that the essence of marriage is of a religious nature, and the state can only determine its civil consequences. He also develops Church teaching on marriage in the encyclical of February 10, 1880. Adam, he argues, was created from the clay of the earth, and from his side, during sleep, a rib was taken to create Eve. The solemnization of marriage is therefore a matter of divine right, and the State should have nothing to do with it. Civil marriage, therefore, is unacceptable; marriage cannot be separated from the sacrament. Happy Ap. Peter in 1881, the pope used it to teach the world in a special encyclical about state power: this power, he writes, was completed in the creation of the Roman Catholic state by the pope, but was weakened by the crazy innovations of the Reformation. It was then that they began to demand more freedom for themselves than they should, and arbitrarily began to determine the very source of civil power. Following the so-called enlightenment philosophy of the 18th century, some derive it even from the will of the people. Catholics, on the contrary, teach that the “right to command” comes from God. This does not apply to forms of government. The so-called Reformation, whose leaders and supporters rebelled against secular power, was followed in Germany by destructive revolutions. From the Reformation arose the philosophy of the eighteenth century with the aforementioned new doctrine of the supremacy of the people. And then it led to communism, socialism, nihilism. Like his predecessors, the pope concludes, he has repeatedly offered his help to the sovereigns against these evils and is ready to offer it now: but for this they must also give the church complete freedom so that it can help them. As if summarizing his entire worldview, the pope in the same sense extends on the occasion of his episcopal jubilee in the encyclical of 1894 to all sovereigns and peoples about the relationship between state and church and demands from the entire Christian world that it submit to him: his joy on the occasion of countless good wishes was darkened only by the fact that many deviated from his teaching. But, as the vicegerent of God, who wants the salvation of all, he, towards the end of his life, in accordance with the high priestly prayer of I. Christ, wants “all to be one.” He inspires the East that he was once obedient to the popes. The complete unity established by Christ consists not merely of faith, but of government. The words of Christ: “You are Peter,” etc., were applied to popes from the very beginning. After, of course, a not particularly kind portrayal of Protestantism, Leo inspired his followers that Christ entrusted the legitimate teaching of the faith to the apostle. Peter and his successors. Catholics joyfully obey the latter, because the church is “a perfect society established by God for the instruction of all mankind. As such, it has all the rights of itself and should enjoy unconditional freedom in its legislation. That she constantly enjoyed certain rights is evidenced by her treaties with states. Secular power also has its own rights, but must be consistent with the church. The Masons acted most destructively against the church, especially in Roman Catholic states like Italy and France. The church alone is able to heal the disorder of the present time: militarism, socialism and political partisanship. The struggle between freedom and power is eliminated by the church teaching that, according to the will of God, some must command and others must obey, no matter what the nature of the form of government. Returning to papal world dominion, Leo teaches that the conversion of the whole world to Christianity had already begun, but this work was destroyed by the Reformation, which made it impossible to repeat the Crusades. The present means of communication are very conducive to the unification of the whole world. Just as the end of the last century brought about revolution and division, so the Pope wants the end of the present century to bring unity. Sovereigns are especially obliged to promote this. The “infallible teacher of humanity” could not, of course, remain mute in relation to a social issue as burning as a moral one. Already on December 28, 1878, he condemned social democracy, its origin, leading to the rejection of everything supernatural, which began with the Reformation and reached manifestation in the liberalism of states and secret societies. But at the same time, the pope came out with great zeal in favor of the working class, and did not hesitate to even take that unsafe path in which he recognized state protection against employers as an inalienable right for these “dispossessed.” He had already expressed this principle before, and in 1891 he published a large encyclical directly on the labor question. The Pope begins by presenting an extremely difficult philosophical and legal doctrine of property, namely land ownership. Then he condemns the abnormal condition in which the minority of the propertied class imposes a heavy yoke on the mass of the proletariat, and even goes so far as to admit the absurd social-democratic situation that wealth can only be acquired by the labor of workers, as if capital, intelligence, spiritual activity and risk play no part in this. The state, the pope continues, must take care of meeting the most pressing needs of the workers. In places from the Old Testament and Thomas Aquinas, in conclusion, the pope recommends to the workers the establishment of unions, especially guilds on a church basis, the establishment of religious orders over which the state has no power. Leo XII speaks even more in a social-democratic spirit in 1893 in a message to the chairman of the Swiss workers' union, Decourtin, where he says that he is very interested in the issue of improving the poor lot of workers and is concerned about this, as far as possible, before the powers that be, “so that such a numerous and useful class of people is not abandoned and helplessly sacrificed to the greedy class, which exploits all poverty.” A Congress of Workers of Various Denominations could well benefit from the teachings set forth in its Encyclical on Workers. Just as the Church abolished ancient slavery, so it now has the means to improve the lot of the working class - not through a violent revolution, but through its teaching. And in accordance with this teaching, not long ago (1897), with the blessing of the pope and in the presence of several cardinals, a member of one order in Rome conducted socialist conversations in which he exhorted the spiritual more to go to the people, because the future belongs to democracy. The weaker, therefore, the curia's hopes become that the sovereigns can give it a hand in restoring the ecclesiastical state, the more, apparently, it is ready to abandon the alliance between throne and altar and throw itself into the arms of the proletariat. The more advanced age approached, the closer and closer to the pope’s heart became the question of the reunification of all churches under the motto of the high priestly prayer of Christ: ut unum sint - “that they all may be one,” although, of course, according to Vatican teaching, this unity is presented only in the sense of the subordination of the entire Christian world to the pope, as the only infallible teacher and moral ruler of mankind, the vicar of God on earth. Minor ritual differences, as in the liturgical language or in the form of communion, differences in teaching, as on the question of the marriage of priests, etc., are allowed, but no deviations in dogma and in related disciplines are allowed. In his encyclical “on the discipline of Eastern Christians” (1894), the pope says that, by virtue of the decrees of Benedict XIV, no one in the East should be forced to accept the Latin rite and that the Latin clergy there should submit to the existing (i.e., Grecouniate) hierarchy: at the same time, even the decrees of general councils that disagree with this are repealed. At the same time, the pope convened the Uniate patriarchs of the East in Rome for a meeting on the means that could contribute to the cause of reunification. In all attempts at reunification, when the intention was to make an impression in the West, Roman broadcasting always played a major role. During the Council of Trent, several eastern people dressed in rags arrived in Rome on camels, apparently coming from the country lying between the Euphrates and the Indus: they declared that there were others on the way to Rome who had fallen behind due to illness. Word quickly spread throughout the West that the East was ready to submit to the Pope. In the last century, the Copts, reunited with Rome, had ten priests. Now, in 1895, the Pope established for them, in the hope of the conversion of all their countrymen, with great noise and thunder, the Patriarchate of Alexandria with two episcopal sees. In his invitation, which the pope addressed in the aforementioned encyclical to all sovereigns and peoples, he very easily glided over all the difficulties standing on the path to reunification, especially in relation to the Eastern churches, which he, despite their denial of the papacy, already treated as if they were brothers in faith. That fatherly sympathy with which he went to meet them, promising all kinds of leniency in external affairs, was meanwhile only a bait to prepare their final transition. The Russian Uniates in Galicia could tell a lot about how the Curia, having reunited them with flattery and deceit, tried, with the help of the Jesuits, to impose Latin rites and strictly Roman discipline on them. Leo himself, in 1891 and 1892, forbade the continuation of the marriage concluded before ordination for the Rusyns and other Uniates in America who moved to America, just as during the Vatican Council the Uniate Armenians were forced to renounce their national-ecclesiastical rights. When decisive protests followed from all affected parties, from the Orthodox East, the British, and Protestants to the papal demand for submission, then in 1896 the pope tried in his new encyclical “on the unity of the church” to once again theologically substantiate this demand with the help of an allegedly scientific defense of the new Vatican dogmas. However, the Anglicans are right. theologians and Old Catholics immediately revealed the tricks that Leo XIII allowed himself, so as not to expose new dogmas in their repulsive form, as well as those gross reinterpretations and even distortions of biblical and patristic passages, which he en masse, but randomly and taken out of context, cited in favor of his teachings. A long series of evidence and historical facts were put forward against him, which clearly showed the groundlessness of his arguments. The pope found some sympathy in England, where Lord Halifax sought unity with Rome, and one French Lazarist, in sweet words, recommended an easy papal yoke to the English. The Pope even established a special commission tasked with investigating the validity of Anglican initiations. That the papal decision turned out to be negative was to be expected with certainty, because Rome never recognized these dedications. The basis for this decision was that Anglican ordinations lack both Catholic form and correct intention. There was great excitement in the Anglican Church about this decision. Lord Halifax and his friends were completely disappointed, and all hopes of reunion were dispelled. Thus, the papacy, which proclaimed itself “infallible,” unsuccessfully tried to prove its imaginary infallibility to the whole world, uttering its broadcasts on a wide variety of issues that concern humanity. And all these broadcasts proved only one thing, how vain are the efforts of man to rise above his limitations and to arrogate to himself the authority that belongs only to the universal church, as the only and truly infallible one, called upon to gradually raise humanity to the light of revealed truth. 15. The Papacy and modern France Modern France as the main distributor of the spirit of unbelief and denial. – Religious and political unrest in it. – The newest exponent of this negative spirit. – Ernest Renan and the characteristics of his personality. - The fruits of his teaching. – Cultural struggle in France. - Persecution of the church. – Politics of Leo XIII. – Recognition of the republic and the significance of this fact. Of all the Roman Catholic countries, Leo XIII was destined to suffer the most grief from his beloved daughter, the longtime patroness of Rome. Churches - France. This life, starting from the last century, was a stormy sea, in which the ebb and flow of spiritual life constantly changed, and the dominance of the church was established, then again overthrown by a tide of wild unbelief and denial when not only the church with its hierarchy and orders, but also Christianity itself was subjected to persecution and mockery. These fluctuations were clearly reflected in the fate of one of the most remarkable churches in Paris - the so-called Pantheon. This classical-style building was founded by Louis XV as a church in honor of St. Genevieve, patroness of Paris. The Constituent National Assembly decided to turn it into a burial place for the great sons of France. The reason for this was the very style of the building in the form of the Roman Pantheon, as a result of which it was given this pagan name, as corresponding to its national purpose. On the pediment the inscription read: “Grateful fatherland to great people.” The ashes of Voltaire and Rousseau, as well as Napoleon’s most devoted servants, were buried here, and only “due to the lack of great men, some cardinals, senators and dignitaries were buried.” Upon the return of the Bourbons, the coffins of the “Fernay patriarch” and the Genevan philosopher were removed, and the Pantheon was again returned to Christian worship: “St. Louis XV dedicated it to Genevieve, Louis XVIII returned it to her,” the inscription read. But King Louis Philippe, trying to please the liberal clique of the country, again ordered the inscription of the national assembly to be restored, and at the same time reproduced in an artistic image, as a result of which the pediment was decorated with a relief image in marble. In the middle of the image, France and Liberty stand as allegorical figures. On one side of them are representatives of military glory: Napoleon I - still with long hair, as he wore it as a Republican general of the Italian army, and next to him the little drummer Viola, who beat the general march on the Arcole Bridge, under a hail of grapeshot; around him are various heroes of France. On the other side are representatives of the civil order, and juxtaposed are persons of such opposite character as Mirabeau and Lafayette, Fenelon and Laplace, Rousseau and Voltaire with their sarcastic smile on their distorted lips. When this image was