Старокатолицизм, его происхождение, история и теперешнее состояние 41
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Protests against Vatican dogma. – Vain expectations and sad reality. – Movement among professors. – Dellinger’s statement, and the beginning of Old Catholicism as a community independent of Rome. – Spread of Old Catholicism in Switzerland. – Responses in other countries. – Announcement of the beginning of the religion of Old Catholicism in 1889. International Old Catholic Congresses. – Formal commissions on the issue of reunification. – The current state of Old Catholicism.
The Vatican dogma, as we have seen, even before its final definition aroused numerous objections on the part of many bishops and especially the most prominent representatives of science. But when it was finally approved, and the hopes of right-thinking Catholics that prudence would prevail and the Vatican dogma in its extreme form would not be accepted by the council were not justified, this clearly convinced the representatives of the opposition that ultramontanism with its idolization of the papacy had finally triumphed in the Roman Catholic Church, and that there was only one way to save the truth - to openly protest against it. And this protest found expression in the person of the best representatives of Roman Catholic theological science - professors at the universities of Munich, Breslau and Munster. Prague professor Schulte took charge of this protest.
On July 1, 1870, he sent letters to the professors of the University of Tübingen - Kuhn and the University of Munich - Döllinger, in which the idea was expressed that it would be good for opponents of the Vatican dogma to organize a congress in Stuttgart, or some other city of their choice, to discuss the state of affairs, and he himself took on the task, together with them, to draw up a special note expressing protest against the decision of the Vatican Council and give it to possible wide publicity. Both professors reacted with complete sympathy to the proposal of the Prague professor. Having received favorable responses, Schulte immediately began to compose a note, which was then sent to various German Roman Catholic universities with a proposal that any of the professors sign it, so that with these signatures the protest itself could then be made public.
In response to this proposal, Schulte soon received up to 60 professorial signatures from universities: Munich, Tübingen, Bonn, Breslau, Münster and Württemberg; the names of all the outstanding scientists of Germany, such as Döllinger, Friedrich, Reisch, Langen (professor of theology at the University of Bonn), Reinkens, Weber and others, appeared in a long row of these signatures. Having secured the consent of such scientific authorities, Schulte could only publish the protest he had drawn up. However, the circumstance that followed, namely the abandonment of the Vatican Council by representatives of the minority before its end, slowed down the work that had begun with such noticeable success, especially since some of the professors who signed it, such as for example. Kuhn, Reisch and some others, having learned that the opposition bishops had left the council without any statement of their protest against its decision, demanded their signatures back, because without the support of the bishops they considered this protest to be hardly of any significance.
But this first failure could no longer stop the emerging movement. The sheer abundance of prominent individuals who signed Schulte’s protest clearly indicated that this movement is not something fleeting, soon passing, that it cannot die out soon. And indeed, it soon flared up with even greater force, especially when a more experienced leader, the famous Munich professor of church history Ignatius Dellinger, became its leader. At the end of July and the beginning of August, he sent a circular to various places in Germany with an invitation to gather on August 25 in Nuremberg to express a general protest against the decisions of the Vatican Council, so that, as the circular said, “through the silence and individual actions of individual leaders of the emerging society, they would not contribute to the strengthening of the Jesuit party.” It goes without saying that the voice of such a highly respected person as Dellinger should have aroused great excitement among the Roman Catholic world. At the end of August 1870, thus, a huge anti-Vatican demonstration was being prepared.
But even earlier than this, first in Munich and then in Munster and Breslau, the movement was brought to life by the following, purely accidental circumstance. In Munich, everyone was outraged by the tactless behavior of the Munich Archbishop Scherr, who initially belonged to the opposition, but then, upon arrival in Munich, suddenly became an ardent champion of Vatican dogma, so that he even placed his definition in the appendix to his pastoral leaflet.
This behavior of the archbishop aroused strong indignation in the city, especially at the university, the professors of which, among 43 people, published a protest with the following content at the end of July: “Taking into account the fact that the real and complete freedom of meetings at the Vatican Council was hampered by the order of business; that many members of the council were absolutely dependent on Roman propaganda, and, moreover, strong moral pressure was applied to the bishops from the pope, we, the undersigned, unanimously declare that we cannot recognize the Vatican Council as a free ecumenical council, and we cannot attach any significance to its conclusions, in particular we reject the position of the personal infallibility of the pope, as having no basis in St. Scripture, neither in St. tradition, and as clearly contradicting church history.”
This explanation had scarcely been published in the Augsburg General Newspaper when a statement appeared in the same newspaper from 12 professors at the University of Breslau and 6 professors at the University of Münster, stating that they, fully sharing the opinion of their learned colleagues at the University of Munich, were adding their names to those of the latter in their protest against Vatican dogma. Before the impression made by these protests had time to fade, a protest was declared in the same spirit not only by representatives of science, but also by representatives of society in general. On August 14, 1870, under the influence mainly of the lawyer of the city of Koblenz, Adams, and the senior teacher of the same city, Stumpf, a huge meeting (up to 1,359 people) took place in the town of Koenigswinter, located near Bonn, in which, in addition to university professors, many merchants, manufacturers, pharmacists, officers and representatives of other classes took part.
On behalf of this diverse assembly, united for one common goal - a protest against the papacy, under the leadership of Professors Deering, Reisch and Langen, the following statement was drawn up and then published in the Cologne Gazette: “Taking into account the fact that the council held in the Vatican lacked complete freedom, and its important decisions were not drawn up with due consent, the undersigned Catholics declare that they do not recognize the decrees Vatican Council on the absolute power of the pope and his personal infallibility, but they reject these decrees as an innovation that is in conflict with the ancient faith of the church.” A few days after this numerous meeting, the long-awaited conference finally took place in Nuremberg, at which the movement took on a completely definite character, not only in the sense of protest against the papacy, but also in the sense of the first step towards the formation of an independent community, independent of Rome.
At this conference, a decisive demand was made for the convening of a true ecumenical council in the Christian world to condemn the Roman Church as infected with heresies. “We are convinced,” says a statement on behalf of this conference, “that prolonged silence about the papal decrees announced through the bull Pastor aeternus is indecent for us and harmful for the church. In Chapter III of the Constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi, it is presented as a dogma of faith that the bishop of Rome has not only supreme supervision and supreme leadership over the church, but that he possesses all churches and each one individually, that he has unlimited and direct power over all church leaders and each individual, and even over each Christian. In Chapter IV, it is then presented as a divinely revealed teaching of faith that the Bishop of Rome, as the teacher of all Christians in matters of faith and morals, possesses the infallibility promised by Christ to the church, and that therefore his decisions are supposedly infallible in themselves, and not by virtue of agreement with the church.
We cannot recognize these provisions as the sayings of a true ecumenical council; we reject them as a new teaching that has never been recognized by the church.” Having then spoken in detail about why the above two points of the doctrine of the Vatican Council cannot be recognized as the definition of a truly ecumenical council, the drafters of the Nuremberg statement ended it with the following significant words: “In view of the errors that have already been introduced into the Church through the new teaching and which may yet arise in the latter in the future, we ask those bishops who rebelled against this teaching and by their behavior at the council earned the gratitude of the Catholic world, so that They, with all the means in their hands, contributed to the speedy convening of a true, free, and therefore not in Italy, but outside it, council.”
This Nuremberg statement, composed on behalf of the best representatives of science and even mixed society, was the step that took the new movement directly beyond the boundaries of the Roman Church. This is how it was understood by the Ultramontane party, on behalf of which the official organ of the pope, the Catholic, directly stated: “The Nuremberg statement fills us with the deepest pain; it did not arise on Catholic soil, it is a formal renunciation of our common mother - the church. However, this statement also has a good side: thanks to it, the crisis ended; that dangerous situation in which a certain ambiguity still existed, so that truth and error, friend and foe, could go hand in hand - this situation has now been put to an end. Whoever, therefore, now signs this statement, whether he is a layman or a clergyman, will suffer the anathema with which the Vatican Council protected both points of the doctrine, which are rejected here as a new teaching that has never been recognized by the church.”
