The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 9240293921 1 9 
 
_^, ■ Cornell University LIDrary 
 \ fWflwo .K58 
 
 Correspondence on infallability (|) betw 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 392 119 
 
 Correspondence on Infallability 
 
 - BETWEEN - 
 
 A FATHER JESUIT 
 
 GENERAL ALEXANDER KIREEFF. 
 
 (An Eastern Orthodox.) 
 
 1896. 
 
 ill 
 
This translation is respectfully dedi- 
 cated to the Right Honorable 
 
 W. E. GLADSTONE. 
 
3 — 
 
 PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION. 
 
 The most serious misfortune that has befallen the 
 Christian world since the beginning of our era, is un- 
 doubtedly the great schism between Rome on the one 
 hand, and Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and 
 Antioch, on the other, and no greater blessing can be 
 conceived than the reconciliation of these Churches 
 after their long separation. 
 
 During the period of disunion, how much energy has 
 been wasted in controversy, energy that might have 
 been devoted to the service of mankind. How much 
 blood has been shed in the name of eternal goodness ! 
 How many tears have flowed ! What follies have been 
 perpetrated in the name of eternal wisdom ! All of 
 which might have been avoided. 
 
 Is it surprising then that earnest and sincere Chris- 
 tians should have been constantly devoting themselves 
 to the solution of the great problem of the reunion of 
 the Churches ? Since the very commencement of that 
 important and inauspicious rupture, men on both sides 
 have tried to come to an understanding. At first, it 
 was not an impossibility; the questions of doctrine and 
 ritual that divided the Churches were not of real im- 
 portance; and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was. 
 accepted without protest. Unhappily, however, a seri- 
 ous difficulty presented itself at the very outset of the 
 negotiations : The West had transformed a local opiniorti 
 into a Dogma of the Church as a whole. I refer to the 
 " Filioque. " The ensuing subsequent difficulties were 
 great. Dogma being the very essence of revealed 
 truth, it could neither be modified nor accepted with res- 
 . ervations, it is absolute truth, and as such, admits of 
 no variation. Unity of doctrine is a conditio sine qua 
 non of the Unity of the Church, and consequently also 
 of intercommunion "in sacris." Wherever there is con- 
 tradictory dogmatic teaching, there must also be sepa- 
 rate Churches, which cannot be united. Churches may 
 be altogether self-governed, may have different rites. 
 
— 4 — 
 
 different liturgies, independent hierarchies, and yet 
 form but one Catholic Church, providing that as to 
 dogma they are the same. Such was the position of the 
 Churches of the West (Africa, France, England) during 
 the first centuries of our era, such too is still the rela- 
 tion to each other of the Churches of the East. Dogma 
 must be the same in every Church. Whatever latitude 
 may be granted to freedom of thought, it must never be 
 permitted to transgress these limits, to do so, would 
 not be charity towards each other, but unfaithfulness to 
 one's Church, yea, to the eternal truth which she repre- 
 sents. 
 
 The simple elementary truths Tvhich were so much to 
 the fore in the attempts at reconciliation in -the ninth 
 century, were thrust at a later day into the back-ground, 
 by considerations of an altogether secondary nature. 
 The only point which should have been discussed at the 
 commencement of the difficulties between Rome and the 
 East, was the "EiUoque " that dogma was the only thing 
 that separated us. Instead of which, time was spent on 
 other subjects, and meanwhile the quarrel grew hotter. 
 
 At a later period, the negotiations between Rome and 
 the East, assumed a less Christian character. The re- 
 sults of the Councils of Lyons or Florence were above 
 all else political treaties, designed and indeed almost 
 undisguisedly to promote purely utilitarian interests. 
 But the Greek people, more honest than their represen- 
 tatives rejected all such overtures, notwithstanding the 
 growing danger of an Ottoman invasion, they never 
 sanctioned the concessions of their leaders preferred 
 the enslavement of their political country, to that of 
 their moral country (i. e., their Church.) Accordingly 
 "we now witness its reAdval. 
 