discovered in July 1873, Archbishop Quelin issued a circular of this kind to the priests of Paris. “In view of the great temptation that, in the face of the sun, is exhibited on our holy mountain, in view of this more than sacrilegious emblem, taking the place of the cross of Jesus Christ, in front of the crowned images of godless, impudent and seductive writers, placed in the place of the image of Humility and the Blessed Virgin, whose protection delivered the capital from the greatest disasters, the faith of Clodovic, Charlemagne and Saint Louis, the faith of France utters a painful cry: The clergy and all believers must respond to it with sighs and tears. May Heaven be satisfied with this redemption! Then came the order to perform special public prayers in the form of atonement. Under Napoleon III, the Pantheon was again dedicated to St. Genevieve, until a new revolution in the opinion of the government again led to the restoration of the pagan cult in this multi-stadal temple. These changes in the fate of the Church of St. Genevieves serve as a striking reflection of the fate of religion itself in France, which, since the end of the last century, being infected with the poison of skepticism and unbelief poured into its veins by Voltaire, has, in essence, never been freed from this poison, which poisoned all its vital juices. The fierce hatred of this unbeliever for the church and Christianity, expressed in the blasphemous call: “exterminate the reptile,” was instilled in the French intelligentsia to such an extent that the latter, having been brought up in complete alienation from the church, at every opportunity showed its hostility towards it and towards Christianity itself, sometimes not even embarrassed by measures of violence and oppression. This mood of the intelligentsia was also promoted by another writer, who, in terms of his influence on the minds of our century, may well be placed on the same level as Voltaire, with the difference, however, that his influence was much deeper, since he, not limiting himself to a superficial mockery of the truths of faith and Christianity, but allegedly armed with all the data of the latest scientific research, directly cut down all of Christianity at the root, bringing it down to the same level with natural religions and its most important explaining facts with illusions and phantasmagoria. We mean Ernest Renan, the author of the notorious “Life of Jesus” and a whole series of other similar works, saturated with the poison of anti-Christianity. This writer - a rationalist who enjoyed enormous popularity, which in some circles of the intelligentsia turned into a kind of superstitious cult - truly was the evil genius of our century and we can safely say that there is no more or less major evil that depresses the life of modern humanity, which could not be put in a genetic connection with his literary activity. Therefore, the characteristics of his personality and activities are far from superfluous in the picture of the mental mood of our century. The personality of E. Renan is a very interesting and even instructive phenomenon from a psychological point of view, providing a striking example of how, in the cycle of historical trends, even gifted people can go astray and perish for the truth. Originally from Brittany (born in 1823), Renan, as is known, received his initial upbringing in the deepest church-religious spirit, which generally distinguishes his compatriots, who, living aloof from all the worries of modern thought and life, preserve the faith and traditions of their fathers with amazing simplicity and cordiality. In view of this, his parents could not imagine a higher goal of ambition than for their son to enter the clergy and become a priest, although this step in the Roman Catholic Church has that tragic side for family ambition, that the issue of ending the family is associated with it. The little Breton actually entered the local provincial theological seminary, in his hometown of Third, where he immediately discovered his strong talent, which, together with a deep religious and moral mood, gave reason to the spiritual and educational authorities to hope that over time he would become a remarkable champion and representative of the Roman Catholic Church. For this purpose, for further theological and scientific education, he was sent by his spiritual authorities to Paris, where he first took a course at the general education college of St. Nicholas, and then at the special theological higher school of St. Sulpicius. Renan at this time was about sixteen years old, and this transition from a remote provincial town to a noisy and brilliant capital made a huge impression on the young Breton youth. In his Memoirs, he himself says that this transition had as strong a meaning for him as a sudden leap from the Sandwich Islands to France could have. And for the integrity of his church-religious worldview, it had exactly the same significance as Luther’s first visit to Rome. Here a completely new world, hitherto unknown to him, opened up before him. College of St. Nicholas, this brainchild of Jesuitism, created so that, serving as an institution for the joint education of the most gifted representatives of the church together with the children of the influential, highest family aristocracy, it could maintain and strengthen the connection between the church and the high society, it was distinguished by the usual lack of Jesuit institutions. Raising young people in an extremely one-sided, scholastic spirit, capable of casting a shadow on Christianity itself, in the name of which, however, this education was carried out, at the same time she could not completely shield her pupils from the influences of the surrounding world with its dangerous temptations and trends. And these trends, emanating from representatives of fashionable, of course, liberal and anti-church literature, rushed into the college in a stormy stream and, with the charm of their novelty, captivated the youth languishing in scholasticism, awakening in them first disbelief, and then outright hostility to everything ecclesiastical and religious, which was naturally identified in their minds with scholasticism, which they hated 33 . The young Renan also succumbed to this hobby, especially when he noticed that the very religiosity of his new teachers - the Parisian priests - did not at all resemble the Breton sincerity and simplicity so sympathetic to him, and was distinguished by obvious artificiality, stilted piety, purely Jesuitical soullessness, so that theology itself, having lost its seriousness and depth, turned into some kind of motley mixture of positions designed for the mind and taste of muslin young ladies. At the sight of all this, the crack that had such fatal consequences for him first appeared in the soul of the young Breton. After completing a three-year course at this college, Renan moved to the famous school of St. Sulpicius, which was the highest academy of theological sciences in France. There he found a more strict theological and ecclesiastical atmosphere and had to seriously engage in dogmatics and patrolology. But these sciences had already lost their charm for him, and since they were taught in a dry form that was unsympathetic to him, with the elimination of all living thought as dangerous to theology, he took up almost exclusively philology and philosophy. In the latter, his ideal became the English philosopher Thomas Reed, who, as a Presbyterian, finally undermined his faith in the validity of Roman Catholicism and Renan had a secret desire to become a Protestant in order to have complete freedom for theological thinking. But taking this step meant breaking with the entire past, with all the dear memories of childhood, and Renan at that time experienced a difficult internal struggle. He had not yet abandoned the thought of becoming a priest, hoping that the hard, responsible work of a shepherd would suppress his doubts and restore the integrity of his broken worldview, and at the same time he was afraid of this step. Meanwhile, he was offered a position as a lecturer of oriental languages ​​at the Academy of St. Sulpicia, and this circumstance decided his fate. To expand and deepen his philological knowledge, he turned to German literature, and it was there that he first met “his dear teacher,” David Strauss, who made an irresistible impression on his shattered soul. Renan became his ardent follower and enthusiastic admirer, and all his further literary activity developed under his demonic influence. But there was still a huge difference between teacher and student. David Strauss came to his sad theory with purely German composure, and consistently developing the extreme Hegelian positions, namely the idea of ​​​​the identity of idea and reality, subject and object, with the help of ponderous argumentation he applied them to the Gospel story, which he turned into a series of mythical fictions, created supposedly by the national Jewish imagination on the basis of Old Testament facts and aspirations. Therefore, for his cold, soulless logical thinking, it was absolutely indifferent that the divine personality of Christ, by faith in Whom the entire modern civilized world lives and moves, turned into a mythical ghost, an abstract idea. Renan had a completely different attitude towards this. A terrible internal struggle was taking place in him, and his mind, already poisoned by the poison of doubt and rationalism, could not overcome his heart, which continued to live by the same religious worldview and felt an instinctive fear that with the destruction of this worldview all the happiness of existence would collapse, the very meaning of life would be lost. And this internal discord constitutes the most striking feature of his entire personality and left an indelible stamp on his entire life and work. It is clearly felt even in those of his works in which his rationalistic unbelief was most strongly expressed, as, for example, in his notorious “Life of Jesus” (published in 1863). Due to this internal discord, he did not have enough spirit to follow his teacher so much as to follow him in rejecting the Gospel story as a myth. No, without any sufficient grounds, he betrayed his teacher and turned his mythical theory into a semi-mythical one, by virtue of which he began to recognize that Christ was a real historical figure, only embellished by subsequent legends, and then, as if rejoicing at the salvation of this person from drowning in the terrible nirvana of German mythism, he, by the attraction and command of his heart, turns to her in many places with such enthusiastic reverence and worship, with how only a Roman Catholic priest can address some illustrious Madonna or “the sweetest heart of Jesus.” Obviously, here, too, in this most daring and extreme work of his unbelief and rationalism, Renan turned out to be nothing more than (in his own words) a “failed priest,” a Latin priest, who, by the bitter irony of fate, had to serve not Christ, but Belial. All of his further works, which have as their subject the “origin of Christianity,” are distinguished by exactly the same character. His works, which quickly followed one another: “The Apostles” (1866), “St. Paul” (1869), “Antichrist” (1871), “The Gospel” (1877), “The Christian Church” (1878), “Marcus Aurelius and the End” the ancient world" (1882) - all these works, including subsequent philosophical and autobiographical works, present the same picture of internal discord in their author, and, moreover, discord that does not even weaken over time, as would be natural to expect in view of the author’s persistent attachment to this field of study, but noticeably intensifies. Here again the enormous difference between student and teacher was evident. Strauss, as we know, having taken the direct rationalistic path, with purely German consistency, followed it to the end and finally threw himself into the arms of the crudest, non-philosophical materialism, which he preached in his last work: “The Old and New Faith.” For his part, Renan, having given the boldest expression of his unbelief in the Life of Jesus, seemed to be afraid of his own boldness, and therefore all his subsequent works represent, in essence, a gradual retreat from his previous position, although the retreat is skillfully disguised. This explains why his subsequent works increasingly disappointed his most ardent admirers, and they finally stopped expecting anything from him that could flatter the increasingly developing spirit of disbelief and rationalism in society. The “History of Israel” aroused his comparatively more lively interest, especially with its promising “introduction”, where the author intended to complete all his previous works in it, and, therefore, to give in it the final expression of his religious and philosophical views, but it was enough for the first two volumes of this work to appear for general disappointment to follow, since it turned out that this work was the same combination of internal contradictions that distinguished all his previous works. In the “introduction” to this work, he, among other things, with blasphemous audacity, attaches to himself the words of St. Simeon the God-Receiver, says that, having completed this work, he will have the right to exclaim: “Now do You let Your servant go in peace, according to Your word.” Alas, by the very nature of his work, he could least of all count on achieving this world, and indeed did not achieve it, just as a man could not achieve it, in whose soul, despite external calm, a terrible struggle was taking place, and the angel of the heart was waging a bloody but hopeless struggle with the demon of the mind. This inner discord of his found an even more vivid, one might say tragically sad, expression in his last philosophical works to which he mainly devoted the last years of his life. In his essay on the “future of science,” he came to the sad conviction that science is not able to give a decisive answer to any of those eternal questions that trouble the human soul, that reason, this idol that our time serves, is in fact not a creative force, but a destructive one, and the so-called religion of reason is just pathetic empty talk. To say this for a person who has devoted his entire life to worshiping this idol, to preaching religion reason, meant to smash with one blow all his many years of construction, meant to trample on what he worshiped. And Renan, indeed, in the end, smashed his idol and in the same work openly preached how faith and the church are more important and higher than reason and science, to the horror of his fans, towards the end of his life he began to piously perform the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, and treated his simple-hearted faith with touching tenderness. fellow countrymen. Visiting his homeland in Brittany from