This is how the Old Catholic movement began: having first arisen in Germany, it then quickly found sympathetic responses in various countries of Western Europe, arousing sympathy in all those for whom the interests of religion and the church were still dear. In view of such lively sympathy greeted by the new movement, one might expect that it, as corresponding to urgent needs, would develop rapidly and would indeed present itself as a formidable protest against the excesses of papism. This was what many expected, and those who sympathized with him in various countries loudly expressed their confidence that, at last, a movement had appeared that would break the willfulness of Rome and serve as a turning point to return it to the path of repentance for its historical sins. However, this hope was not destined to come true, for which there were very important reasons. From the very beginning, the movement was surrounded by extremely unfavorable conditions that greatly hampered its development.
Among these circumstances, which were unfavorable for the development of the new movement, the most important was the general state of Western European society at that time, which included the emergence and history of Old Catholicism. This was the time when, in the midst of Western European society, as a result of the discord between religion and culture that had taken root in the West, materialistic skepticism developed strongly, which entailed a cooling towards any religious truth. Having penetrated into the environment of Protestant societies, this skepticism not only did not escape the higher Roman Catholic world, but, on the contrary, found even more favorable soil in it - perhaps partly because there, to a much greater extent than in the Protestant world, a contradiction between the scientific and religious fields had long been felt.
Old Catholicism, with its religious enthusiasm, with its faith in revealed truth and with its zeal against religious error, naturally, given such a religious state of civilized Western society, should have seemed to the latter an anachronism. Such a state of Western society could not but respond all the more unfavorably to the development of the new movement, since it, as a movement not only religious, but at the same time scientific, could, especially in the early stages of its existence, find a response and sympathy only among an educated society; the mass of the common people initially could not sympathize with him for the simple reason that the Vatican Council in its eyes was an ecumenical council, and its opponents were heretics, since it was in this spirit that they were portrayed by the small ultramontane press, accessible to its understanding, from which the common people, due to ignorance and inability to read learned works, could only receive information about the events taking place in the Western church world.
The political circumstances of the time also played a significant role in this regard. Just at the time of the birth of Old Catholicism, a war broke out between the two main European states - Germany and France, which focused all the attention of the governments of not only these states, but also the entire European world in general, since one or another situation of all European states in general depended on one or another outcome of this struggle. Under such circumstances, both the German and other governments could naturally lose sight of what was happening within the Roman Catholic world and leave the new movement without any support. That's how it really was. For a long time after its emergence, the Old Catholic society paid very little attention to itself from government spheres, remaining a legally unrecognized society.
And since, in essence, everything depended on this recognition - both the right to unhindered satisfaction of various kinds of church needs, and the material well-being of the new society, then this latter, indeed, immediately, at the very beginning of its existence, found itself in an extremely cramped position - in complete material and religious ecclesiastical dependence on the curia. The latter took advantage of this circumstance to suppress the nascent movement, first in Germany and then in other countries.
Leaving the common people aside for now, the Roman Curia first focused all its attention on the leaders of Old Catholicism, in whom all its strength lay. What tactics the curia resorted to can be judged by the characteristic words that the Jesuit general Bex said at the Vatican Council: “If,” said Bex, “the wind changes, then the weather vanes also change, and first of all, of course, those that are located high. Now let the highest church princes be convinced that they have a choice: either accept the Vatican dogma and continue to live in their splendor and glory, or lose their position, be excommunicated from the church, dishonored and disgraced, take a beggar’s staff in their hands - let them understand this thoroughly, and then there will be no need to win over any of them to our side: they will all rush on their own, all of them.” And this tactic took effect.
Back at the end of September 1870, when the main leaders of Old Catholicism, having learned that some of the bishops of the opposition accepted the message drawn up in Fulda in defense of the new dogma, gathered in Vienna and sent from there a special message to the bishops who remained faithful to their convictions at the Vatican Council - with an admonition not to change their convictions, then from the subsequent responses it could be concluded that of the six bishops to whom they were messages were sent out, only two - Hefele of Rothenburg and Strossmayer of Diakovar - remained faithful to the views they had previously expressed, while the other four - Rauscher of Vienna, Schwarzenberg of Prague, Grain of Gallen and Michael of Bamberg - went over to the side of the Ultramontan party. Soon afterwards, betrayal of previous convictions also became obvious on the part of the bishops: Eberhard of Trier, Konrad Martin of Padenberg, Dinkel of Augsburg, Ketteler of Maint and Furstenberg of Olmuth.
They were finally followed by Hefele of Rothenburg and Strossmayer of Dyakovar; so that the German Old Catholic society was thus left completely without bishops. In this situation, having no opposition from the bishops, it was not particularly difficult for the curia to act directly with violence towards the professors, as already subordinate persons. Moreover, some of the bishops not only betrayed their previous convictions, but even tried to serve the Vatican, and for this purpose they began to take various violent measures in order to shake the convictions of those Old Catholics who remained faithful to them, and, of course, first of all, those of the fighters for the Old Catholic truth, who with their scientific activities could be especially harmful to the papacy, i.e., Roman Catholic professors faculties. Munich Archbishop Scherr turned out to be especially zealous in this regard, who on October 20, 1870
sent a message to the theological faculty of the University of Munich demanding that they “clearly and definitely express their opinions regarding the definitions of the Vatican Council.” Seven university professors, after much hesitation, yielded to episcopal pressure, recognizing in an explanation sent to the archbishop on November 29 “the ecumenical character of the Vatican Council, and its definitions, especially the definitions about the Church of Christ.” But two of the professors most famous for their scientific activities - Dellinger and Friedrich - resolutely refused to change their convictions. It was in vain that the archbishop took all sorts of measures to persuade outstanding professors to submit to the Vatican, and even resorted to ingratiation. But when all means proved unsuccessful, the archbishop decided to resort to strict measures, and threatened them with removal from office. Both professors were given a deadline; but now the time has passed, and the adamant fighters for church truth remained in their conviction, and at first prof.
Friedrich (March 15) and then Döllinger (March 29) gave a final explanation in which they stood by their conviction, decisively rejecting Vatican dogma. Particularly remarkable was Dellinger's explanation, which, due to its strength of spirit and thoroughness of judgment, became one of the remarkable church-historical monuments of modern times. In it, first of all, the inconsistency of the new dogma, as contradictory to St., was demonstrated with merciless clarity. Scripture, St. tradition and the entire history of the church; then, with no less clarity and thoroughness, the non-ecumenical nature of the Vatican Council was proven, which, in terms of the tyranny expressed in it, resembled the robber council of 449, and finally, in the conclusion, it was said about the terrible consequences that the Vatican dogma would inevitably entail.
“The power assigned to the pope according to Vatican definitions,” this explanation said, “is limitless, boundless, it can extend its actions wherever,” as Innocent III says, “there is sin, it can subject everyone to punishment, does not tolerate any appeal... With the new dogma, the pope can always, with one word urbi, make every position, teaching and demand an infallible dogma of faith... As a Christian, as theologian, as a historian and as a citizen, I cannot accept a new dogma. As a Christian: for he is incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel and with the clear sayings of Christ and the apostles...; as a theologian: for he stands in irreconcilable contradiction with all the true tradition of the church; as a historian: for I know that... the desire to implement the theory of world domination expressed in this dogma will stain Europe with streams of blood, devastate countries and destroy the beautiful building of the ancient church... As a citizen, finally, I cannot accept the new dogma, because it, with its claim to the subordination of states, monarchs and the entire political system to papal power...
will lead to disastrous discord between church and state... And if this teaching, from the consequences of which the ancient German Empire perished, finally triumphed in the Catholic part of Germany, it would immediately sow the seed of incurable decay in the newly created new empire.”