 After the fall of Constantinople, Moscow's turn came. 
 It was to Russia that Rome began to turn her thoughts, 
 but with still less success. To what shall we attribute 
 this failure ? What was its chief reason, and what can 
 be done to remedy the mischief ? It is impossible to 
 .answer these grave questions in a few short pages, but, 
 .as I have already said, the parties concerned should 
 
think only of serving the interests of religion and of 
 God, ignoring everything else. As there is an indi- 
 vidual egoism which is opposed to charity, so there is 
 a national and ecclesiastical egoism, which, though 
 nobler in form, none the less impedes the progress of 
 truth. One must forget one's self and remember that 
 truth must never be sacrificed. Only questions of dogma, 
 upon which an understanding is essential and compro- 
 mise inadmissable should be discussed, all other matters 
 should be left aside. But if we compare this method of 
 procedure, with that .which has been followed down to 
 the present daj^ we shall easily understand why the 
 efforts put forth at Lyons or Florence only resulted in 
 widening the gulf of separation. Not till the Congress 
 held by the Old Catholics were rules observed on both 
 sides, which were fitted to bring about a union of the 
 Churches. The grand idea of the restoration of relig- 
 ious unity will never be abandoned by the Christian 
 world; it will not disappear as long as the sentiment 
 lives in the human heart. 
 
 I have often been told; "You, like many, are busy 
 with this great work of bringing about a union of the 
 Churches ; your end is good but your means are defect- 
 ive; you have chosen the wrong road: instead of ap- 
 pealing to the Pope, you appeal to the old Catholics. 
 Compared with th^''pulsilluB grex 'of the old Catholics, 
 the Pope is an enormous force." The answer is easy: 
 — to unite with the Pope is to submit body and soul to 
 a Master who has set himself above law, both human 
 and divine. The old Catholics stretch out a brotherly 
 hand:— the Pope offers his slipper: To submit to the 
 Pope would doubtless be to yield to a great power ; but 
 it would also mean to identify one's self with a great 
 error. As far as power is concerned, we are, thank God, 
 satisfied with what we possess already. What we seek 
 is not power, but truth; and the truth is with the old 
 Catholics. 
 
 A. KIREEPF. 
 PALACE PAVLOVSK, 
 
 March 22d, 1893. 
 
— 6 — 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 One of my friends, an Englishman, who has just gone 
 over to Rome, recently asked me several questions re- 
 lating to my religion and Church; and expressed sur- 
 prise at the hostility which we Russians manifested 
 towards Catholicism ; at our '• obstinacy " in refusing to 
 submit to the Pope and to acknowledge the recently 
 formulated Dogmas. 
 
 I answered that we felt no hostility whatever towards 
 the true, the ancient Catholicism; that such hostility 
 had no " raison d'etre ; " that for nearly a thousand 
 years we Orthodox had been one with the Western 
 Church, and had acknowledged the primacy (inter 
 pares) of the Bishops of Rome; but, I added, the 
 Western Catholic religion, which at the beginning was 
 absolutely identical with our own, in course of time, 
 underwent very serious modifications. 
 
 Note 1. — I have frequently been asked if I denied 
 progross (so dear to our contemporaries) in matters of 
 religion. " Must not religion," I am asked, " advance 
 like everything else ? " " Truth developes and conse- 
 quently dogmas which are truths, must also develop." 
 
 This question of progress in matters relating to re- 
 ligion, is too important and too complicated for a mere 
 casual treatment. I shall simply indicate some of its 
 elements. When the Church is threatened with a new 
 Heresy; when her Dogmas are attacked, then it becomes 
 unquestionably her duty to speak out, to proclaim the 
 truth. Any such solemn proclamation, freely made by 
 the representatives of the Church, in an Oecumenical 
 Council, and ratified by the universal assent of Chris- 
 tians, becomes " ipso facto " a Dogma. In this respect, 
 we are justified in speaking of the doctrine of the 
 Church as progressive. At the same time it needs to 
 be borne in mind that if any Independent Church, how- 
 ever great its importance, takes upon herself to inaugu- 
 rate dogmatic progress, without securing the consent 
 of the "Universal Church, she is in danger of going 
 
— 7 — 
 
 Gradually new dogmas were introduced, the very- 
 last of which, namely the Infallibility of the Pope, gave 
 rise to quite a revolution in the Western Church. This 
 new " dogma " is the negation of the very idea of the 
 Church — an idea which was formerly identical in both 
 Churches — and now it constitutes an impassable gulf 
 between them. 
 