time to time, he almost cried at the sight of the integrity of religious and moral existence that he found among the villagers, and repeatedly, at parting, he convinced them with sincere pathos to keep this holy, simple-hearted faith intact. Having lost this treasure himself, he valued it all the more highly among others. “I love this simple faith,” he exclaims at one point. A villager without religion is an ugly beast, because he then has no sign of humanity. Therefore, it is my custom: in the village I go to mass, in the city I laugh at those who go to church. Sometimes I am ready to cry when I think that by my views I separate myself from the great religious family to which all those whom I love belong, and when I imagine that the best souls in the world consider me an atheist, evil, damned, and they should consider me such, for their faith prompts them to do so. But the worst thing is when a woman and a child begin to ask: “In the name of heaven, believe as we believe, otherwise you will be cursed, and in order not to believe with them,” he concludes, “you must be either very learned or very evil.” In reality, Renan was neither very learned nor very evil, but was an unfortunate victim of internal discord, with which he went to his grave. The same pitiful picture of internal self-contradiction was presented by the notorious idol of modern unbelief and rationalism. But, despite this internal impotence, Renan nevertheless had a tremendous influence on our time, and in the worldview of the so-called “intelligentsia” he occupies perhaps the most prominent place. In view of everything stated above, one could only be surprised at this; but this phenomenon, strange at first glance, can be fully explained if we pay attention to the external side of the matter. Renan, being powerless internally, made an extraordinary impression with the external form of his works. He was a remarkable stylist who knew how to combine lightness of thought with charming effectiveness of presentation, so that in this regard even his enemies and opponents could not deny him a strong talent, although they regretted that it was wasted on such a destructive task. All his works in this regard shone with fireworks of a luxurious style, seductively acting on the semi-educated masses, and since this magnificent style was combined with a very tempting, romantic thought, which set out to eliminate everything divine and supernatural from Christianity, leaving behind, however, the highest ideal of humanity, undercut by the sugary sentimentalism of amateurish double-mindedness, then for our double-minded century, which has already wavered in its faith in supernatural, but has not yet found anything to replace this faith, and there could be nothing more seductive than the writings of Renan. He, more than anyone else, guessed the true mood of our age, and gave it what he longed for, namely half-faith, the bringing down of the divine onto the soil of the earthly and human. But he owes the success of his works almost exclusively to the fact that in them he addressed precisely that public that most of all suffers from the malignant disease of half-belief, but which in reality controls the destinies of our time. And before there were deniers of the divine origin of Christianity, but their ideas did not come out of a limited circle of followers of one direction or another, and this rubbish of idle thought, so to speak, was not swept out of the hut onto the street. Even Strauss’s works, despite their reworking in so-called popular publications, were not widely disseminated, and the German unbeliever never emerged from the role of a reasoning aristocrat who looked down on the crowd surrounding him. The French unbeliever took a completely different view of the matter. He realized that in our age, with its shallow education, greatly spreading in breadth, but devoid of depth and solidity, with its greedy pursuit of the top and the so-called “last words of science,” with its flabby realism, oscillating between unbelief and superstition, the main power lies in the hands of that half-educated mass, that superficially enlightened motley rabble, which proudly calls itself “intelligentsia,” i.e. e is a bearer of reason, although the main source of reason for her is the flying, newspaper print in her hastily composed reasonings at random. Therefore, in his writings he addressed precisely this semi-educated crowd, which now overflows all the cities of the civilized world, and he was not mistaken in his calculation. The entire so-called intelligentsia greeted his works with delight and welcomed in him their prophet, who was able to speak to her in her own feuilleton language and flattered her superficiality with visual proof that to deny the most sublime and sacred truths does not require any deep special education, but rather just read a few entertaining books written with romantic ease. In a word - unbelief and anti-Christianity, which had previously huddled in close circles, Renan took out into the street and began to preach it to the street, albeit intelligent crowd, and as a result, with the poison of denial and unbelief, he poisoned huge masses of people who had previously not even suspected, even feared, the very possibility of such a denial of the most sacred truths that lie at the very basis of their worldview. And this poison of denial soon made itself felt in sad and painful phenomena. The semi-educated crowd, overflowing all areas of public life, having found in the writings of Renan, as it were, a new revelation, due to which there is no longer anything divine and miraculous on earth, gave full rein to their Epicureanism and began to “drink and eat” until their bellies were satiated: the urban proletariat, having heard a sermon that was understandable to them, that Christianity with its afterlife promises is a myth, and that the true kingdom should be on earth, raised cried about the bleakness of his earthly situation and demanded social reforms, and when these reforms turned out to be impossible, he pronounced a curse on the entire current social order and began a desperate struggle against it - in the name of socialism and anarchy, and thus began those terrible social upheavals that have marked the history of recent decades. And when, finally, this half-educated, corrupted by easy denial, intelligent crowd seized government power in France after the overthrow of the monarchy, it raised the banner of unbelief and denial both in the House of People's Representatives and in city municipalities, and this explains the well-known fact that the current republican government over the past decades has waged a shameful struggle against everything ecclesiastical and Christian, going so far as to exclude the very name of God from education. books and the introduction of not only civil marriage, but also “civil baptism.” And for all this wild denial there was a ready sanction: after all, this is exactly what the prophet of modern times, Renan, taught! True, the author of this negative, anti-Christian movement himself did not approve of the extremes of his fans and even tried to avoid all communication with them, which the latter were indignant at. But to deny his connection with these sad phenomena for Renan would mean the same as for an arsonist of flammable material to deny his involvement in the disaster caused by a destructive fire. And he, of course, was fully aware of this and tried to hide his embarrassment in that easy, epicurean soulless and indifferent attitude towards all major phenomena of social life, which was a distinctive feature of his mood in the last years of his life. Entirely immersed in his academic studies among the “forty immortals,” Renan eventually turned into that soulless egoist who, disillusioned with everything and everyone, gave up on the whole world with its worries and anger and was solely concerned that nothing would disturb his epicurean calm and self-satisfaction. The works of the late unbeliever were not limited in their distribution to France alone: ​​the same intelligentsia that discovered their prophet in Renan translated them into different languages ​​and distributed them throughout the world. Even the Brahmins translated them into the Indian language to show their faithful Hindus how Christians themselves dishonor their God - Christ... The main activity of this anti-Christian writer dates back to the time of Pius IX, but the fruits of this activity had to be reaped by Leo XIII, when, after the collapse of the empire under Napoleon III, the supremacy in the state passed precisely to this intelligentsia, who were entirely brought up on the works of Renan literature. True, the pogrom of France in 1870 was too formidable a blow not to have a more or less sobering effect on the people, and indeed during the first decade of the current republic, an upsurge in religious and moral life in France was even noticeable. The origin of numerous religious institutions, the opening of such famous places of pilgrimage as the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, the founding of specially Catholic universities, etc., date back to this time. In a word, it seemed that France, taught by bitter experience and imbued with the formidable warning that was given to it in the pogrom of 1870, made a sharp turn from Voltairian freethinking and Renan anti-Christianity to the former faith and piety. Of course, the church did not fail to take advantage of this, which put forward its forces to strengthen the mood favorable to him, and especially the Jesuits, who, with their characteristic energy and art, began to cover the country with a network of their institutions - especially educational and charitable in nature. But as soon as they felt the power in their hands, it immediately turned out that this activity was clearly aimed at the overthrow of the republic. This anti-republican activity was clearly sympathized with by the entire higher hierarchy, which, being in close ties with the highest French aristocracy, imbued with monarchical ideas, naturally encouraged such activity for its part. In this state of affairs, a clash became inevitable, and it occurred and was all the stronger because it was based not only on political differences of opinion, but on an even deeper and more vital difference in the worldview itself. On the one hand, there stood the French bourgeois intelligentsia, saturated to the roots with Voltairianism and Renan’s anti-Christianity, which frantically clung to the republic, as having given it power in the country, and on the other, the hierarchy with its aristotical and monarchical ideas, which tried to protect the people from the pernicious ideas of anti-Christianity and spread among them principles that were far from favorable for the republic. The sharper the contrast between these parties, the more inevitable and stronger the clash between them was bound to occur. And hostility between them soon emerged, so that the main creator of the current (third) republic in France, the notorious Gambetta, openly said that the worst enemy of the newly founded republic was clericalism (“clericalism is our enemy!”). This opinion of his was picked up by the entire radical press, and a fierce campaign against this notorious “clericalism” began, and in the heat of the struggle, even the need to differentiate between what is really clericalism, confusing God with Caesar’s, and what is the church, as the bearer of the highest spiritual goods, absolutely necessary for the normal life of every people, was forgotten. The struggle took place mainly on the basis of public education. Since public education was predominantly in the hands of monastic orders and especially the Jesuits, it was here that the republican government decided to deal the most sensual blow to “clericalism.” And so in March 1880, a law was passed by virtue of which teaching was prohibited to all those orders and congregations that were not recognized by the state, and according to the certificate it turned out that such an unrecognized order was primarily the Jesuit Order, as well as other orders and congregations, mainly holding public education in their hands. By virtue of this law, it was ordered that the Jesuits (and there were 1,480 of them, in charge of 56 institutions, mainly for children of the upper classes) and all other orders related to them (and there were 14,033 sisters with 602 institutions and 7,444 brothers with 384 institutions) closed their institutions no later than three months, under fear of fine and confiscation. A whole storm of protests naturally arose against this truly despotic law from the hierarchy and upper classes of the country. Leo XIII himself addressed the president with a letter in which he stated that the Jesuits and other persecuted orders deserved patronage, since they were necessary for the success of the church. But the leaders of the republic did not want to hear anything, and after the expiration of the deadline, the police were ordered to enforce the law. It was in vain that the Jesuits locked their establishments, even protected them with barricades, and then filed complaints in court about the encroachment on their person and property. The law was enforced with inexorable severity, which, however, outraged many police officials, especially in the provinces, where more than 200 police officers preferred to resign rather than enforce a law that was contrary to their religious conscience. This harsh fact, as well as the deep affection discovered by many villagers for their spiritual fathers, which reached the point of open battles with the police, forced the government to somewhat soften its severity, and it limited itself to the fact that only Jesuit institutions were closed, and other orders and congregations (with a few exceptions) were given the opportunity, through the execution of certain formalities, to obtain legal authorization for their activities. But at the same time, the government saw what kind of force it had to deal with, and decided to bring this fight to the end in order to completely undermine and break the clericalism it hated. To this end, it issued a whole series of new anti-church laws, by virtue of which clergy were deprived of their right to exemption from military service, troops were prohibited from attending funeral processions, cemeteries were deprived of their ecclesiastical and religious character, and the burial itself was declared a purely civil act that did not require the presence of the clergy. But even more radical in the anti-church sense was the 1886 law on compulsory public education, which at the same time was declared an exclusively state matter, and therefore a civil one, which is why the church was completely excluded from participating in it. All teaching was provided to secular teachers and female teachers, with the exception of the clergy, and