One can imagine the commotion and irritation that Dellinger’s just given explanation caused in the Ultramontane camp! The ultramontan press, which had recently proclaimed Dellinger the greatest church historian, now threw thunder and lightning at him, calling the famous venerable historian a heretic, a second Luther, a demagogue, a Judas traitor, a worshiper of lies, a traitor to God, the church and himself, and, finally, even an old man who had lost his mind. For his part, Archbishop Scherr, making another attempt in a pastoral letter to convince Döllinger, finally threatened him and his brother Frederick with solemn public excommunication. Soon afterwards the threat was carried out: on April 17, 1871, Dellinger was excommunicated, and the next day Prof. Frederick, and the excommunication of both was brought to the attention of the king and the ministry. At the same time, similar reprisals by the Ultramontane party against the learned leaders of the Old Catholic movement began in other places. September 20, 1870
the Cologne suffragan Bishop Baudry, on behalf of Archbishop Melchers, appealed to the professors of the University of Bonn Reisch, Gilgers and Langen with a demand to recognize the teaching contained in the Vatican decrees as divinely revealed truth. After the professors resolutely refused to submit to this demand, as contrary to their convictions, Melchers (October 8) himself personally demanded submission to his commands, otherwise he threatened them not only with the prohibition of teaching theology at the university and in general with the prohibition of the right to teach anywhere, but even with the highest measure of spiritual punishment, i.e., excommunication. As a result of the new refusal of the professors, the first of these punishments actually (November 4, 1870) befell Reisch, Gilgers and Langen. Following this, the same punishment befell the professors: the Brownsberg College of Michelis and the University of Breslau Balzer, Reinkens, Weber and others (November 20, 1870).
Such a system of violence and persecution, of course, had a heavy impact on the entire movement, putting its main leaders in a hopeless position; fortunately, the very extremeness of these measures aroused protest on the part of some governments, and especially Prussia. Following the confiscation of the chairs by the Cologne archbishop from the professors of the University of Bonn - Reisch, Gilgers and Langen - on November 18, 1870, a categorical statement was sent to the Minister of Education Müller from the Council of the University of Bonn about the enormous danger to science that the ultramontanes' mode of action could entail. bishops in the line of Cologne.
As a result of this statement, the minister, after fruitless correspondence with the archbishop, issued two rescripts, which contained, on the one hand, condemnation of the illegal course of action of the Cologne archbishop, as having exceeded his authority in his actions; on the other hand, permission for the suspended professors to begin again the interrupted readings, and the minister added that for the refusal of these professors to submit to the demands of the archbishop regarding the recognition of Vatican definitions, and in general for all their behavior during the clash with Melchers, “the state cannot make them any reproach.” As a result of these rescripts, Reisch and Langen again resumed their interrupted readings at the university.
Due to the fact that the Prussian government, having itself felt the power of papal absolutism, at that time opened a campaign against it, especially in the field of public education, the Old Catholic movement, as a living protest against the same absolutism, was to its advantage, and the famous State Chancellor of the German Empire, Prince Bismarck, openly began to take the side of the Old Catholics, which provided - unfortunately only for a time - greater support for the entire movement. Simultaneously with the favorable turn in the relations of secular authorities towards Old Catholicism in Prussia, the same turn in relations towards it was revealed in another state allied to the German Empire - in Bavaria. And there, as in Prussia, the visible expression of this was, first of all, the sympathy of the government authorities for the excommunicated professors Döllinger and Friedrich.
Soon after his announced excommunication, both of them were given the highest title of members of the chapter of the Maximilian Order, and; in addition, Döllinger received a letter from the Bavarian king Ludwig II in which the head of state, on the one hand, praised him for his firmness in recognizing the dogma of papal infallibility, and on the other, regretted the behavior of Archbishop Scherr, explaining this behavior by cowardice resulting from old age. In addition to Prussia and Bavaria, Old Catholicism met with some sympathy from other German states, as in Baden, Württemberg, etc. All this greatly raised the spirit of the Old Catholics, and they could take up the internal organization of their community. For this purpose, the first Old Catholic Congress was convened in Munich (Sept. 22–24, 1871), which gave sanction for the formation of independent communities, expressing the desire that “in all places where there is a need and where there is a sufficient number of people, regular parishes should be formed.”
From this time on, in fact, the emergence of Old Catholic communities began in various places, both in Germany and in Switzerland.
These communities, in most cases, however, were far from being strictly organized parishes, since even in Germany the Old Catholics were still in an extremely difficult situation, which made it difficult for any more or less correct church organization. The obstacle to such an organization, first of all, was the extreme shortage of priests, which occurred because the Old Catholics, soon after their separation from the Roman Church, were left completely without bishops, so that there was no one to maintain the grace of the priesthood in their society in this way, and meanwhile, the priests of pre-Vatican ordination who remained faithful to their convictions were too few so that they could fully satisfy the needs of the entire Old Catholic society. By 1873, there were more than a hundred of all Old Catholic communities in Germany, but only 34 priests, some of them were university professors, such as. Reish in Bonn, being thus bound by extraneous pursuits.
Under such circumstances, in some places the dead of the Old Catholics were buried without a funeral service, because the Roman Catholic priests resolutely refused to do this, and there were no priests nearby; in other places, children grew up without baptism, without confirmation, etc. In order to eliminate these abnormalities, the Munich central committee decided to appeal to the Archbishop of the Utrecht Church Lods, whose religious system turned out to be in essential features similar to the religious system of Old Catholicism, at the very beginning of the latter’s existence with an invitation to Germany to perform the necessary ordinations.
Lods actually arrived in Munich, visited different cities, visiting Old Catholic communities, but, in general, this journey of the Utrecht archbishop brought little benefit to the German Old Catholic society, since all Lods’ activities during his trip were, in essence, limited only to confirmation and worship in various places; However, due to the lack of a formal unification between the German Old Catholic Society and the Utrecht Church, he made an extremely limited number of ordination to the priesthood. Therefore, the main obstacle to the correct organization of the new society - the lack of priests - remained in force. Then, of necessity, the question arose of how to obtain for the Old Catholic community its own independent bishop. For this purpose, a special committee of seven professors was established, including Friedrich, Michelis, Reisch and Schulte, which was tasked with investigating the issue.
It was precisely at this time that the cultural struggle in Prussia reached an extreme degree of tension, deprivation of cathedras, arrests and even imprisonment of Ultramontane bishops took place. The government was looking for all possible means to fight the curia, and its attention involuntarily focused on the Old Catholics, whom, as opponents of papism, it planned to use in its own way. When, therefore, at the beginning of 1873, Prof. Schulte, on behalf of the episcopal commission, arrived in Berlin for negotiations regarding the election of a bishop, he was met with complete sympathy. Prince Bismarck told him in a personal conversation: “My fundamental view is the same as yours. I consider the Old Catholics to be the only Catholics to whom everything should actually belong. Choose a bishop for yourself and come for his recognition: we cannot refuse you, since everything is over with the Vatican.”
The Old Catholics did not fail to take advantage of the favorable mood of the Prussian government towards them. They began the task of electing a bishop, and at a special meeting of commission members in Bonn (April 19 of the same 1873), it was decided to make this election in Cologne on June 4. Thirty priests were nominated among all candidates for the episcopal see: twenty from northern Germany and ten from southern Germany. Of these thirty, the general voice pointed, of course, to Dellinger as the most worthy of all candidates. But the great elder decisively refused the candidacy, motivating his refusal partly by the difficulty of his years of episcopal service, partly by disagreement with the majority of the leaders of Old Catholicism on certain issues. After his refusal, the main candidates remained Reinkens, Reisch, Michelis and Langen, and the first of them, by a huge majority (69 out of 77), was elected bishop.
With the election of a bishop, the Old Catholic community in Germany received completeness in its church organization, and since it was recognized by several German governments, the financial position of the Old Catholic community was significantly strengthened.
The second important center of Old Catholicism was Switzerland. The first beginnings of the Old Catholic movement in Switzerland date back to the very meetings of the Vatican Council, the progress of affairs at which the population, as well as the government of this country, followed with intense attention. There were reasons for this. Switzerland had previously experienced a lot of ecclesiastical and political unrest, the cause of which was almost exclusively the intrigues of the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Already from the first decades of this century, attempts began in Switzerland to throw off the papal yoke, one of which, by the way, was made by the free-thinking Vicar Wessenberg, who incurred the disfavor of the Vatican by trying to introduce worship in German, caring for better education of the clergy, limiting holidays and other transformations in an extremely neglected area of \u200b\u200bthe church and religious life of the people. In the forties, things came to an open struggle against ultramontanism, and in 1848.