 My friend wishes to know if I felt equal to the task 
 of committing these answers to paper, of further de- 
 veloping them and of defending them against a learned 
 Roman Catholic with whom he was acquainted ? I 
 gladly consented, adding at the same time, that most 
 probably my opponent and myself would continue to 
 hold our own opinions. I agreed to the proposal all 
 the more readily because I thought there could be no 
 better means of acquainting myself with the newest and 
 most convincing arguments which Infallibilists had at 
 their disposal. I imagined also, that if our correspond- 
 ence were some day to be published, it might be of in- 
 terest to those who are engaged in the study of theology 
 and ethics. 
 
 A letter (p. 10) in which I briefly stated my views, 
 was actually sent to the learned Catholic; he ackowl- 
 edged the same and put various questions to me, which 
 I answered. An epistolary controversy thus ensued, 
 
 astray; (the immaculate Conception); but there is yet 
 another kind of progress possible in the Church — the 
 kind of which the Eastern Church, more than any other 
 has sought to make. Instead of attempting to intro- 
 duce new dogmas, she does her best to bring about the 
 acceptance and full comprehension of the truths con- 
 tained in the already existing dogmas. It is her aim or 
 wish, that these truths should be well understood and 
 well assimilated by her children, and that they should 
 become the constant rule of their conduct. Is this 
 problem too restricted, too easy ? Humanity might be 
 congratulated, if the truths already in our possession, 
 were firmly anchored in our hearts. Our Church seeks 
 rather to influence the hearts of believers, than to con- 
 trol their outward conduct. 
 
— 8 — 
 
 which, with the consent of my adversary, I herewith 
 publish. As it was obyiously impossible, in a few let- 
 ters, fully to criticise each other's opinions, I decided to 
 confine myself to one particular question, which con- 
 stituted the crucial point, the very centre of our con- 
 troversy; which in reality forms the culminating point, 
 the focus of the whole of Catholic Dogmatic Theology, 
 viz., the Infallibility of the Pope and his personal char- 
 acter. For the future all controversies between Eoman 
 Infallibilists and Orthodox Catholics (whether Eastern 
 or Western) must need revolve around this central 
 point of the now Romish theology; and until this ques- 
 tion of infallibility is satisfactorily settled, no conclu- 
 sion can he reached. 
 
 I venture to believe, that our discussion has made 
 this point sufficiently clear. I am only printing sum- 
 maries of the letters of my respected adversary, the 
 Rev. Father X. They are however sufficiently complete 
 for the purpose in view and have been first submitted 
 to him for his approval. My own are published in ex- 
 tenso and almost without a change. 
 
 iVbie 2. — I have even retained various repetitions 
 which were inseparable from the controversial form 
 of the work. 
 
 I have simply added some quotations and explana- 
 tions in order to make them more intelligible for those 
 who are not in the habit of reading theological works. 
 
 I have already mentioned that the Dogma of Infalli- 
 bility has opened up an unfathomable gulf between the 
 Church of the East and that of the West. This asser- 
 tion needs to be in a certain sense modified. The 
 Dogma unquestionably throws insurmountable difficul- 
 ties in the way of a re-union of the Churches; yet nega- 
 tively speaking it may prove of great service, and that 
 in the following way : The Philosophy of History 
 teaches us, that a perfectly just idea — a truth corres- 
 ponding to the deepest necessities of the human soul — 
 may become false, if applied in such an exclusive man- 
 ner as to injure other truths which in the general 
 
— 9 — 
 
 economy of things are necessary for its regulation and 
 equilibrium. 
 
 In a case of this kind, the abnormal development of 
 such an idea will neither be arrested, nor reduced to its 
 proper limits, unless it is allowed to develop to its full 
 logical conclusion, and unless this logical conclusion, 
 thanks to the exclusive application in question, is 
 shown to be an absurdity. Novv' this is just what 
 has taken place with regard to the conception of 
 authority in Eoman Catholicism. The idea itself cor- 
 responds to a need of our religious consciousness, it 
 has therefore a " raison d'etre." But since the great 
 schism of the ninth century, the West, forgetting 
 the legitimacy and necessity of the correlate conception 
 of religious liberty, has applied itself exclusively to the 
 development of the principle of authority, which has 
 arrived at a form answering to its illegitimate develop- 
 ment in the Papacy. 
 