in order to give the school a completely civil character, it was ordered to remove from schools all religious accessories, such as icons, crosses, etc., and textbooks were introduced in which the very word God was expelled, and Jesus Christ was considered as one of the founders of religion, in the line of Buddha and Mohammed. In a word, the ideas of Voltaire and Renan found full application in the public school, from which the Ten Commandments of the Tablet of Moses were even expelled, and instead they were taught to children “positive” morality - about the duty of everyone as a person, citizen and family man, free from any “medieval prejudices”. In order to extend this “secularization” to the family, the law of 1884 declared freedom of divorce and introduced civil marriage. Finally, directly in a spirit hostile to the church, in May 1885, the Church of St. Genevieve was again (for the umpteenth time?) deprived of its religious character and again turned into a civil semi-pagan Pantheon, as a burial place of great people, and in fulfillment of the law, the bones of Victor Hugo were transferred to it. One can imagine how much grief all these anti-church measures caused the French episcopate and all pious Frenchmen, and there was no sign of them. lack of the most energetic protests. Many bishops in their pastoral letters attacked the republican government as an incarnation of hell and appealed to their flock for the protection of the oppressed church. In response to this, the government further intensified its repressive measures: it taxed church estates, deprived obstinate bishops and priests of their salaries, and generally mercilessly hit the “clerics” in the most sensitive place, cutting the church budget. Cutting this budget in various articles, the republican government little by little reduced it by as much as ten million francs, and the main reduction fell on the article on salaries of the clergy, which was reduced by three million Franks more than once raised the question of the complete separation of church and state, the abolition of the concordat and the complete destruction of the church budget, but more moderate members of the government were always able to deviate from such an extreme, which could lead to the most dire consequences. When this fierce struggle took place and the republican clique dealt blow after blow to the church, the French episcopate, not seeing any protection for itself, naturally turned its eyes to Rome, seeking its protection and patronage. This was a heavy blow for the proud episcopate, which had always held high the banner of national independence of the church and stood up for its Gallican liberties. Now he was forced to forget about these liberties, and from his own state he began to seek protection from Rome. By necessity, he became ultramontane, and in general it must be said that the republican government, with its anti-church measures, did much more to transform the national church into an ultramontane one than all other governments, and by doing this, of course, rendered a tremendous service to the papacy, putting this obstinate, freedom-loving clergy into its hands. This explains why Leo XIII, who in his soul grieved for the oppressed church, did not actually take any energetic measures in its defense, and limited himself to only friendly letters to presidents, calling on them to moderation. Moreover, when the upset episcopate clearly opposed the republic and advocated for the restoration of the monarchy, Leo III moderated his jealousy in this regard and finally surprised everyone with the formal recognition of the republic as the legitimate form of government of France - the encyclical of February 4/16. 1892. In this encyclical, the pope completely defined his attitude towards modern France. At the beginning of the encyclical, he expresses deep sorrow that some kind of criminal conspiracy has formed in France, with the goal of destroying Christianity in the country, that the people who composed it, striving to achieve their goal, are trampling on all sorts of the most elementary concepts of freedom and justice in relation to the feelings of the majority of the French people and the inalienable rights of the Roman Catholic Church. Having pointed out what great moral harm this state of affairs threatens the country, since all the strength of the people has its source in religion and the church, the pope tries to refute the argument of the infidels, who justify their struggle against the church by the fact that the latter “seeks political domination over the state.” Leo XIII decisively rejects this and calls it slander - a repetition of the slander that was leveled against Christ, when the scribes and Pharisees accused Him of disturbing the people and forbidding them to pay tribute to Caesar (John 19:12-15), - or a repetition of the slander that the pagans brought against the leading Christians, when they were called “useless people, dangerous citizens, rebellious, enemies of the empire and emperors." The Roman Church, according to Leo XIII, is alien to all such claims and knows how to live peacefully with all governments. So it is now. After all, several forms of government have changed in France - empire, monarchy, republic. The question involuntarily arises, which of these forms is better, and the pope answers that, taken in abstraction, they are all equally good if they know how to direct themselves towards their goal, that is, towards the public good, for which public and governmental power was established. In a relative sense, whichever of these forms should be preferred is one that is more consistent with the character and morals of one or another people. Thus the question in this case is not the form of government, and Catholics can easily reconcile themselves with a republic in France, as well as with a monarchy. But one must distinguish, the pope adds, between the form of government and legislation, which can be bad in the best form of government. And this is precisely the evil of the current republican regime in France. The legislative assembly was headed by non-believers, enemies of the church, who caused all the troubles suffered by the people. But members of the legislative assembly are dependent on election by casting votes and therefore, in essence, this evil can be corrected if only the people themselves will be more attentive to their church duties and, when casting votes, will elect people more worthy of trust. On this basis, according to the pope, reconciliation between the church and the republic in France can easily take place. “We have hope and confidence,” the Pope concludes, that the clarification of these points will dispel the prejudices of many respectable people, will facilitate the calm of minds, and thereby strengthen the perfect unity of all Catholics in supporting the great cause of Christ, who in general loves the French.” – In this encyclical, Leo XIII gave an example of his skillful diplomacy, and achieved that the republican government weakened its anti-church activities, and the French episcopate lost the basis for anti-government agitation. In addition, the government itself soon became convinced through sad experience of the gloomy consequences that its consistently pursued system of “secularization” could lead to. The young generation, who went through a non-religious school, was such a sad phenomenon in moral terms that even the extreme supporters of secularization doubted the advisability of such an education, and the wild anti-state movement of anarchism that followed, which found adherents precisely among the “secularized” youth, forced the government itself to partly seek support from the church, and from there it was not far from tacitly allowing the opening of church schools under the leadership of the former exiled brothers and sisters of different orders. Thus, by the end of the century, Leo XIII managed to put an end to the “cultural struggle” in France and could calmly relate to those little troubles and misunderstandings that do not cease to occur from time to time (such as the arrest of the Assumption brothers and the closure of their congregation in the Dreyfus case in 1899) and which are inevitable in a country where, for a whole century, ideas of unbelief and denial in the spirit of Voltaire were freely preached and inculcated, Renan and their many followers. 16. Papacy's offensive movements to the East The success of the papacy in the West and its movement towards the subjugation of the Orthodox East. – Activities in this direction of the newest popes and especially Leo XIII. A grandiose plan for the formation of a Latinized Slavic world as opposed to the Orthodox Slavic world. – The fruits of the union – especially in Galicia. – The machinations of Roman propaganda in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other countries of the Balkan Peninsula. Having successfully emerged from the difficult situation created by a hostile clash with such strong states as Germany and France, the papacy could already look to the future with hope, since in all other states it easily defeated all forces hostile to it and established its dominance. In England, since the emancipation of Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church has rapidly grown and strengthened, moreover, recruiting adherents and converts from the highest aristocratic classes and even the clergy, so that the question of the complete return of England to the bosom of the Roman Church became a favorite subject of discussion among Roman publicists. But Roman propaganda could boast of small successes in such Protestant countries as Holland. Denmark and Sweden and Norway, which again began to become “Catholic”. Overseas, even in the great trans-Atlantic republic of the United States, the Roman Catholic Church, which with its strong, harmonious and tightly knit hierarchy and ten million people devoted to the church, clearly gained an advantage over scattered Protestantism, was increasingly developing and strengthening every year. But expanding and strengthening in different countries of the Western world, the papacy never lost sight of another even more important task - namely, the subjugation of the East - this cradle of Christianity, without the possession of which it cannot but feel cut off from the root of ancient historical and therefore truly universal Christianity. That is why from time immemorial it has strived to possess the East, and this desire has received particular intensity in our century and precisely under its last pope. In this regard, all the popes of the 19th century seemed to compete with each other, “and tried with all their might to firmly establish themselves in one or another point of the East. Almost year after year, Roman propaganda founded new stations there. With the rapid proliferation of orders, a convenient and ready-made instrument of activity appeared for her. The Jesuits, using the same routes along which they had previously spread their networks throughout India, China and Japan, directly and indirectly managed to strengthen their position throughout Asia. With the help of the Inquisition, having undermined the ecclesiastical independence of the so-called Christians, St. Thomas in India, the Jesuits spread their nets to capture the mountain tribes of the Syro-Chaldeans, the Nestorians. Having established themselves in Mosul to seduce the Syro-Chaldeans, Roman outposts then penetrated into the most remote parts of inner Asia, and the numerous establishments of orders in Syria and strong monastic colonies in Egypt and Palestine itself clearly testify to the success of Roman propaganda in these ancient centers of Christianity in the east. This offensive policy was boldly pursued by Pius IX, one of whose first acts was the appointment of a Latin patriarch to Jerusalem, as opposed to the Greek Orthodox patriarch. But with particular persistence and tactics, Lev XIII began to carry it out tirelessly, who, with his characteristic diplomatic skill, tried to take advantage of all the vicissitudes of the eastern crisis, which erupted so often in the 19th century. More vigilantly than all his predecessors, he followed and is following the vicissitudes of the world struggle that will sooner or later flare up because of Constantinople, and he is straining all his strength to ensure that this world event does not take place outside of the papacy. To this end, he set out on a grandiose plan to create from the Western Latinized Slavs a hostile stronghold against the Orthodox Slavs with Russia at its head. In pursuance of this plan, a whole series of separate measures followed on the part of Leo XIII in the form of subordinating the East to himself. News of many of these measures has managed to penetrate the public, but how many events still remain secret! One of these events was the papal bull in honor of St. Slavic first teachers Methodius and Cyril. In it, the pope loudly expressed the hope that, with the help of the Slavic apostles, the schismatic churches of the East would submit to the papacy. In this he found an active assistant in the person of the Croatian Bishop Strossmayer, who because of this even abandoned his opposition at the Vatican Council. In his pastoral letters about the need for the Slavic churches to have a union with Rome, he tried to take advantage of the introduction of the Slavic liturgy to achieve this goal. But this idea failed. In view of the tribal rivalry between the Serbs and the Croats, back in 1862 the Archbishop of Agram had to prohibit the celebration of the Church Slavonic liturgy, which Strossmayer intended to celebrate in honor of the Slavic apostles in Dyakovar. And the memories that the Slavs initially accepted Christianity through St. Methodius and Cyril from the Greek church, and only after a long struggle had to submit to Rome. Nevertheless, supported by its constant allies, in the form of Austrian officials, papal propaganda began to subjugate one parish after another and managed to introduce a lot of elements of national-ecclesiastical disintegration among the Slavic peoples of Austria. The original Russian region of Galicia became a special victim of this papal policy. Once seduced into a union with Rome and having lost its national character, this region has recently begun to revive, and precisely in the Russian-national spirit. Fearing that this tasty morsel might slip out of their hands, the papacy sounded the alarm, and immediately the Jesuits, who had long made Galicia an outpost from which they were trying to bring confusion into the Orthodox Russian Church, came out with the goal of strangling the movement at the very beginning. And so, by agreement between Austria and the Vatican, one of the glaring injustices occurred: the monasteries and estates of the Galician-Russian Basilians were transferred to the Jesuits. For some time, this