A special constitution was issued, by virtue of which the Jesuits were expelled, and complete freedom of conscience and equality of religions were declared. Despite this defeat, Ultramontanism did not resign itself, and still continued to carry out agitation in the cantons most devoted to it, where, despite the strict prohibition, little by little and under various pretexts, the main servants of the papal throne - the Jesuits - did not slow down, and soon again concentrated in their hands all the threads of Ultramontan aspirations and harassment. The Jesuits continued to spread out their network of schools and educational institutions, carried out free or forced conversions, invaded all areas of life, even in the area of industry and trade, everywhere causing extreme confusion and irritation in society. In view of this state of affairs, it is not surprising that public opinion in Switzerland treated the Vatican Council, which had as its task to give a dogmatic sanction to the ultramontanism it hated, with the most serious attention.
The progress of affairs at the council was followed everywhere with the most intense attention, and the agitation of minds reached the highest degree when it became certain that the majority of the bishops assembled in Rome would come out in favor of dogmatizing the doctrine of papal infallibility. In German Switzerland, this teaching had not hitherto been preached either in the religious education of youth, or in theological institutions, or from pulpits. Even after the opening of the council, in strictly papist-minded, but less informed circles of German Switzerland, they argued with complete seriousness that this was simply an invention of the enemies of the church, who, with malicious intent, spread the rumor that the council would declare the pope infallible. The main organ of Roman Catholic Switzerland (Lucerne Gazette, now Vatorland) therefore joyfully welcomed the fact that the Bishop of the Basel diocese, Eugene Laschau, took with him to Rome the well-known opponent of the doctrine of papal infallibility, Canon Prof. Tanner from Lucerne.
And when they later heard that at least one Swiss bishop, Great of St. Gallen, joined the minority at the Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic cantons were so happy about this that even persons distinguished by a strictly papist tendency wrote an approving address to the said bishop and let it in for signature. The address, however, was not sent to Rome. The weak-willed Bishop Great, having heard of the proposal to greet him on the occasion of his position at the council, immediately ordered that it be reported that he would not accept the address, and admonished those responsible for taking better care of calming the agitation of minds among the people. The matter had obviously already been decided. If anyone at this time spoke out against the new teaching, he was branded with the name of a disturber, or even an outright enemy of the church, and the Roman press no longer accepted articles directed against the tendency of the majority at the Vatican Council.
This was the situation when, in April 1870, in Lucerne, four clergymen (these were: the Lucerne pastor Schürch, two gymnasium teachers - Helfenstein and Suppiger, and Prof. Herzog) decided, in defense of the old Catholic teaching, as they put it, to publish a special weekly newspaper. It was first published on April 22, 1870 under the title: “The Catholic Voice from Waltstetten.” The newspaper program contained the following significant words: “Nothing can push us away from love and devotion to our common mother, our old Catholic Church and its worthy traditions; on the contrary, it is precisely this that serves as a sign of unchanging loyalty and devotion to it, that, in times of danger, even fear, even fear of the wrath of zealots, does not prevent us from telling the truth, as we feel obliged to do in our conscience. In any case, let our motto be: fidecialiter agam et non timebo" (“I will act faithfully and will not be afraid”). “The Voice” remained true to this motto. With fearlessness he argued, on the basis of St.
Scriptures and church history, the falsity and harm of Vatican doctrines, recounted the sad events of the Vatican Council, reported extracts from the writings of minority bishops, announced the beginning of the struggle in Germany, etc. The result was extraordinary: the newspaper was read everywhere in Catholic Switzerland, and its articles were reprinted in all liberal newspapers. Then, to suppress the temptation, the Swiss bishops issued a pastoral letter in which the Catholic faithful were admonished not to succumb to the suggestions of the Voice. Those four priests who published the newspaper had only one choice: either stop the newspaper, or, otherwise, end up breaking with the Roman hierarchy. They decided in favor of the former; only one of them (Prof. Herzog) continued the struggle in political newspapers, and in the fall of 1871 he was repeatedly summoned to the episcopal commission with the demand to frankly explain his position in relation to the new dogma. This commission prof.
The Duke openly declared that he did not recognize the new dogma, considered it his duty to stand for the truth, and would throw off his anonymity as soon as he was sufficiently convinced that his personality and position could provide real service to the truth. This time he did not suffer any ecclesiastical punishment. A year later (September 1872) he went to the Old Catholic Congress in Cologne and announced from there in an open letter to Bishop Lacheux that he had joined the Old Catholic movement and assumed pastoral responsibilities in the second Old Catholic community in Prussia - Krefeld (until then there was only one Old Catholic community in Cologne).
Meanwhile, in Switzerland, opposition to the false Vatican teaching was becoming more and more serious. This was especially evident in the diocese of Basel. The local Bishop of Lasho, returning to his diocese shortly after July 18, 1870, was very coldly received in Solothurn, where his residence was located. The governments of some cantons have already decided not to recognize Catholicism, modified at the Vatican Council, as the Catholic religion, which, in accordance with the constitution, was guaranteed full state protection; so it was decided to deny state recognition to the Vatican decrees themselves. On September 8, 1870, on behalf of the governments of the cantons, through the government adviser to the canton of Solothurn (landamann Bigier), it was officially reported to Bishop Lacheux, and, according to this, a demand was presented to him - to stop publishing the new teaching of the faith. If Lachaud wanted to give ecclesiastical legal significance to the new decrees through official actions, a threat was made to close the diocese.
However, in a Lenten message dated February 6, 1871, Bishop Lachaux spoke at length about the new teaching, declaring that every Catholic was obliged to believe in it, and calling those who did not want to accept it “false teachers and the gates of the church.” For the official reading of this pastoral letter in church dioceses, it was necessary to obtain permission from the governments of individual cantons. Bishop Lachaux tried to obtain permission, but so late that, for example, in the canton of Bern, the reading of the letter had already taken place when the government had just learned about it. In other cantons (Aargau, Basel) permission was not given, and in some, individual pastors personally allowed themselves to cross out those parts of the episcopal letter that related to the Vatican Council. The latter was done in Lucerne, by the way, by the prison pastor Egli. He himself immediately declared his action to the episcopal commission in Lucerne, adding in his statement a protest against the new false teaching. Consequently, he was solemnly excommunicated on March 10, 1871.
and when then, in May 1871, control passed into the hands of adherents of the papacy, he was deprived of his place. Egli remained true to his convictions, but suffered great need, until in December 1872 he was unanimously elected as pastor by the small congregation of Olzberg in Aargau. Pastor Peacock Gschwind from Starkirch (in Solothurn) rebelled against the Vatican decrees with no less steadfastness. Already in 1870, under the name of Peregrina, he published an essay against celibacy. Who the author of this work was, it was, so to speak, a well-known secret. Demanded by the episcopal chancellor for an explanation regarding this work, he did not renounce it. And when Gschwind then did not read in his community that part of the episcopal message that spoke of papal infallibility, Bishop Lachaud declared him deposed. The excommunicated pastor turned to the Solothurn government for protection, and since the majority of the community remained faithful to him, he continued his pastoral activities.
The government declared the deposition pronounced by Bishop Lachaud to be unfounded and invalid, and convened representatives of the cantons of the diocese to inform them of such action by the bishop. Commissioners from the cantons (Aargau, Basel, Bern, Solothurn and Torgau) attended the meeting. On November 19, 1872, they made a written statement to Bishop Lachaux, in which they repeated that the Vatican decrees in their cantons had no legal significance, and therefore none of the clergy who rejected these decrees could be punished. Based on this, from Bishop. Lachaud was demanded that within three weeks he unconditionally revoke the sentence of excommunication pronounced on two pastors, Egli and Gschwind.