 Notwithstanding the courageous and noble opposition 
 of those who felt it laid upon them to defend the truth 
 as Christ bequeathed it, the principle of authority ended 
 by taking possession of the whole of the Western 
 Church and transformed it by degrees, first into Roman- 
 ism, then into Ultramontanism, still later into Jesuitism, 
 and finally into InfalHbilism. 
 
 Such were the logical results of a false application of 
 the principle of authority, considered as the sole basis 
 of Christian truth. But the full extent of the falsity of 
 the conception would only become manifest when it 
 reached the absurdity of infallibilism. Down to the 
 year 1870, it was possible to be in doubt as to the full 
 extent of the mischief, to hope that a reform of Catholic 
 doctrine could be effected by concilliatory measures; 
 and that the principle of liberty would again be restored 
 to its rightful place. As Eome had not yet gone the full 
 length, it was, however, possible for its errors to be re- 
 nounced; the deductions drawn by the polemical writers 
 of the Orthodox, might have still been charged with ex- 
 aggeration ; but now, there is no more room for doubt. 
 The syllogism is complete and it turns out to be a 
 
— 10 — 
 
 ■sophism. As the premises from which the conclusion 
 ■was drawn were false, there is nothing left for Roman- 
 ism but to retrace its steps. It is in this sense, that I 
 regard the proclamation of Infallibility as having a re- 
 deeming feature: — it is good because it is the boundary 
 line of evil and error. 
 
 I take the liberty of dedicating this correspondence 
 to my friends the old Catholics, who, with so much dis- 
 interestedness, learning and skill, have defended the 
 ideas which it is also my desire to serve, with the power 
 and means at my disposal. 
 
 The old Catholic movement is a protest of the Chris- 
 tian consciousness against the confiscation of the infalli- 
 bility with which the Saviour endowed his Church in 
 favor of one man, — a man who aims at becoming the 
 absolute monarch of every human soul. 
 
 If it please God, the Old Catholic Church, which is 
 making slow but sure progress, will bring about a union 
 between the Churches of the East and of the West. 
 Every day finds us nearer to each other; in fact, we 
 already occupy identical ground " in necessariis." 
 
 (See the Catechism of the Christian Catholics of 
 1889.) 
 
 Our English friend acted the part of intermediary 
 between the Eev. Father X. and myself; it was to him 
 that our letters were addressed. 
 
 I should like to add one more remark of importance: 
 — As this controversy has been carried on in my own 
 name, at " my own proper risk and peril " so to speak, 
 without consulting any of my co-religionists, I assume 
 the sole responsibility, for all that I shall advance. 
 
 ALEXANDER KIREEFF. 
 PAVLOVSK, 
 
 March 25th, 1891. 
 
— 11 — 
 
 LETTERS ON THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. 
 
 SUMMARY OF GENERAL KIEEEFT'S LETTER TO MR. X.' 
 
 Let me explain the reasons why an Orthodox Chris- 
 tian cannot dream of reconciliation with infallibilistic 
 Catholicism. I assert that the proclammation of the 
 new dogma of the infallibility of the Pope has com- 
 pletely overturned the true idea of the Church ; that it 
 has effaced every vestige of liberty in the Church of 
 Rome ; and that it has transformed the children of the 
 Church, into slaves of the Pope.^ 
 
 Note 1. — This letter was written in English. 
 
 Note 2. — The following is the formula of the new 
 dogma as it is found in the dogmatical constitution of 
 the Council. (Sessio IV. July 18th, 1870). "Dooemus 
 et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Roman um 
 Pontifioen, cum ex cathedra loquitur, i. e. cum omnium 
 Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, pro 
 suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide 
 vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per 
 assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, 
 ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Eccle- 
 siam suam in difiniend a doctrina defi de vel moribus in- 
 structam esse voluit, ideoque ejus modi Romani Ponti- 
 fices definitiones ex sese non autem ex consensu Ecole- 
 sise irreformabiles esse." 
 