violence was counteracted by Lvov Metropolitan Joseph Sembratovich. But he, too, had to realize his powerlessness in this unequal struggle, and was removed from the department, which was occupied by the Latin-Polish coadjutor. By what means Sembratovic was brought to silence, this was reported with amazing naivety by the ultramontane organ “Germany” on November 22, 1882, which let slip that “in addition to a pension of 6,000 guilders, various other material benefits were promised to him.” In the words of Dziennik Polski, the resignation of Joseph Sembratovich was even a kind of “promotion”, since he was made a member of the commission of rituals in Rome. In order to somehow cover up this gross bribery, in addition, just before leaving for Rome, a ceremonial farewell dinner was arranged for him. Exactly the same thing was done somewhat earlier with the Armenian Patriarch Kupelian, when he was also assigned a permanent stay in Rome. Only in relation to the Armenians, the curia still had to take into account certain circumstances, which under the Polish dictatorship in Galicia turned out to be unnecessary. How shamelessly the curia acted towards the Russian Galicians when they did not completely obey its orders, this, together with the robbery of the Basilian monasteries, was shown by the political process it initiated for high treason against such persons who were solely guilty of love for their people and the desire for their spiritual success. – The newly appointed Metropolitan Sylvester Sembratovich turned out to be a more pliable person and already in his first pastoral letter he exhorted the Russian Galicians to obey the Holy Father, to whom they owe so much, and exhorted them to join the Polish “brotherly people.” These are the facts that have penetrated the public, and what was done in secret can only be judged by the machinations to which the famous order resorted to achieve its goals in neighboring Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Even the correspondent of the Cologne Newspaper, which echoed Austrian eastern policy, when discussing these events, could not help but notice that “the Greek Catholic Church was sacrificed, like a lamb, to the Habsburg alliance with the Latin Church.” In the eyes of the Curia, of course, the so-called union with Rome was never viewed as anything other than a transitional stage for the complete subordination of the Uniates to Rome. Fortunately, among the dispossessed Russian people in Galicia there were patriots and fathers who courageously, without sparing their lives, fought against the spiritual death that threatened them, such as the especially valiant Archpriest John Naumovich. In January 1883, he turned to the pope with his famous note, in which he argued that the union of the Greek Catholic Church with Rome is a historical untruth, which, as such, will inevitably perish and be destroyed in the future. In a simultaneous letter to the Vienna General Newspaper, he also complained about the “truly incredible actions of the Jesuits,” which were reminiscent of the means to which the Inquisition had once resorted. For this, as is known, he was removed from office and, although he found himself a warm welcome in Orthodox Russia, to the great chagrin of all his friends and admirers, he died suddenly under circumstances that rightly arouse speculation about the participation in this of the secret hand of Jesuitism, capable of anything... At the Lvov University in Galicia, all tried and tested means were used to push back the Russian element and give weight to the Poles. When, at the same time, Polish supremacy strengthened in Galicia, and in Austria in general, the poor Russian people fully felt all the bitterness of the spiritual and political slavery in which they found themselves, and here the bitter fruits that the notorious union gave birth to were fully revealed. In confirmation of this, one could cite a lot of examples from the life of all churches that are or were under the leadership of the pope. But it is precisely in ill-fated Galicia that the “union” especially clearly reveals its inner essence and its goals to the whole world. The Lvov metropolitans, who enjoy the special favor of the Vatican and at the same time are “privy councilors” of the Austrian emperor (as directly stated in their official title), act in the interests of achieving the goals of the union with inimitable zeal, as the metropolitan of sad memory became especially famous in this regard. Selv. Sembratovic († 1898). Despite the fact that his spiritual flock sufficiently revealed their views on his direction, when on the way back from Rome they met him in Vienna with whistles and threw rotten cucumbers, he, as a faithful servant of Rome, continued to act with the clear goal of suppressing any national aspirations in the Russian Galicians and even depersonalizing them until they completely merged with the Roman Church. In these forms, he waged an open struggle against all manifestations of Russian folk identity, without even distinguishing between them in importance, and equally persecuted both staunch fighters for the people's faith and those simply wearing a Russian beard 34 . And under him, it was the Russian Uniate Church in Galicia that felt with particular force how harmful this union, glorified by the pope, was for it. Under the guise of fraternal communication between churches, having given Russian monasteries to the power of the Jesuits, the Metropolitan sent professors to the theological seminary, who began to eradicate the national spirit in their students, and recently ordered to admit directly papists into the Uniate seminary - with the obvious goal of giving them advantages in appointments and thereby bribing other Russian students to accept Latinism. With the same goal of undermining the authority of Russian self-consciousness in the clergy, the Metropolitan, with obvious injustice, bypassed awards to the most prominent shepherds of the Russian people. Thus, when elevating him to the rank of “honorary wingers,” he completely bypassed Russian priests in the cities, and appointed only village priests with the obvious goal of weakening the influence of the urban clergy in comparison with the Roman Catholic ones. Since honorary kryloshans in cities have the right to participate in meetings at meetings with the metropolitan, the removal of the city clergy from this title is tantamount to the removal of the most influential representatives of the Galician-Russian clergy from participation in church affairs. But these Latin-Polish machinations go even further and directly aim to finally undermine the very root of the Russian spirit and Russian self-awareness, and precisely through the introduction of the notorious celibacy, which has always served in the hands of Latin propaganda as the best means of depersonalizing the clergy as a national force. It is known that the main force of the Russian intelligentsia in Galicia is the clergy and their families. The secular Russian intelligentsia is in its infancy, and since it consists mainly of officials, professors and teachers, under the prevailing system of political persecution it plays a very pitiful role and is often forced, due to official benefits, to renounce the interests of its oppressed people. In the absence of a wealthy nobility, which, taking advantage of its independence, could lead the national movement, the entire national existence of Hearts. Rus' is now supported exclusively by the patriotic clergy, who alone, despite all the unfavorable conditions of their lives, firmly and with dignity support the national identity of their people. Without him, it would have been immeasurably easier for Latin-Polish propaganda to crush the people it hated, because all the most prominent figures of the Russian people in Galicia, both before and now, are either the shepherds of the church themselves, or their brothers and sons. And so, in order to weaken this force that was unpleasant for the Poles, they decided to introduce compulsory celibacy or celibacy among the Galician clergy, which itself should reduce the ranks of the Russian intelligentsia and deprive the people's cause of its best bearers. This issue was formally discussed at provincial synods in Lvov, and Metropolitan Sylv. Sembratovic took all measures to give further progress to this project. At the same time, the issue has practically already been resolved in favor of celibacy, which is being introduced with remarkable persistence. Thus, at the Lvov Seminary, the authorities diligently select among the students volunteers who, already at school, take a vow of celibacy, and there are already many such volunteers - due to the fact that they are promised the best parishes. What kind of these future shepherds are, selling themselves for lentil stew - there is no need to dwell on this, but there is no doubt that they are appointed by the spiritual authorities to the best places and thus celibacy becomes the golden fishing rod with which Roman propaganda catches the people it needs 35. Finding, however, that these measures were still not effective enough, Latin-Polish propaganda came up with another means, which, according to its plan, should give the best results in the sense of not only depersonalization, but also the mental degradation of the Russian clergy. The Basilian Order, transformed by the Jesuits, was chosen as the instrument of this “reform.” The monasteries usually began to accept young people who had not succeeded in the sciences and who had lost their way in life. And this rabble is an excellent tool in the hands of the Jesuits to achieve their intended goal. Having these losers completely in their hands, the Jesuits prepare them to be parish priests and place them in vacated parishes, preferably over other more worthy candidates for the priesthood. In this way, an element is gradually introduced into the clergy who is an obedient conductor of all the plans of Jesuit propaganda to the people. But no matter how much was achieved by such measures in Galicia, no matter how much was still planned for the future, all this was far behind the benefits that the Austrian occupation in Bosnia and Herzegovina brought to the Vatican. From the very beginning of this occupation, violence began there against the Eastern Orthodox Church in favor of the Latins. Among the reasons for the uprising that arose in 1881, church affairs played an important role. But after the suppression of the Bosnian uprising, the high representatives of papal interests in Austria only became even more bold. Since the beginning of 1883, remarkable things have been revealed about the so-called “auxiliary union for Bosnia and Herzegovina,” which has already acquired numerous members in the clerical part of the aristocracy. The ultramontane "Vaterland" in Vienna rather imprudently declared that the purpose of such an innocent, at first glance, union was the "return" of the members of the Greek Orthodox Church in the occupied provinces to the fold of Catholicism, and the cry of the unfortunate Bosniaks and Herzegovinians, sighing about the Turkish yoke, eloquently testifies to the success with which this union operates - with the help Austrian police. Not content with propaganda in Bosnia, Roman agitation, under the wing of Austrian diplomacy, also penetrated into Serbia. To this end, she overthrew the national ministry of Ristic, after which King Milan followed with the deposition of Metropolitan Michael, beloved and respected by all the Serbian people, this valiant champion of church truth. How much grief and moral torment this intrigue caused both the Serbian saint himself and the entire Orthodox world is still quite memorable for the present generation. In Romania there was also no shortage of troubles caused by the agents of the papacy. What progress papal influence has made even in Bulgaria since the time when Roman agents managed to introduce the so-called Bulgarian schism can hardly be determined even approximately. The Curia, in any case, apparently was so confident in its cause that it did not consider it necessary to hide its activities any longer. Thus the Osser-vatore Romano of November 1882 stated: “As the first practical result of the recent pastoral visit of Monsignor Vanutelli, Apostolic Delegate and Patriarchal Vicar in Constantinople, we convey the joyful news that the entire Bulgarian village of Alligodoilona, ​​consisting of seventy families, has converted to Catholicism. Everything gives hope that this conversion will be followed by others, and that perhaps the time is not far off when the entire Bulgarian people will return (?) to the Catholic Church. Such an event, towards the implementation of which, without a doubt, all the efforts of the Roman throne are directed, of course, has a salutary influence on the future of the Bulgarian people, on its political destiny and its civilization.” And to realize this dream, the agents of the papacy did not hesitate to enter into an alliance even with such dark forces as the party of stick insects led by Istanbulov, and it is known how much grief was caused to the Orthodox feeling by the regrettable events associated with the election and marriage of the present prince of Bulgaria, until the common sense of the Bulgarians triumphed over all the machinations of Jesuitism. However, these papal conquests in the countries torn away from Turkey are still insignificant compared to the conquests in Turkey itself. It was not for nothing that Pope Pius IX, during Russia’s war against Turkey, took the side of the crescent: his reward for this, by the way, was the suppression of the anti-Gassunite party of Armenians by the rude population. The tenderness that the pope and the sultan exchanged on this occasion is still remembered by everyone. Leo XIII, for his part, turned out to be no less active here than Pius IX. Around the same time, when the Armenian question, thanks to England, again became a matter of international politics, Leo XIII, in a special breve of February 1883, established an Armenian college in Rome, the first patron of which was Patriarch Hassoun, and its pupils were elected bishops in their dioceses and sent to Rome, from where they already emerge as fanatical preachers of the papacy. Thus, papal policy covers the East on all sides, which the Berlin Congress of 1880, as it were, deliberately placed under the direct influence of the papacy. The Orthodox peoples, led by Russia, and especially the hierarchs of the Eastern Church, as guardians of their true faith and the independence of their peoples, need to stand tirelessly on guard so that at any moment they can give a proper rebuff to the advancing enemy. 