At the same time, several large meetings of the laity took place, which were an expression of the mood of a large part of the Roman Catholic population. When the news of the dogmatization of papal infallibility and papal sovereignty penetrated the Alps, the excitement at the occasion of such a shameful yoke now imposed on the believers was so great that the Old Catholic movement would have embraced all strata of the population if, simultaneously with this news from the south, terrible news had not arrived from the north, which immediately absorbed everyone's attention - namely, the news of the declaration of war between France and Germany. But as soon as the war moved away from the borders of Switzerland, its public opinion again took up the church issue. Of course, some were indifferent, others were fearful, others were prudently cautious. But in all the larger places, whole hundreds and thousands responded to the calls when some zealots of church truth issued an invitation to public discussion of the state of church affairs. So, March 31, 1871
A meeting took place in Lucerne, in the presence of several hundred Roman Catholic citizens, which unanimously spoke in favor of the affirmation of Vatican dogma and the provisions of the syllabus. A similar meeting, held in the episcopal city of Solothurn, declared (April 20, 1871) the Vatican decrees a mockery of reason, protested against the proposal to teach them in school or church, and came up with the idea of founding a union that could embrace all like-minded people in Switzerland. But the excommunication of Pastor Gschwind served as a sign for a more practical struggle against the invasion of Vatican false teaching. Throughout Switzerland, only one mood prevailed: that it was necessary to support the small rural community of Starkirch, which remained faithful to its excommunicated pastor. But the success of this endeavor could not be particularly counted on when it remained the only Old Catholic community in Switzerland. Therefore, work has now begun in earnest on the formation of new Old Catholic communities. For this purpose, on December 1, 1872
A general meeting of Swiss Catholics was convened. Professor Reinkens from Breslau was also invited to it. The city of Olten, which had long been distinguished by freethinking, provided its parish church to the congregation of several thousand people. Prof. Reinkens and Munzinger, a professor of law at the Berne University School - a very learned man and an eloquent speaker - with their speeches brought the meeting to unprecedented animation. Munzinger drew up a draft for the founding of the Swiss Union of Freethinking Catholics, a draft that was unanimously accepted by the assembly. The extremely brilliant outcome of the Olten meeting encouraged friends of the Old Catholic movement in other places. Reinkens was invited to lecture from Olten to Solothurn, Lucerne, Bern, Basel and Rheinfelden. Everywhere he found unusually numerous listeners who listened with sympathy to his animated speech. In view of such a favorable turn of events, relations were established with prof.
The Duke, who remained a pastor outside his fatherland, in Krefeld, and asked him to return to his fatherland, and he was given the choice of a place in Olten or Solothurn. The Duke did return, and in March 1873 he accepted the position of pastor in the Olten community. Olten's example was followed a few weeks later by the neighboring community of Trimbach, where the Roman Catholic pastor was also dismissed, and in his place the Old Catholic priest Kilchmann from Lucerne was elected and installed by the Duke. In many other towns and villages of German Switzerland, community meetings were held to formally declare the rejection of the teachings of the syllabus and the Vatican Council. In some communities of the canton of Aargau this took place in full agreement with the clergy; in others (eg.
Zurich, Solothurn, Basel, etc.), such a decision led to a new election of clergy, or, if the majority remained on the Roman side, at least to the founding of special Old Catholic communities: then in many other communities the matter was limited only to this verbal decision, because at the moment there was a shortage of clergy who could renounce Vaticanism in the corresponding church and public life.
The same movement manifested itself in French Switzerland, although there the soil for the Old Catholic movement was much less favorable. There, for example, there was not a single clergyman who would have had enough insight and courage to come out with an open protest against the new false teaching. The clergy, educated in the French way, in seminaries, were accustomed to slavish obedience, and liberal laity, as in France itself, for the most part treated religious matters with cold indifference. Nevertheless, even there a desire for liberation from ultramontanism was manifested, and several Old Catholic communities were formed in the Geneva canton. This movement was at one time significantly promoted by the French pastor Hyacinthe Loison, famous for his church eloquence in Paris. Loison had already joined the Old Catholic movement, got married, and thereby actually abolished celibacy.
Invited to Geneva, he immediately declared private confession a matter of personal desire, which was also tantamount to the actual abolition of the Roman confessional, and from the very beginning began to celebrate the liturgy in French. These changes in places aroused confusion in German Switzerland even among those who did not actually disapprove of the movement; in general, the opinion was expressed that such radical transformations could only be undertaken by a properly established church leadership, namely the synod, and that individuals should wait until such a leadership was established. That's why Prof. The Duke, who pastored Olten, at first refused to enter into any relations with Loison.
This discord showed that the movement, to ensure its success, needed a more durable organization, and had to develop into a coherent church system. The leaders of the movement had to go through an extremely difficult and thorny path before they were able to lay a solid foundation for a new church organization. In addition to the mass of open opponents, they had to fear most of all their so-called friends, for whom the religious question was only a means to political ends. Their most dangerous friends were the so-called free thinkers, for whom the mere name of a bishop seemed like a bogeyman, while the movement could only gain stability if it was able to develop into a system of episcopacy. At the Olten meeting on August 22, 1873, 90 representatives appeared from more than 40 communities and unions, but there discussions regarding the new church organization were limited to a resolution to postpone the actual establishment of the church indefinitely.
At the second meeting of the commissioners, held on June 4, 1874 in Bern, internal disagreements only became more pronounced. It was only at the third meeting on September 21, 1874, that the foundation of church government, centered in a synod and a bishop, was so laid in Olten that the necessary elections could then take place. On June 14, 1875, the first Old Catholic or (as they began to say in Switzerland) “Christ-Catholic” national council 42 actually took place. But even now, despite the persistent desire of the Genevans, matters did not come to the election of a bishop. Only the second synod of June 7, 1876 became the birthday of the Swiss Catholic national episcopate, and at the same time the Christ-Catholic Church itself in Switzerland. Prof. was elected to the position of bishop by a majority of votes. The Duke, nephew and heir to the spiritual talents of the famous Lucerne Provost Ley, who became famous in the 30s for his fight against ultramontanism, and the chosen one was solemnly consecrated on September 18, 1876.
by the German Bishop Reinkens in the parish church in Rheinfelden. The content provided to the new bishop was at first extremely poor, but he could not be denied state recognition, and the less external funds were, the more the young church had to seek strengthening for itself in the spirit of the ancient confessors. After the election of the bishop, the development of Christ's Catholic Church took a more correct course. Every year the synods prescribed by the charter met, church reforms were discussed, reports were read on the most important events in individual communities, officials were re-elected, the affairs of the general government were regulated, etc. As a result, internal reforms, even the external growth of the church could become a subject of general interest. Already at the synod at which the bishop was elected, transformative decisions were drawn up that were of fundamental importance.
Unionist conferences had already taken place in Bonn (in September 1874 and 1875), and, in view of them, the aged president of the Christ-Catholic Synodal Council, Landamann Keller of Aargau, invited the synod to express its heartfelt sympathy with the aspirations for unity that had begun. Professor Michaud, taking advantage of this occasion, proposed to the synod a statement by which the Catholic Church of Christ more precisely defined its own theological basis. Both proposals were accepted by the synod with minor changes. The Synod stated that it “welcomes the desire of the Old Catholic Church in Germany to achieve unity with the Protestant, Greek and Anglican churches as a great thing, already predicted by the Founder of the Christian religion and contained in the will of Divine Providence, and is ready to contribute to its successful completion to the best of our ability.”
Christ Himself was then recognized as the only Head of the church; Only councils of the undivided Church of East and West are recognized as ecumenical councils; Catholic morality - only the morality of the Gospel, as it is understood by the general, constant, unanimous testimony of the local churches; Catholic discipline and liturgy - only that discipline and liturgy as it was generally accepted and performed in the undivided church. This fundamental decision of the first synod served as the basis for all individual church reforms. Thus, a special service book for worship was developed. Then the question of worship was linked to the question of communion under both types. In view of numerous and repeated petitions, the synod of 1877 by a significant majority declared that communion under both types is Catholic communion, permissible. On September 18, 1878, the bishop issued an archpastoral letter, where he established the form in which communion was to be celebrated. At Christmas 1878
in all the churches of the Geneva canton, communion was given to the faithful under both types. In most German communities, however, communion, due to the habit of the people, was performed under one guise, although no one was denied the cup who just wanted it. Along with these transformations, forced celibacy was abolished. When the synod in 1876 declared that “the capacity to hold ecclesiastical office does not depend on whether the priest concerned is married or single,” the clergy of French Switzerland almost all married, and of the clergy of German Switzerland about half also married.