 That is to say: 
 
 "We teach and define as a revealed dogma, that when 
 the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is to say, 
 when by virtue of his apostolic authority, he discharges 
 his functions in his capacity of pastor and teacher of all 
 Christians, and when he defines a doctrine which is to 
 be obligatory (held) on the entire Church (universal), 
 he enjoys the infallibility with which the Divine Re- 
 deemer willed His Church to be endowed, in setting 
 forth doctrine relating to matters of belief and morals; 
 so that the decisions of the Roman Pontiff are unchange- 
 able of themselves (ex sese) and do not require the con- 
 sent (ex) of the Church." 
 
— 12 — 
 
 The liberal party in the Catholic Church has ceased 
 to exist. The theological studies of the laity, which 
 were already hampered by the prohibition to read the 
 Holy Scriptures, cannot but suffer still more under this 
 new regime. (The study of canonical law has now of 
 course only an archseologioal interest; the study of 
 ethics is perhaps still less needed). I appealed amongst 
 others, to Father Beck, the Greneral of the Jesuits, 
 whom I had the honor of visiting at Fiesole. The 
 conversation which I had with the celebrated General, 
 justly called the Black Pope, was in the highest degree 
 interesting for myself ; and it absolutely confirmed my 
 ideas as to the future of the liberal party in the Catholic 
 Church. He said to me : " The Vatican Council has 
 given a definitive character to theology (Eomish).i 
 
 Such is actually the one sole foudation of the whole 
 of Romish theology, of the morals and dogmas of the 
 Roman Catholic world. 
 
 Note 1. — I venture to think that the famous General 
 was not quite correct in this respect; a further step re- 
 mains to be taken. It is difficult to admit infallibility 
 without sanctity; these two qualities are inseparable; 
 the Church is infallible, but then it is also holy. The 
 proclamation of the sanctity of the Pope is the final 
 step which the doctrinal science (?) of Rome will logi- 
 cally take; the proclamation of the holiness Of the 
 Pope will be its " corrallary." Its psychological neces- 
 sity has long since been anticipated in ultramontane 
 circles. It was so in the case of the Deacon Ennodius 
 (one of the fore-runners of infallibility in his " Apolo- 
 geticus,'' A. D. 501 or 502). This idea of mine is neither 
 exaggerated nor absurd. Was not the very idea of 
 Infallibility once regarded not only as criminal, but 
 even as absurd. Now it has come to be looked upon as 
 logical: later on, Augustin Triumphus gave expression 
 to the opinion, that whilst it was not right to accord the 
 worship of latria, of divine adoration to the Pope, yet 
 he might claim the worship of dulia / because the latter 
 belongs to the Saints. He further added, that the 
 power of the Pope necessarily implied Holiness. 
 
— 13 — 
 
 The late liberal party is " o sciocco o cieco " (either 
 foolish or blind). Later on I remarked, that although 
 I was a layman and self-taught, I was ready to uphold 
 my theses in opposition to the learned Father X. ; that 
 this exchange of ideas with a professional man, amply 
 supplied with documents, and having at his disposal 
 the most recent, the strongest, in a word, the best argu- 
 ments in favor of Infallibilism would he a great ad- 
 vantage to myself. Finally, I added, that I was willing 
 to submit our discussion to the arbitration of a third 
 person, who might be a fair and learned Protestant. 
 (Unfortunately the latter did not take place). I con- 
 cluded by referring to the history of the Council of 
 1870, where exactly the most learned and influential of 
 the bishops (Hofell and Dupanloup amongst others) pro- 
 tested energetically against the exorbitant pretentions 
 of the Pope, (i. e. of the Jesuits) and only yielded to 
 reasons which had nothing in common with theology. 
 
 Such are the contents of the letter which I wrote to 
 our English friend; this letter was shown to Father 
 
 We find identical views in Hildebrand (Gregory VII. ) 
 who maintained that the Popes inherited the holiness of 
 Saint Peter. The future promoters of this doctrine will 
 be at no loss whatever to discover (as was in the case of 
 Infallibility) facts dating back to a remote antiquity. 
 For example, they will be able to say : " The Eastern 
 Patriarchs, in addressing the Popes, always make use 
 of the term ' Your Holiness. '" The same expression 
 was employed also by heretical Monarchs, as for ex- 
 ample, the Emperor William 1, of Germany or the Czar 
 of Russia, when they addressed the Vicar of Christ. Is 
 it not a sufficiently convincing proof, that even those 
 enemies of our Holy Church did not venture to omit 
 this formula ? . . . 
 