17. Orders, science and missions Jesuits and their activities in the 19th century. – Restoration of their order and their new expulsion from different states. – Other orders and congregations. - Brothers and sisters of mercy. - The learned order of the Benedictines. – The character of Roman Catholic theology. - Martyrology of its best representatives. – Representatives of theology and history. Hermes, Mohler, Dellinger and other theologians. - Missions. – Lyon Society for the Propagation of the Faith. – Success and labors of missionaries – Anti-Christian outbreaks in the far east. – Missionary activity in America and Africa. Monastic orders have always constituted an important element in the organizing activities of the Roman Catholic Church. These are her warriors, whom she sends to all countries of the world to conquer peoples. Unbound by any personal interests and living only by the will of the supreme head of Roman Catholicism, at his first wave they leave their homeland and selflessly go to the most remote outskirts of the world, into the impenetrable wilds of deserts, into the midst of bloodthirsty savages and preach to them the gospel of love and submission to the “Vicar of Christ” on earth. “I confess,” writes Leibniz, “I have always looked at monastic orders with fiery surprise; it is something like the heavenly army on earth. They constitute one of those features that force us to respect the church, which has preserved the name and signs of Catholicism, since it alone produces and cherishes these brilliant examples of sublime virtues and ascetic life.” This is how it should be, but unfortunately, this is not always the case in reality, and this “heavenly army” often turns out to be too earthly in its actions. In any case, for the papacy these are irreplaceable servants and it was they who raised and strengthened the papacy in the 19th century, surrounding it with an aura of infallibility. Among them, the Jesuit order played a particularly prominent role. Restored in 1814 by Pope Pius VII, from that time on he became the soul of the entire Roman Church and without their participation not a single more or less important event took place in it. Under their influence, the entire direction of Roman Catholicism took on a clearly Jesuit character, since the increasingly strengthened and ramified order, acting according to its principle - the end justifies the means - was not embarrassed by the latter, and where this corresponded to its goals, did not hesitate not only to secret intrigues and intrigues, but also to direct violence. They sought to take control of all public education, especially in the upper classes, controlled all the activities of the episcopate in different countries, installed themselves under the popes themselves and surrounded them with such an impenetrable wall from the outside world that the popes began to look at the world only through their glasses and acted according to their instructions, so that even the people formed the opinion that the church was ruled not by a white pope, but by a “black pope,” as the people call the general of the Jesuit order. Using this enormous influence, they left the imprint of their views on the entire life of the Roman Church, crushed every manifestation of free thought in theological science (as shown by the sad example of Prof. Hermes and others) and everywhere introduced the scholasticism characteristic of their spirit, which is based on the idea of ​​​​the latest ultramontanism as a system that does not allow anything that in one respect or another does not correspond to their ideal of an unconditionally infallible papacy. Renewed “like an eagle,” the sons of Loyola, after the restoration of their order, scattered throughout all countries, penetrating into places where their entry was prohibited by law, and everywhere they tried to introduce and spread ultramontanism, convert heretics and schismatics, and even invade the governmental spheres of states. All this shameless activity could not help but arouse strong agitation against them, and since the 60s, an anti-Jesuit wave again passed throughout Europe, throwing them outside the borders of the states. The founding of the Kingdom of Italy under the Sardinian scepter (1860) entailed the expulsion of the Jesuits from all regions of Italy, with the exception of Venice and of course the Papal States, where they found a quiet refuge. When in 1866 Venice joined the Kingdom of Italy, it also expelled the sons of Loyola who had taken refuge in it, who moved from there to Tyrol and other regions of Austria, where, taking advantage of a favorable concordat for them, they found a hospitable shelter, built a warm nest in which they continue to live to this day, especially becoming close to the Poles and becoming their active associates in the suppression of Russian-national and religious consciousness in the branches of the Russian people under Austrian rule (in Galicia and Hungary). Even Spain, after a coup d'etat that led to the expulsion of Queen Isabella, again banned the Jesuit order (1868), and Mexico and the South American states followed in this regard. But the order especially flourished in various German regions, especially in the Rhine provinces, and only after the founding of Germany (1871), when the newly founded empire had to endure a fierce struggle with the papacy during the “cultural struggle”, in 1872 a law was passed that closed the Jesuit order and related orders throughout Germany. Although in France the long-standing law on the expulsion of the Jesuits had not yet been repealed, however, despite this, the sons of Loyola shamelessly lived and acted in it, covering it with their numerous institutions and schools. And only in 1880, at the beginning of the “cultural struggle” with the so-called. clericalism, the Republican government expelled the Jesuits and related orders from France. These failures of the sons of Loyola upset Pope Leo XIII, who, himself a pupil of the Jesuits, addressed their general with a consolatory breve (1886), in which in pompous words he glorified “the famous order that had so gloriously served the church and society,” reaffirmed everything that had been said and done by his predecessors in favor of the order, and formally refuted everything that was said against it. In 1894, the Jesuit Order counted 13,767 members (except, of course, the secret Jesuits, whose name is a million!). Along with the Jesuits, there are many other orders and congregations throughout all Roman Catholic countries, which, under different names, deeply intruding into church-religious, social and state life, all work together ad majorem papae gloriam. Among them, of course, there are also “societies” that serve for the benefit of humanity. These are the widespread communities of Brothers and Sisters of Charity - especially in France. The revolution of 1790, in its anti-church madness, even closed the communities of sisters of mercy. But when the system of hired servants was adopted in French hospitals, it was impossible not to recognize the failure of this measure; Meanwhile, many of these sisters of mercy secretly continued to provide their good services, so Napoleon I found it useful to restore this order again: he called the scattered sisters to a general meeting, at which the Empress Mother was present (1807), developed a special charter and agreed to give them the necessary support. The novitiate in France is very strict: anyone who wishes to enter this order must discard all natural, all female fear, as far as caring for the sick requires it; Of those who wish, after three years of testing, no more than one quarter is usually accepted. These sisters rendered great services in hospitals during the Crimean War, exerted a magical influence on soldiers in their distress, and of them Sister Martha became especially famous. When asked how she managed to cope with such a mass of soldiers, she answered: “Oh, they are easier to control than the little girls whose school I left to take care of the sick here.” The soldiers revered her as a saint; after the war, the emperor granted her the Cross of the Legion of Honor. Monasteries in France constitute a kind of educational institute for women. There is also an institute for fallen women and maidens under various names, in the name of “St. Magdalene" or "The Good Shepherd" searching for the lost sheep. The most sympathetic order, of course, remained the learned Order of the Benedictines, which in the last century rendered innumerable services to theological science with its learned publications and research. The scientific work of this order in France was interrupted by the revolution, so some publications of the church fathers remained unfinished. Only in the 30s did the Benedictines resume their scientific activities. Having received a diploma for honorary membership from them, the famous author of “The Genius of Christianity” Chateaubriand (at that time already in old age) wrote to Abbot Gueranger: “I have just received your interesting letter and I tell you how great I feel for your wonderful enterprise, and how grateful I am to you. Like you, I too once dreamed of the restoration of the Benedictines. I would like to indicate for the new congregation of Saint Denis. “Saint Denis, with its empty tombs and its empty library, in the hope that both will be filled again.” This dream, however, did not come true, and the old Benedictine learning was not resurrected, although new workers published several medieval manuscripts, such as, for example. editions made by Cardinal Pitra. In view of the fact that Roman Catholicism throughout the 19th century was in a struggle with the forces surrounding it and hostile to it, among which was science, which was striving to break out from under the papal yoke, it began to treat all science with great suspicion, allowing only that which was in accordance with established norms, and suppressing everything that deviated from these norms and showed greater or lesser independence. That is why the history of theological science in the field of Roman Catholicism during the 19th century represents, for the most part, the fruitless efforts of outstanding minds to break out of established norms and free themselves from the traditions that oppress them. Here we see a sad picture of merciless suppression on the part of Rome, and especially its zealous servants - the Jesuits, all the most prominent theologians. This, truly, is a martyrology of the best representatives of theological thought, who for the most part were subjected to severe condemnation from Rome 36. The most outstanding attempt at independent thought in the field of theology was made by the Bonn professor Hermes (†1830), who, having become acquainted with critical German philosophy in his youth, decided to apply the methods developed by it to theology. He was a remarkable thinker who, through severe doubt and denial in everything, finally came to develop a method that gave him firm support in faith; but with this doubt he aroused cruel persecution against himself by the Jesuits, which ended with the condemnation of his writings in 1835 in a special bull of Pope Gregory XVI. Although his followers, to whom many theologians in Trier, Bonn and Breslau belonged, zealously continued to develop the ideas of their innocently convicted teacher, the Jesuit party took all measures to uproot this theological method, in which the Jesuits saw a dangerous deviation from the old soulless scholasticism 37 . Nevertheless, this kind of trend did not stop, and almost simultaneously with Hermes another thinker-theologian appeared, who, partly adhering to the same method in the field of theological thinking, namely the philosophical-critical method, went further along the path of denying the actual dogmatic side of the papacy. This was Franz Baader, professor of speculative dogmatics in Munich († 1841). Among his many works, the most remarkable were: lectures on speculative dogmatics and “Fermenta cognitionis”. In the last years of his life, he completely broke with ultramontanism and in his writings tried to directly show the illegality of papal rule in Roman Catholicism and the possibility of emancipation from it. These are his works: “On the Possibility of Emancipation from the Roman Dictatorship”, “Eastern and Western Catholicism”, and in the last work he directly exposed the advantages of the Eastern Church over the Roman one. Similar in spirit to Baader was the remarkable Viennese priest Anton Günther (†1863), who, distinguished by his very rich talents and sharpness of expression, also freely developed theological and philosophical issues, not at all embarrassed by the scholastic norms prescribed by the Jesuits. His first major work (in 1828 and 1829) was an essay entitled “Prelude to Speculative Theology,” which was followed by a number of other works with various intricate titles. His theology also aroused suspicion in strict circles of Roman Catholicism, and he was condemned. But in the field of theology itself, Adam Mehler, truly remarkable in the depth and systematicity of his views, became especially famous. Born almost on the eve of the 19th century (1796), in his youth he zealously studied German philosophy and the works of Schleiermacher, which greatly contributed to the development of his gifted mind. Using German methods, he set himself the lofty goal of finding a philosophical and theological justification for the fundamental truths of Roman Catholicism, and already in his first major work, “On the Unity of the Church or the Principle of Catholicism” (1825), he showed how many more in the arsenal of even the Roman Church there are still untapped means for defending its teachings against Protestantism. This work was followed by another of his great works entitled: “Athanasius the Great and the Church of His Time,” where the life and work of the great champion of Orthodoxy against the heresies of his time is depicted in vivid colors. But especially the name of Mehler is associated with his main work, namely the famous “Symbolism”, i.e., a comparative presentation of the teachings of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Armed with all the data of theological science, with remarkable strength and depth he substantiates the truths on which the church rests, showing the entire unfoundedness of Protestantism. But since he had to deal with existing Roman Catholicism, which, of course, was far from consistent with the image of the true church, Mehler was forced to resort to a special method that Rome could never forgive him for. It was against Protestantism that he opposed not actual Roman Catholicism, which obviously did not stand up to criticism in many respects, but idealized Catholicism, one that is free from later Roman Catholic layers. But it was precisely his attempt to soften the forms of Roman Catholicism and present it in an idealized form that aroused suspicion of the author as extreme adherents of ultramontanism, and the author was threatened with the inclusion of his book in the index. The whole