It is clear that the movement, still so young, although striving to stand on the unshakable soil of the ancient undivided church, could not immediately express its religious essence in dogmatically firm positions, and therefore it was impossible not to notice at times some fluctuations, so to speak, the search for a point of stability. But it seems attractive that Old Catholicism in Switzerland constantly revealed a desire to establish itself precisely on the basis of ancient undivided Christianity, and many of Bishop Herzog’s archpastoral messages to his flock were directed towards this. Of these messages, the message of February 1, 1882 is particularly complete and thorough; it sets out, so to speak, the essence of Old Catholicism as a religious system. Touching upon the question of the sustainability of the cause of Old Catholicism, “whose strength is in the future.”
The Duke then says that the basic principle of Old Catholicism is the famous principle of Vincent of Lyrinsk, that “the Catholic faith is that which was invariably held everywhere, always and by everyone,” that faith that was “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), therefore - an unchanging faith. The highest authority of the universal church is concentrated in ecumenical councils, and its head is Christ, the Son of the Living God, and not the self-proclaimed vicar of Christ, deified at the false ecumenical council of the Vatican. Hence, true Catholics, that is, members of the Catholic Church, are those who do not recognize this deified papacy. And with the rejection of the papacy, all fabrications and illegal innovations are themselves rejected - the dead Latin language in worship. forced celibacy for the clergy, deprivation of the laity of the Eucharistic cup. Bishop Duke also includes private confession here, of course bearing in mind the terrible abuses to which it was and is being subjected in the hands of the Roman clergy.
In contrast to papal absolutism, a selective principle is put forward in the matter of replenishing the hierarchy and clergy. And the whole message ends with the encouraging saying of the apostle: “If God is for us, who can be against us?”
In addition to Germany and Switzerland, Old Catholicism found adherents in other countries, such as Austria, Italy and France. In Austria there was, apparently, all the data for the development of the Old Catholic movement: the clergy at first was against the new dogma, as evidenced by numerous statements of the Austrian bishops at the council, such as the statements of Rauscher, Schwarzenberg, Strossmayer and others. The government itself was against the Vatican dogma, and when the Minister of Confessions Stromeyer reported to the emperor (July 26, 1870) that the new dogma extremely dangerous for the state, because with the power that is assigned to the Roman high priest, secular power cannot continue to exist, the emperor prohibited the publication of the definitions of the Vatican Council in Austria, which was made known to Rome.
With such an attitude towards ultramontanism, the Austrian government at first looked quite leniently at the emerging anti-papal movement, and therefore Old Catholicism, having first appeared in Vienna itself and unhampered by anything, quickly swept across the entire Austrian Empire, so that by the beginning of 1872 the number of Old Catholic communities in Austria had reached a very impressive figure. But then the situation in Austria changed when papism again prevailed in it, and when the Austrian government itself, in the form of centralization, began to oppose the liberation movement from the papacy. In view of this, the Old Catholic communities were deprived of their rights, their priests were recognized as not having any ecclesiastical rights and privileges, so that all rites and sacraments performed by them, in particular all marriages concluded with the blessing of the Old Catholic priests, were declared invalid, and the children from such marriages were illegitimate, as if adopted in concubinage.
This attitude of the government served as a strong brake on the further development of Old Catholicism in Austria, where it had not yet received any further movement.
Protests against the Vatican dogma were also heard in France, where their spokesman was, first of all, a doctor of theology, a priest at the Church of St. Magdalene in Paris, Michaud, who sent an open letter to the Parisian Archbishop Guibert on February 5, 1872, in which, in response to the latter’s demand to submit to Vatican definitions, he decisively declared that he was “an Old Catholic, and will forever remain an Old Catholic, rejecting the heretical views of ultramontanism, and firmly adhering to the Orthodox principles of ancient Catholicism... that he is a priest, and will forever remain a priest, and therefore, despite the bishop’s prohibition, he will continue to exercise his priestly ministry, i.e.
that is, will perform the sacraments of penance, baptism and other sacraments, will accompany the dead to their final resting place and pray for them, will speak, preach and write in order to show the believers the true church, will, in community with others, fight for Christ with His gospel in their hands - fight against the pope and those who will stand for the latter against Christ through the syllabus.” The example of Michaud was followed in the same year by Junka, abbot in the city of Bordeaux, who published in the local newspaper Tribuna (March 10, 1872) a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Bordeaux Donna with a decisive statement that he was separating himself “from the hypocrites, from the mechanical performers of external rites, who previously did not know well and now do not know what they believe in, and are therefore ready to idolize the new Vatican idol." Similar letters were soon published, partly in the same newspaper, partly in other magazines, by priests Mulem, Mare and some others.
Glimpses of the Old Catholic movement in the same 1872 were revealed in Spain, where the protest against the Vatican decree, initially declared by the priest Anthony Aguayo, was joined by first 7, and then 48 more priests, who formed a “society of friends of church reform”, with an extensive program that aimed to cleanse Christian teaching from the admixture of alien elements. Finally, the echoes of the Nuremberg conference soon after it reached even the birthplace of papism - Italy, in which the protest against the Vatican definitions found sympathy in the society formed back in 1862, known as the “society for national liberation and mutual assistance to the Italian clergy.”
Finally, the independent Church of Holland, which began in the 16th century and consists of a small number of members (about 5,000 people), under the authority of the Archbishop of Utrecht and two bishops subordinate to him - Harlem and Deventer, also joined the Old Catholic movement.
With the formation of a significant number of communities independent of Rome in various countries, there was a need to unite them on the basis of one common positive doctrine, and in this regard, the Munich and Cologne congresses were especially important, at which the Old Catholics made an attempt to determine their religious and church-canonical position. Already at the Munich Congress of 1871, the following three guiding principles were developed for the development of the Old Catholic Church: 1) the task of the Old Catholic movement was to restore and adhere to the teachings of the ancient undivided Church, perverted by the papacy in its desire to implement the papal system; 2) restore and preserve in your society the ancient structure of the Christian Church, also perverted by papism in the Western Church; and finally, 3) having thus destroyed the mediastinum between East and West, bring about a reunification between both. “We,” declared the members of Congress, “hold to the old Catholic faith, as attested to in St.
Scripture and St. legends; Therefore, we reject the dogma of the infallible magisterium and the supreme legislative and direct jurisdiction of the pope.” “We firmly adhere to the ancient structure of the church: therefore, with the assistance of theological and canonical science, we strive for a transformation of the church” which would eliminate, in the spirit of the ancient church, the present shortcomings and abuses, and would fulfill the desire of the Catholic people to participate in ecclesiastical affairs.” “We hope for reunification with the Greek-Eastern and Russian churches, since the division followed without compelling reasons and was not based on any significant dogmatic disagreement.” “We hope, through the necessary reforms and through science and Christian culture, to gradually reach an agreement with the Protestant and Evangelical churches.” These principles then found even more definite, clearer expression at the Kehl Congress (September 20–22, 1872).
The Munich Congress made only a general definition of these principles, as representing the desire to preserve the ancient Catholic dogma, but did not indicate the criterion for determining the latter. The Cologne Congress eliminated this deficiency. Formed, by his order, the so-called theological commission for the reunification of the old Catholic society with various Christian societies, having decided to carry out this reunification on the basis of the ancient Catholic teaching, and chose the well-known rule of Vincent of Lirinsky as a criterion for determining this ancient Catholic teaching: “We must adhere to what we have always believed, everywhere and everything,” which criterion formed the basis for the disclosure Old Catholics their faith for all subsequent time. The Second Old Catholic Congress found the expression of this always, everywhere and by all Christians doctrine in the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils.
A further important stage in the development of the Old Catholic movement is represented by the highly significant declaration of all the Old Catholic communities, which took place at the meeting of the Old Catholic bishops in Utrecht. It was there that the following provisions were developed, recognized by all Old Catholic communities, and clearly characterizing the religious and canonical position of the Old Catholic community. 1) We firmly adhere to the basic rule, which Vikenty Lirinsky expressed in the position: “we adhere to what we believed in everywhere,” what we always believed in, what everyone believed in, because this alone is, in the true and proper sense, universal.” We therefore firmly hold to the faith of the ancient church, as expressed in the ecumenical symbols and universally accepted dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical councils of the undivided church of the first millennium. 2) We reject the Vatican decrees of July 18, 1870.
about infallibility and about universal episcopacy or about the ecclesiastical omnipotence of the Pope, as contradicting the faith of the ancient church and destroying the ancient church structure; but this does not prevent us from recognizing the historical primacy as it was assigned to the bishop of Rome, as first among equals (primus inter pares), by many ecumenical councils and the fathers of the ancient church, with the consent of the entire church of the first millennium. 3) We also reject the announcement of Pius IX of 1854 about the immaculate conception of Mary, as having no basis in Holy Scripture and the tradition of the first centuries. 4) As for the other dogmatic decrees issued in the last century by the Bishop of Rome, the bulls Uni genitus, Auctorem fidei, the syllabus of 1864, etc., we reject them, since they contradict the teaching of the ancient church, and do not recognize them as binding. In addition, we resume all those protests that the ancient Dutch Catholic Church had already made to Rome in the past.