 Such were the arguments, advanced by the Roman 
 Curia in order to prove that Infallibility had been be- 
 lieved and admitted in all ages and by every one: anal- 
 ogous arguments will certainly be employed to prove 
 the necessity of defining the Holiness of the Holy 
 Father. 
 
— 14 — 
 
 X., have been revised and are of unquestionable authen- 
 ticity. 
 
 FIRST LETTEE OF FATHER X (SUMMARY). 
 August 2d, 1890. 
 
 The ideas expressed by M. Kireeff find many adher- 
 ents amongst those vsrho are not members of the 
 Catholic Church. Our Catholic principles are altogether 
 different. 
 
 They are as follows : 
 
 Every Catholic ought to be convinced that there ex- 
 ists a supreme truth revealed by God, to which the 
 human mind should unconditionally submit itself. 
 
 This truth is deposited in the Catholic Church. All 
 Catholics, but especially, the bishops, must use diligence 
 that it be preserved intact and promulgated. 
 
 Every Catholic is allowed to study science; he may 
 even do so diligently. The Church has always wished 
 this. Notwithstanding, limits exist even for science — 
 namely the doctrine of the Church. But the field open to 
 it is extended whoever teaches contrary to what is con- 
 tained in Church dogma is corrected by the bishops or 
 the Pope. 
 
 The infallibility of the Pope is far from being abso- 
 lute (ebensowenig). Just as far as the independence of 
 science; both are fictions (undinge-non-entities). Why 
 put them side by side ? 
 
 Catholics who are unwilhng to submit to the judg- 
 ment of the Pope and of the bishops (in questions 
 relating to Faith) cease to be Catholics. There are 
 
— 15 — 
 
 different tendencies in the Church, (e. g. a liberal and 
 a conservative tendency) but both are circumscribed 
 and kept within strict limits by the principle of the 
 authority of the Church. He who renounces this prin- 
 ciple, takes up the Protestant point of view; in other 
 words, that of " religious nihilism." In all questiona 
 which are not dogmatically defined, the Catholic Church 
 allows perfect freedom of thought. 
 
 There are various degrees of certainty in matters 
 which have not been dogmatically decided. 
 
 ANSWER OF GENEEAL KIREEFP TO THE FIRST 
 LETTER OP FATHER X. 
 
 August 2d. 
 
 While thanking you for the interesting letter of 
 Father X. allow me to call your attention to some ideas 
 to which you gave utterance at the outset of our con- 
 troversy. You expressed the hope, that what you 
 were pleased to style our contest, our battle (a row) 
 would not last long. You are extremely mistaken on 
 this point; the matter is much too difficult and compli- 
 cated for that. 
 
 A battle or tournament would be indeed a very easy 
 id simple means of settling theological difficulties. This 
 as the plan in olden times (Eck, Molanchton). In stiU 
 earlier days, still simpler means were employed. Theo- 
 logical difficulties were settled in a very elementary man- 
 ner. For example, Simon de Montford, at the command 
 of Pope Innocent III., effected the conversion of the 
 Albigenses; the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was not 
 
— 16 — 
 
 more complicated either, though more recent. Things 
 can no longer be managed so quickly and simply nowa- 
 days. As regards yourself, you do not form even an 
 approximate idea of the numerous difficulties one en- 
 counters, in the attempt to solve what appears to be 
 simple theological problems. When the subject is 
 grappled seriously every detail, every iota, has to be 
 taken into account and studied. Were it not so, one 
 might content one's self with a few discussions or a 
 number of pamphlets. You have most probably seen 
 the enormous rooms of the public library at St. Peters- 
 burg : — well, the larger portion of them, is filled with 
 theological works. No, if one is determined earnestly 
 and conscientiously to solve the difficulties which a 
 question of this description presents, it cannot be done 
 by means of a few pamphlets, or one or two theological 
 tournaments. 
 