life of this remarkable theologian, as a result, was a struggle against the Jesuits, who tried in every possible way to cast a shadow of suspicion over him. But he himself cruelly castigated them and sharply spoke out against Jesuit lies and hypocrisy. A profound theologian and church historian, he was an enemy of the ultramontane tendency and mercilessly destroyed all the illusions and fictions of Jesuitism. Contrary to the tendency to proclaim popes infallible, Mehler courageously and boldly, on the basis of careful church-historical research, declared that “individual popes were swallowed up by hell,” and “the papacy itself is a product of ignorance and barbarism, and not vice versa” and “if only ignorance and barbarism disappeared, the papacy would fall by itself.” He also mercilessly castigated the Jesuits. Their “casuistry,” he wrote, “is the atomism of morality and is devoid of vital and animating force. This activity of the Jesuits in many ways poisoned the very core of Christian life. Religious depth, the severity of holy morality, serious church discipline - all this had to necessarily perish. By their very essence, turning everything internal into external, the Jesuits and the church itself began to understand as a state, and then - by virtue of a natural connection - they granted all power to the pope and extended his rule to infinity. – The Jesuits threatened to devastate the entire church, to deprive it of all strength and inner life. Although the destruction of their order was a matter of extreme violence and was accompanied by gross injustices, from a historical perspective there is nothing to regret about them.” It is clear that such a free theologian could not be pleasing to the Jesuits, and they not only persecuted him throughout his life, but tried to tarnish his name even after his premature death (he died only 42 years old), making all kinds of falsifications in his writings. But, despite the omnipotence of the Jesuits, the name of Mehler is increasingly rising in the consciousness of the best sons of the Christian world and it is dear to all who place the truth of the church above all external considerations and trends of this world 38 . Meller's direct successor in the field of theological thinking and church history was the famous Munich professor Ignatius Döllinger. His first significant work (1826) was published under the title: “The Doctrine of the Eucharist in the First Three Centuries.” Then he primarily took up the study of church history and undertook a large course on the history of the Christian church, of which, however, only two volumes were published; then in 1836 he published a textbook of church history, and again only before the Reformation. Then his essay became very famous: “The Reformation, its development and its influence in the field of Lutheran confessions” (3 volumes, 2nd edition 1852 onwards), in which he tried to collect everything that was unfavorable for the Reformation, and with which he acquired the reputation of a man of extraordinary learning and exemplary Roman Catholic orthodoxy. By the way, in 1838 he took part in disputes about mixed marriages, and in 1843 in the issue of genuflection. In his early years he was an ardent champion of the Roman Catholic Church, its aspirations and methods, and rose rapidly in his service, receiving a professorship in Munich in 1849. But the further he delved into science and looked closely at the life around him, the more doubt began to arise in him about the truth of Roman Catholicism in its present forms. He aroused great confusion among his Ultramontane admirers for the first time at Easter 1861, when, in a series of public lectures, he also gave a lecture on the church state, which was then in danger, and argued that the temporal power of the pope (the abuses of which he was personally convinced of in 1857 during his trip to Rome) was by no means absolutely necessary for the Catholic Church, and even rather served to harm it. The papal nuncio, who was present at the lecture, defiantly left the meeting hall: all the Ultramontanes were beside themselves with amazement, horror and anger. Döllinger, at the autumn meeting of the Catholic Unions in Munich (1861), made a reassuring explanation about his lecture, and soon his book appeared under the title: “Church and Churches, Papacy and Ecclesiastical State,” in which the lecture that aroused horror and bewilderment was presented in a somewhat weakened form. But his further works, such as “Studies on the Political, Church and Cultural History of the Last Six Centuries” (1863), as well as “Papal Fables of the Middle Ages” (1865; 2nd ed. made by Prof. Friedrich in Stuttgart 1890), were not at all to the taste of the ultramontanes. True, in these works, especially in the first, polemics against Protestantism still appear quite clearly, all with the usual harshness; but still, they already show more justice to the German reformer than is usually the case in Roman Catholic courses in church history, and Döllinger characterized Luther as “a stormy people’s man, the most popular personality that has ever appeared in Germany.” Quite in the spirit of Mehler and other prominent Roman Catholic theologians, forced to reconcile the irreconcilable, he, in an animated speech of praise, praising the personality of the pope, at the same time freely castigated all abuses in the church state. At the congress of scientists in Munich, he fought for freedom of science. He tried to reassure the pope with a telegram, which he sent as chairman of the congress. But the Jesuits showed remarkable insight and, foreseeing the danger from Dellinger, already at that time began to poisonously mock the famous scientist on the pages of their life organ, Civilta Cattolica. And their fears were justified. When the question arose about the Vatican Council, which had as its goal the establishment of the dogma of papal infallibility, Dellinger, standing at the pinnacle of his scientific glory as a church historian, had already openly opposed this idea and, as is known, openly declared before the whole world that as a scientist, and as a Christian, and as a patriot, he could not recognize this self-invented dogma. As a result of this, he became the founder and ancestor of the Old Catholic movement, which precisely had as its goal the elimination of all later papal accretions in Roman Catholicism and the return of the church to its original foundations, developed during the first millennium. For this he suffered a great excommunication; but his courage in the struggle for truth aroused admiration for his personality everywhere: in Vienna he was given an honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in Marburg, Oxford and Edinburgh - an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, and the Senate of the University of Munich unanimously elected him its rector (1871). However, due to the machinations of the Ultramontane party of the Jesuits, from that time on his audience began to noticeably empty. Although, due to his old age, Dellinger subsequently took little part in the affairs of Old Catholicism, he took part all the more zealously in discussions about the unity of churches, and already in his old age, together with another Old Catholic scholar, Reisch, he published a history of Catholic moral disputes, remarkable for its scholarship (in 2 volumes), and then he single-handedly published, also in 2 volumes, important studies on the history of sectarianism in the Middle Ages. Soon afterwards he died (at the end of 1889), being ninety-one years old. Among other theological writers, one can note Staudenmaier, who also, with his independence in the field of dogma, caused a lot of trouble for the Jesuits (his main works: “John Scott Erigena and the science of his time”; “The Spirit of Divine Revelation or the science of the historical principles of Christianity”; “Philosophy of Christianity or the metaphysics of Holy Scripture”; “Christian Dogmatics”, in 4 volumes; “Protestantism in its essence and development”, in 3 volumes, and friend). Another theologian related to him, the Munich professor Froshammer, also published several remarkable works, such as “On the Origin of the Human Soul” (3854), “Introduction to Philosophy”, “Freedom of Science”, “On the Union of Catholicism and Protestantism”, and others. Moreover, his independent thought also aroused strong discontent in Rome, and some of his works were included in the index. prohibited books. In full confidence that he did not teach anything contrary to the church, he respectfully asked for a review of his case and the lifting of this ban. But the result was just the opposite: it was considered daring resistance to authority, he was deprived of his clergy, and students were forbidden to attend his lectures. Froshammer protested, the students offered him a spirited thank-you note, and his audience began to fill even more than before. Later, however, he, rejected by the Old Catholics, actually deviated further and further from the positive faith. Among his writings, one can also note the polemical book directed against the work of Strauss, “New Science and Old Faith” (1873), in which he argues that “although the old faith is untenable, new knowledge cannot replace it, and that faith can be restored only through the return to Christianity of Christ Himself.” Along with the theologians, several outstanding church historians spoke, of whom, in addition to the mentioned Dellinger, one can also name Hefele, who from 1840 was a professor in Tübingen, from 1869 bishop of Rottenburg († 1893). In his learned historical research on the issue of Pope Honorius, he boldly exposed all the untruths of the papacy, and therefore became one of the most dangerous opponents of the dogma of papal infallibility. As is known, he was one of the most staunch representatives of the opposition at the Vatican Council, but subsequently he, along with other members of the opposition, had to submit to the oppressive authority of the papacy, although in his soul he never ceased to be an opponent of the newly invented dogma. His most remarkable work is his famous “History of the Cathedrals,” in 7 volumes, from 1855, 2nd ed. since 1873. This work abounds in a wealth of historical information, and is in fact the best history of the councils, although, as the historian Gaze harshly puts it, in it the Roman Catholic bishop strangled the scientist. Professor Hergenreter in Würzburg became famous for his tendentious monograph “On Photius and the Greek Schism,” as well as for his struggle against Vatican aspirations. But especially his “Manual to the General Church History” (in 4 volumes, from 1876) brought him honorable fame in Rome, so that Leo XIII in 1879 elevated him to the rank of cardinal, and appointed him Vatican archivist, with the entrustment of the thorough transformation of this archive (†1890). The famous historian, Munich professor Pichler, showed significant freedom of thought, who, with his historical truthfulness and conscientiousness in his research, however, aroused strong indignation against himself in Rome, and his famous “History of the Church Division between East and West” (1864) was included in the index of prohibited books. In his later writings and research, he became increasingly alienated from papism and became increasingly animated by the idea of ​​a German national church. Unfortunately, his boundless bibliomania, during his later service as an assistant librarian at the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg, soon led him to a sad fate, and he died in exile in Siberia († 1874). Many outstanding works have been written by Roman Catholic scholars in the field of apologetics. Of these, the most remarkable is the work of the Würzburg professor Göttinger († 1890), whose remarkable work “Apology of Christianity” (in 2 volumes, 6th ed., 1885) is also known in Russian. Then, in the same area, the work of Bonn professor Reisch, later an Old Catholic, enjoys great fame. His work “The Bible and Nature” is especially remarkable, which is also known in Russian literature in some extracts and expositions. To summarize scientific work, Roman Catholic scientists from time to time gather at congresses, and the first such “congress of scientists” was the Munich congress in 1863. It was caused by the increasingly obvious discord between secular science and theology, especially in universities. To investigate the cause of this discord and, if possible, eliminate it, Döllinger, together with his colleague Hahneberg, convened a congress in Munich, which was attended by up to a hundred Roman Catholic scholars, mostly theologians. The congress continued for four days, with Dellinger, elected chairman of the meeting, delivering a brilliant speech “on the past and present of Catholic theology.” The thoughts expressed in this report turned out to be extremely harsh and unbearable for the ears of representatives of the new scholasticism and the Jesuits, and caused lively debate and debate. Although Dellinger with his explanations calmed the suspicion of the Jesuits and the pope, however, when the minutes of the meeting were published in extenso, a papal breve followed, which limited further similar congresses to certain conditions, and this measure had a detrimental effect on subsequent meetings, so that the whole enterprise was subsequently upset, and if even now “congresses” are still held from time to time, they are conducted under the strict control of the Jesuits. Roman Catholic theology itself, mainly in the scientific sense, was developed only in Germany. In other Roman Catholic countries it was almost completely stagnant, with the possible exception of France. There, on the basis of ultramontanism, as an extreme protest, biblical rationalism grew and developed strongly, the spokesman of which was a graduate of the seminary of St. Sulpicia Ernest Renan, who brought extreme disintegration into the religious life of the French people 39. But his works at the same time served as an impetus for the revival of biblical-historical science, in the field of which such venerable scientists as Abbé Vigouroux are working with great success (the most famous of his works are: “The Bible and Recent Discoveries”, in 4 volumes for the Old Testament and in 1 volume for the New, “History of Rationalism” and many others), Abbé Le Camus (“Life of Jesus Christ”, 3rd ed. 1879) and the famous preacher Dido († 1900), whose book “Jesus Christ” (in Oct. 1890) in a few weeks sold more than ten thousand copies in Paris alone, and was translated into several European languages, including Russian. Pope Leo XIII greatly contributed to the scientific movement in the field of the Roman Catholic Church. Himself a highly educated man and a thorough scholar, he rendered an important service especially to church history by opening the treasures of the Vatican