5) We do not accept the Council of Trent in its definitions concerning discipline, and we accept its dogmatic definitions only to the extent that they agree with the teaching of the ancient church. 6) Considering that the Holy Eucharist from ancient times constituted the true focus of worship in the Catholic Church, we consider it our duty to also declare that we, with all fidelity, fully and firmly maintain the ancient Catholic faith regarding the holy sacrament of the altar, believing that under the guise of bread and wine we receive the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Eucharistic service in the church is not a continuing repetition or renewal of the reconciling sacrifice, once and forever offered by Christ on the cross: but its sacrificial character consists in the fact that it is an unceasing remembrance of it and the actual presence on earth of that one offering of Christ for the salvation of redeemed humanity, which, according to Heb. 9:11, 12 continues to be accomplished by Christ in heaven, since He now stands before the face of God for us (Heb. 9:24).
Given this nature of the Eucharist in relation to Christ’s sacrifice, it is at the same time a consecrated sacrificial supper in which believers, partaking of the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord, have fellowship with each other. 7) We hope that through the efforts of theologians it will be possible, while firmly holding to the faith of the undivided church, to reach an agreement regarding the differences that have arisen since the time of church divisions. We exhort the priests subject to our leadership to have in the foreground in their sermons and lessons the essential Christian truths of the faith, professed by all denominations divided in ecclesiastical terms; when discussing the contradictions that still exist, diligently avoid any insult to truth and love, and by word and example incite members of our communities in relation to those of other faiths to behave in the spirit of Jesus Christ, Who is the Redeemer of us all.
8) Firmly and with all fidelity holding the teaching of Jesus Christ, rejecting all the errors that have been mixed into it through human fault, all church abuses and hierarchical harassment, we hope with the greatest success to counteract unbelief and religious indifference - the worst evil of our time. Given at Utrecht on September 24, 1889.
Of all these fundamental principles of the Church, by which the Old Catholic archpastors, according to their statement, have hitherto been guided and continue to promise to be guided in their episcopal power, the most important, from the Orthodox point of view, must be recognized as the general principle that they put in the foreground in the 1st paragraph, and in relation to which not only all other provisions, but also the entire doctrinal activity of the Old Catholic clergy, should constitute only a conclusion or a natural consequence. This common old Catholic principle of doctrine is especially important and interesting for us because it is the very one that has guided the Orthodox Church, in particular Orthodox theology, from time immemorial. “The true church is that,” says the Right Reverend Macarius in his Introduction to “Orthodox Theology,” “which is right, invariably preserves the infallible teaching of the ancient universal church, and remains faithful to it in everything.
This beginning is clearly indicated by the very name of our church, by which it is accustomed to distinguish itself from others – the Orthodox Church, that is, the Orthodox Church.” And since the infallible teaching of the universal church has already been expressed at the ecumenical councils, and this expression was bequeathed by them for all future generations, as a rule of faith is inviolable and unchangeable, and since regarding those dogmas about which there was no reason to talk at the ecumenical councils, the church expressed its infallible voice in the concordant teaching of all its famous fathers and teachers, and this faith was also bequeathed for all future generations as inviolable and unchangeable (1st rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council), then the Reverend.
Macarius, from that one general rule that determines Orthodoxy or the truth of the church, deduces the following two particular ones: 1) the name of the Orthodox Church should belong only to that of the existing churches that has completely preserved, without the slightest addition or subtraction, the definitions of the ecumenical councils; 2) only one of the currently existing churches is truly Orthodox, which can affirm, and rightly affirms, all the dogmas it preaches on the basis of the consistent belief of the fathers or of all ancient Christianity. The Old Catholic bishops in the first paragraph of their statement briefly express, obviously, the same thing as Rev. Macarius expounds and proves in detail on many pages; he even refers to Vincent of Lirinsky, a 5th-century Western teacher, and his work from which the Old Catholics borrowed. Bishops recommend the above saying as excellent.
And Professor Cheltsov, when it turned out to be necessary for him in his essay: “Collection of Symbols” to present a view on what and to what extent should be recognized as Orthodox, from all the ancient patristic literature he did not find anything better to answer this question, as soon as the same reasoning of Vincent of Lirinsky, to whom the Old Catholics also refer; he translated this reasoning in his work almost completely, and concluded his translation with the following words: “More than 1,400 years have passed since this reasoning was written, but even now there is no particular need to add anything to it.” And the Reverend Sylvester, in the first volume of his “Dogmatic Theology”, outlining the essence of the theory of Vikenty Lirinsky, notes that this theory “is very remarkable for its strictly ecclesiastical, clear and distinct view of what principles should guide a dogmatist when researching, revealing and proving the true Christian faith.”
In short, the Old Catholic bishops adopted for themselves the same basic principles of doctrine that have guided Orthodox theology from time immemorial. This characterizes the Old Catholics not from a negative side, but from a very serious and positive side, although still only theoretical. Since that negative trait of the Old Catholics opens up for them a free path to rapprochement with the Orthodox Church, then this positive, in theoretical terms, directly puts them on the basis of Orthodoxy, subordinating all their doctrinal activities to the control of the infallible, revealed teaching of God, as it was expressed in the ecumenical symbols, in the creeds of the ecumenical councils and in the concordant teaching of the fathers of the ancient undivided church of the first millennium 43.
These basic provisions of the Old Catholic episcopate aroused keen interest throughout the Christian world and found further clarification at those periodically regular meetings that it was decided to convene at this Utrecht meeting under the name of international Old Catholic congresses. Already the first congress of this kind, held in Cologne in 1890, showed that Old Catholicism continues to invariably adhere to its basic principles, trying to put them into practice, and invariably develops the healthy idea that underlies it, the restoration of true Catholicism in the West. It is not surprising, therefore, that all the friends of the movement (and among them are the most famous representatives of theological science in all countries not enslaved by the papacy), who continued to vigilantly follow the ecclesiastical and religious development of Old Catholicism, cordially responded to the fraternal call for Christian mutuality at international congresses.
And especially the second congress, held in one of the most picturesque Swiss cities, Lucerne, was in the full sense an international congress, so that it was attended by the most prominent representatives not only of all the old Catholic communities from different states, but also representatives of other churches of the East and West independent of the papacy. Thus, in addition to their own leaders and representatives of Old Catholicism, among whom it is enough to name the famous bishops Reinkens and Herzog, and the Dutch Archbishop Gool, the following high-ranking officials were representatives of other churches. Archbishop Nikephoros Kalogeras of Patras arrived from Greece as a representative of the Athens metropolitan; from Russia or from it, the confessor of Their Imperial Majesties, Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev, the rector of the Russian Embassy Church in Berlin, Archpriest A. P. Maltsev, the Parisian Archpriest Vasiliev, the priest M. Kazansky (from Vyborg) and the famous champion of Old Catholicism, secular writer and theologian, General A. A.
Kireev; Professor of Theology Isaac arrived from Jerusalem as a representative of the Armenian Church; from England, the Bishop of Salisbury and Worcester, the representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rector Oldham, the famous founder of the Anglo-Continental Society, Canon Meyrick, with many other ecclesiastics, and the publisher of one of the most widespread English monthly magazines, the Modern Review, Mr. Bunting; from Ireland, Archbishop Plumcat of Dublin; from Germany, professors Beischlag (author of “The Life of Jesus Christ” and others) and Nippold (author of the extensive “History of the Christian Church in the 19th Century”); famous for their scientific works on church history; from France, the famous champion of Gallicanism, the famous preacher, Fr. Hyacinthe Loison and several other pastors; for the Anglo-American Church, Dr. Nevin and other clergy of that church; and finally, from the church of the island of Haiti, the representative of the local bishop of Golly, the adviser to the Haitian embassy in London, the black man Dr. Janvier.