archives in 1880 not only to Roman Catholic but also to Protestant researchers, cherishing the idea that history would serve as the best confirmation of the papacy and the exposure of sects. One of the three prefects of the commission appointed for this matter was the famous Latin zealot historian, Cardinal Hergenrether, and such an appointment clearly showed the sense in which the papacy understood the truths of history 40 . Strengthening internally, the Roman Church in the 19th century invariably strived with even greater zeal for external expansion through missions. To convert the pagans, several large missionary societies were formed, of which the most significant is the Lyons Society for the Propagation of the Faith. Like most great institutions, this society arose from small beginnings. In 1819, a city woman in Lyon received from her brother, who studied in Paris at the missionary seminary of St. Sulpicius, a letter in which the brother, depicting the complete decline of the funds of this institution, asked to begin collecting donations. She managed to found a union of artisans, whose members contributed one sou each week. The union gradually spread, because it was in the spirit of the time, and its income increased more and more over time; then many branches and groups were formed, each of 10 members, who also paid one sou weekly. Finally, the activities of the society received special vitality and fame when they founded their own magazine, “Annals for the Propagation of the Faith.” In 1852, the magazine was already printed in 162,000 copies, of which 86,000 in French, 23,000 in German, 14,000 in English, 4,500 in Flemish, 3,000 in Italian, 2,000 in Spanish and 1,100 in Dutch. Printing and editing costs required 259,360 francs. Each copy cost the society 1½ francs, and thanks to contributions from members of the decimal societies, it brought in 26 francs. The net income then amounted to 3,935,149 francs, and since that time it has increased even more. Currently, the magazine is published in 10 European languages ​​in an amount of 250,000 copies. and the income of the “society” reaches 7,000,000 francs. The Council of Lyon administers these sums under the guidance of Roman propaganda. This society supports from its own funds up to 140 bishops and 5,000 priests, receiving a very modest salary In the very way of conducting missionary work, the old methods continued to be observed, which consist not at all in first teaching converts and then baptizing them, but in simply adding them to the list of newly acquired Christians. Even the propaganda magazine did not hide this way of conducting missionary work. In the January issue of the Annals for 1841, the missionary Batillion wrote from the island of Vallis: “In order not to have any difficulties when baptizing children, even in front of the mother, I always carry with me one bottle with incense and another with plain water. When there is a sick child somewhere, I pour a few drops from the first one onto his head, under the pretext of relieving suffering, and when the mother gently rubs them in, I imperceptibly pour other water on the child’s head, namely the regenerating waters of baptism.” Obviously, these are all the same Jesuit methods with which the Roman Church tries to capture as many souls as possible in order to bring them to the foot of the viceroy. Petra. But there was no shortage of heroic self-sacrifice among the Roman Catholic missionaries, and many of them died as martyrdom, especially in the Far East. In 1837–39, a bloody persecution of Christians raged in Tonquin and Cochin, where French missionaries worked successfully; In 1866, violent persecution broke out in Korea, where up to 2,000 Christians were put to death. Two years later, persecution began in Japan. In China, the mission either enjoyed tolerance or had to perform worship in forests and caves: everything depended on the arbitrariness of local mandarins. In Beijing, the Roman Catholic community by the end of the 30s consisted of 24,000 souls. In 1839, news appeared in the court newspaper about two imperial princes, father and son, “who venerate the cross and the image.” As punishment for this, the imperial decree was decided to “deprive them of the red belt, erase their names from the genealogical table, and send them themselves as slaves to Tartary.” The enmity of the Chinese, however, was not so much directed against Christianity itself as against the invasion of foreigners. In 1870, in Tianjin, things came to a popular uprising, caused by the extreme jealousy of the French missionaries about the conversion of the natives. There was a rumor spread among the people that French missionaries were capturing Chinese children and forcibly turning them into “foreign devils.” The consul was killed, and with him several priests and nurses; the mission house, cathedral and consulate were destroyed in flames. Similar outbreaks were then repeated several times, but reached an unprecedented degree in 1900, when the anti-Christian movement suddenly spread throughout almost all of China, the fanatics of the huge secret society of the “Big Fist” decided to completely exterminate Christians and foreigners, and bloody atrocities were actually committed, from which tens of thousands of Christians with their churches and missions perished. This terrible outbreak of pagan fanaticism in a huge state against Christianity, which required the intervention of all of Europe, threateningly reminded Christian Europe how small and insignificant it was in comparison with pagan Asia. In North America, the Roman Catholic Church also continued its propaganda and achieved very important results. The Algonquins and Iroquois in 1831 sent a ribbon and sandals of their work to the “holy father” because he sent a man in black clothes to them in the desert, listening to whom they knew the true God and found peace among themselves. By a special bull, the papacy restored the Algerian bishopric in Africa, which renewed the great memories of the ancient African church; Bishop Dupach founded on the ruins of Ippon, the famous residence of Bl. Augustine, in 1838, the foundation of the church, and this matter ended thanks to the enlightened zeal of Cardinal Lavigerie († 1892), who not only finally restored the Carthaginian church (unfortunately - of course in the form of the Roman Catholic Church), but also rendered a great service to suffering humanity in Africa by his struggle against the widespread evil there - the slave trade. In view of this, it must be considered complete inconsistency on the part of the author of “The System of Nature” if he nevertheless speaks of the “true cult of nature” and even of the altars that need to be erected to it. See F.A. Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus (2 Aufl. 1873), Bd. I, p. 884. The long-standing habit of shaving the beard and putting on a clean shirt once a week (every seven days) was not reconciled with the establishment of ten-day weeks, since they were too long. Justim Febronu de statu ecclesiae et légitima potestate Romani pontifïcis liber singularis ad reumendos dissidentes in religione Christiana compositions (Berolini MDCCLXIII). See about it detailed inheritance in Art. L S. Sokolova. “A champion of Old Catholicism in the last century” (“Christian Reading” for 1897). As a result, Stattler’s Demonstratio catholica, after long negotiations, finally found its way into the “index of prohibited books.” One of the manifestations of this ferment was humorous couplets written about the pope, which were nailed on all street corners and some could be read by everyone. Even learned Latinists took part in the anti-pope movement. They combined the components of the coat of arms of Pope Pius VI, namely the eagle, the lily, the stars and the wind, into the following couplet: Redde aquilam imperio, Gallorum lilam regi, Sidera redde polo, caetera, Braschi, tibi. (Give the eagle to the empire, the lily to the king of the Gauls, Give the stars to the sky, and the rest to yourself!). The name conclave (cum clave, that is, under the key) means both the place of election and the electoral assembly itself. “Her cult will be public, in accordance with the rules of the police, which the government finds necessary for public peace.” With this last restriction, Consalvi hoped to get rid of the arbitrariness of the police. "Domine, salvam fac Rempublicam Domine, salvos fac consules." Rio (VI) per conservai- la fede, Perde la sodé; Pio (Vil) per conservar la sede, Perde la fedo. Chateaubriand, Le génie du christianisme, T. II, p. 374. “To the house of the devil” corresponds to our “to hell in the middle of nowhere.” "May the Emperor live forever." - “Long live the emperor.” Le Moniteur Universel 1809, No. 221, Col. 870. Bishop Miollis, it is said in France, served as the prototype for Victor Hugo's depiction of the bishop in his book Les misérables. How far the latter went in their respect for the papacy can be seen from the letters which are collected in the Introduction to the Memoirs of Consalvi. In these letters, Protestants go even further in their reverence for the restored papacy than the Catholics themselves. The initial letter of the name of the founder (Nakki) was changed in the name of the order he founded - it is impossible to say intentionally or accidentally. Previously, these insignia were received, among other things, by Don Juan of Austria, John Sobieski, Prince Eugene and Field Marshal Down. One of his miracles was that, at his wave, half-fried birds flew out of the frying pan. The Romans, however, thought that it would be better if the newly blessed one did the opposite. Under the image of this court was the caption “Beatus Julianas, aviculas, ut torrerentur, ad ignem jam appositas, e veru extrahens, nova vita donavit.” According to Farini, among them there were 30 nobles, 166 villagers and merchants, 2 priests, 74 officials, 38 military men, 72 doctors, lawyers, engineers and writers; the rest consisted of artisans. On the movement towards the founding of a national church in Germany, the so-called. “German. Catholicism will be discussed below. Mixed marriages will be discussed below. The influence of the living word of Hermes was enormous. A whole theological school soon formed around him in Bonn, which was joined not only by his closest students - Braun, Achterfeld, Vogelsang, Müller, but also by his senior colleagues, like Schulz and Ritter, the philosopher Elvenich, and the lawyer Droste-Gulshof. His students occupied departments at universities and seminaries in Breslau and Braunsberg. Cologne, Trier, Kulm and Ermeland. The excitement that was among professors and students about the condemnation of their teacher Hermes can also be evidenced by the fact that letters circulated among them, in which both the Breve and the highest church authorities were extremely sharply condemned. So in a letter to Professor Achterfeld it was said: “You will not believe how excited I am by the shame that such unfortunate blunders of the highest church authorities bring to our church. One such fact destroys the entire hitherto acquired reputation that your truly scientific superiority over Protestantism gave to Catholicism. And if you knew what dirty hands shuffle the cards that poor dad has to play - and under the table they pull the wire that sets dad’s hands in motion to sign such condemnations and lightning threats! Zeitschrift für Philosophie und katholische Théologie. “Aschchaffenburg Church Newspaper. It was in this sense that the well-known work of Gerres, “Athanasius,” which caused a lot of noise in its time, was written. Its author was a professor in Würzburg, one of the main centers of ultramontanism. The book appeared a few months after Janus in Freiburg in 1870. The latter, contrary to all custom, received the right to vote at this council. "Romanum Pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel m r ribus ab universa ecclesia tunendam définit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in defimenda doctnna de fide vel monbus exstructam esse voluit; ideoque ejusmodi Romani Pontificis defmitiooes ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse. Si quis autem huic Nostrae definition! contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumserit, anathema sit. See official publication: Acta et décréta (Freiburg 1871), p. 1863. Moving on to the history of the real pope, we are entering an era, the main events of which took place before the eyes of the present generation, are remembered by everyone and, due to their freshness, cannot yet be the subject of strict history. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to only a general description of the papacy of Leo XIII. In this case, we use the masterful article by Starokat. prof. Langen printed on it. language in the latest book “International. Theological Journal" for 1897 and translated into Russian in "Christ Reading" for 1898 Aug. and September. It is known that Voltaire, also a student of the Jesuits, experienced such a mental process. At the same time as Renan, two desperate deniers emerged from the same school, one of whom declared himself a wild anarchist in America, and the other ended up murdering Archbishop Sibur. “By their fruits you will know them”... There were cases when, because of a beard, a whole war broke out between the metropolitan and the priests, and the bishop, in order to force the priests to take down this hated “banner” of the Russian people, acted with threats and rewards until one way or another he achieved his goal. That the Roman hierarchy does not treat celibacy itself as a vow of virtue with rigoristic severity, this is evidenced by one Hungarian newspaper, according to which half of the parishes in the Ugorshchina would be left without priests if the celibate Roman Catholic clergy were punished for non-observance of celibacy." Here we make only a brief outline of the scientific movement in the field of Roman theology, as well as in general we briefly touch upon the inner life of mental movements in the West, since a detailed presentation of them requires a special edition, which will be done in due time. This remarkable theological movement has been discussed in more detail above. Our Orthodox theology has long appreciated this valiant theologian, and for example. late prof. I. T. Osinin even relied on his works as the basis for his academic course of lectures on comparative theology. The first fruit of the opening of the Vatican archives was the publication Monumenta reformationis Lutheranac ex tabuleras S. Sedis. Ratisb. 1883, made for the 400th anniversary of Luther by subarchivist Balan - but this publication corresponded so little to the views of the Roman Zealots that the publisher lost his position. The next edition is a treatment of the papal acts from Leo X (Leonis X Regesta, etc. J. Hergenroeter, Trib 1884).