Thus, at the second congress in Lucerne, it can be said almost without exaggeration, as once in Jerusalem, “there were devout people from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). In view of such a brilliant and numerous meeting of representatives of theology from various churches and countries, it is not surprising that the exchange of theological thoughts that took place there received extremely deep interest - both in the breadth of the questions raised, and in the spirit with which all theological reasoning there was imbued. The presence of a particularly Orthodox Greek bishop served as an occasion for the manifestation of the spirit with which the Old Catholics regard the Orthodox Church. Greek Archbishop Nikephoros Kalogeras, as the bearer of the highest hierarchical dignity among the Orthodox representatives of the congress, was the subject of special attention and respect from the hosts of the congress, the Swiss Old Catholics.
Particularly remarkable in this regard was the welcoming speech in which Bishop Herzog, welcoming the representatives of the Orthodox Church at the congress, with special joy and reverence, as he put it, greeted the most venerable Mr. Archbishop Nicephorus of Patras. “Mr. Archbishop,” said the speaker, “arrived from the country where St. Paul preached the gospel repeatedly in various places. He speaks the language that the first servant of the Lord used to spread the gospel of salvation, and in which the sacred books of the New Testament were written. During his divine services, he uses those rituals and prayers that were already in use in the time of St. Chrysostom and other great fathers of the Greek church. But what is even more important is that he is a bishop of a church that has always strictly adhered to the fundamental position of St. Paul that no one dares to preach any other gospel than the one that was proclaimed at the beginning.
Therefore, this church does not recognize any other dogmas than those which were recognized by the ancient undivided universal church. The Church is Greek, therefore, undoubtedly, apostolic and in the true sense Catholic. We are filled with high and grateful joy that the bishop of this church has come to us to testify to us that we stand on the same sacred basis.” This speech made a strong impression on all those present, which was even more intensified when the Greek archbishop, who, in his own words, spoken to one of the high-ranking representatives of the Orthodox Russian Church, according to the Gospel and his conscience is always ready to bless and not to curse, actually came out after this speech to the altar, led by the arm of Bishop Herzog, made three Orthodox bows before the altar and, turning to to those present, who filled the entire church to capacity, he blessed them, pronouncing in Greek the words of the apostolic blessing spoken in the speech of Bishop Herzog.
With this significant event, the Old Catholic mass ended, and the Orthodox representatives, leaving the church, where, by the way, they heard the creed without the illegal addition of Filioque, involuntarily, with all their hearts, wished that this Orthodox archpastoral blessing would serve the Old Catholic Church to strengthen in it that sound, true Catholic spirit, to which it strives with a laudable thirst 44.
The same international congresses, at which the most serious issues concerning not only the Old Catholic Church, but also the entire Christian world, with the aim of reuniting its disparate parts, were discussed, then took place in Rotterdam (in Holland), where the attitude of the independent Dutch Church to the Old Catholic movement was further clarified, and then in Vienna, where special attention was paid to the attitude of Old Catholicism to the Slavs, as an element that historically includes embryos for the perception of a completely independent church movement. Of course, it would be premature to draw any positive conclusions from the reasoning and views exchanged at these congresses by representatives of so many different churches, and even less appropriate to indulge in any fortune-telling and dreams about the future.
No matter how we look at Old Catholicism, it in any case represents a highly significant phenomenon in the modern history of the church - proof that, despite the dominance of a crude materialistic culture, crushing with its weight all the noblest and most ideal impulses, in the West that life-giving flame has not yet died out, which awakens and kindles in thousands of hearts a sincere desire for church-religious truth, although achieving it would be associated with the most difficult sacrifices and hardships. From this point of view, one cannot help but say that Old Catholicism is a great and significant movement, but this thereby excludes all impatient sanguine expectations from it. Great events never happen quickly, and anyone who would make too great demands on Old Catholicism would discover in himself an extreme lack of historical meaning, and at the same time a lack of the universal breadth of Christian consciousness.
Given the current state of affairs, it cannot be disappointing for us that in the heterodox West there is such a movement as Old Catholicism, “this is the only,” in the words of Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev, “in the entire Christian West a bright and deeply sympathetic phenomenon for the Eastern Orthodox Church,” and to turn away from this bright phenomenon with cold disdain for Pharisaic self-righteousness would mean committing not only a crime against history, but also a sin before God. For us, the Old Catholic movement is useful because for the first time, after centuries of complete mutual estrangement, it made it possible for Orthodox scientific theology, in its best representatives, to come into direct contact with the scientific theology of the West in its best representatives; and how important and beneficial such theological interaction is can be judged by the fact that it resulted in the Old Catholics rejecting, in principle, all the errors of Roman dogma and returning them to the soil of the ancient undivided church.
This is the true triumph of Orthodoxy in the West, to neglect which would actually mean to reveal complete indifference to the successes and triumph of truth.
One of the important results of the second Lucerne Congress was, among other things, the founding of the “International Theological Journal” 45, which from that time, under the able leadership of Professor Michaud of the University of Bern, managed to acquire important significance in the sense of a mediator for rapprochement between theologians of different faiths and for the exchange of theological views. On the pages of this magazine, during the eight years of its existence, there were so many important, in the theological and church-historical sense, articles by various theologians, among whom were, in addition to the Old Catholic German and Swiss theologians themselves, also Anglican and even Russian theologians, that this magazine will forever remain an important monument of the Old Catholic movement, as a stage in the church-historical development of modern times.
Despite all the attractiveness of Old Catholicism as a sound church-historical phenomenon in the West, its position by the end of the 19th century turned out to be far from comforting. Our time is too deaf to the sublime impulses of theological thought and church-historical life for such movements full of noble idealism as Old Catholicism to succeed, and therefore it has, in essence, never had greater success among the masses.
The masses of the people turned out to be too mired in the darkness of Roman Catholic superstition to be seriously affected by the protest of highly educated professors who separated from the papacy and its affairs due to deep scientific and theological research, and the Western European intelligentsia, mired in no less superstition of materialism and rationalism, reacted to the sympathetic movement even colder, and thus the valiant fighters for church truth in the West, they were essentially left alone - “a headquarters without troops,” as one historian put it, and this against a huge militant system that has all the means to suppress any movements that are unpleasant for it! Meanwhile, the majority of the valiant fighters for the truth themselves have already ended their life’s journey, and among them are such prominent leaders and representatives as Dellinger (†1889), Reinkens (†1896), Reisch (†1900) and others, so that at present only a few remain from that glorious galaxy of luminaries who once became the head of the Old Catholic movement.
Even in Bonn, where the movement was once especially lively, the Old Catholic Faculty was almost completely deserted. This, of course, serves as a source of extreme gloating for such champions of papism with its Vatican dogmas as the Jesuits. But we can only mourn that the West turned deaf to such a movement, which undoubtedly contained the makings of a revival of true church life, and the weaker our brothers in spirit become, the more zealously we must give them a helping hand, at least with moral encouragement in their difficult situation.
See V. Kerensky, Sgarokatoalicism, Kazan. 1894 and various articles in spirit. magazines, especially protopres. I. L. Yanysheva in “Church. Vestnik" for different years.
From the very beginning, the Old Catholic movement in Switzerland received the name “Christ Catholic” in order to more accurately designate its essence, and thereby more sharply define its character, in contrast to Roman Catholicism, which constantly laid claim to the name Catholicism. This name, moreover, was historical for the Swiss, since in 1834 it was adopted by the followers of Wessenberg.
See articles about presbyter I. L. Yanyshev on the relationship of Old Catholicism to Orthodoxy, “Church Bulletin” 1890, No. 44, 45, 46.
One of the important consequences of the international alfalfa congress was the establishment in St. Petersburg at the Holy Synod of a special commission headed by Hon. Anthony, Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg (now Metropolitan of St. Petersburg) on the issue of possible conditions for the reunification of the Eastern and Western churches. This commission will be discussed in the essay “History of the Russian Church in the 19th century” (vol. II).
Internationale Revue de théologie or popem. Internationale theologische Zeitschrift.