 I will now pass on to the thesis of Father X. For 
 some centuries the mode of conceiving the power and 
 teaching function of the Church was absolutely identi- 
 cal in both Churches (the Orthodox Church of the 
 East and the Catholic Church of the West). Soon after 
 their separation certain difficulties of view or opinion, be- 
 came noticeable — opinions, however, which might have 
 been freely discussed, and which were not of an ab- 
 solute dogmatical character. They did not affect the 
 unity of the Church. 
 
 Let us recall to mind, the manner in which Pope Leo 
 III. acted, although he himself sympathized with the 
 filioque, he was careful not to convert a private opinion 
 into a dogma obligatory for the human mind. This 
 Pope so well understood his duty as guardian of the 
 doctrine revealed by Christ, that he even opposed the 
 threatening wishes of the powerful Charlemagne, who 
 liked to occupy himself with theology (more in fact than 
 was necessary). 
 
 The Pope as everyone knows, expressed himself most 
 emphatically against the illegal introduction of the 
 Jilioque into the creed. (What a pity that his infallible 
 successors did not follow the example of their infallible 
 
^17 — 
 
 predecessor): This answer of Leo HI. was unquestion- 
 ably a decree "ex cattedra." The point in question 
 was a matter of doctrine; the whole Western Church 
 awaited the decision. The Eastern Church was also 
 interested in it; for at this period the question had 
 been everywhere freely discussed. But the wise Leo, 
 refused to turn a matter of opinion into dogma. Such 
 was the course of events. 
 
 Gradually things changed; and since the fatal date 
 of 1870, the "Western view concerning the power, and 
 teaching functions, has completely changed. Since the 
 proclamation of the doctrine of Inf allibilism in the year 
 1870, from the Catholic point of view we are no longer 
 schismatics or Photians, but heretics. Heresy consists 
 in the acceptation of an error as a dogma; or in the 
 non-acceptance of a dogma which the Church believes 
 to be true, aud we Easterns reject the fundamental doc- 
 trine of the actual Church of Rome, the dogma which 
 is the predilection of Jesuits. (The famous Sallabus 
 was drawn up under the superintendence of a Jesuit, 
 Father Schrador). 
 
 More than once I have been accused of widening the 
 gulf between the Eastern and the Western Church, of 
 accentuating the differences, instead of trying to mini- 
 mise or ignore. " Has not our History " I was asked, 
 " already sufficiently emphasized these points ? Why 
 recall them afresh ? Would it not be better to remove 
 their sting? You are an advocate of the idea of 
 a possible union of the Churches: — do you expect 
 to further it, by accentuating so strongly the ques- 
 tions which divide us ? By pushing logical conclusions 
 to such extremes ? If left alone, these differences, im- 
 portant though no doubt they are, would in time be 
 forgotten." Such a method of reasoning is a proof of 
 trifling sentimentalism ; it may be the outcome of kindly 
 feeling; but surely this is not an evidence of a deeper 
 understanding of theological problems. Wishes like 
 these are altogether naive; these combinations are ab- 
 solutely opportunist. Opportunism is admissable solely 
 in political and social questions, where to-day's truth 
 
— 18 — 
 
 may become to-morrow's lie; but certainly not in ques- 
 tions where absolute truth must and ought to reign. 
 
 This mode of treating religious truths, cannot in the 
 long run lead to good; what is more, it evinces a com- 
 plete ignorance of religious things; or what is even 
 worse, indicates an indifference which is in no respect 
 Christian. In speaking thus, I do not wish to insinuate 
 that every believing Christian ought to be hostile to 
 everyone who is heterodox; I am no friend of the odium 
 theologium ; but at the same time, my Christian con- 
 science forbids me to hide or deny my opinions; and on 
 no account could I sacrifice my convictions for a peace 
 which could neither be true nor lasting (faul). Ber- 
 nard of Clairvaux, a great Saint, truly said : " Melius 
 est ut scandalum oriatur quam ut Veritas relinquatur." 
 
 Sometimes people object : — Eeligious truth; where is 
 it ? what is it ? do you claim to have found it ? Most 
 certainly I do : am I not a Christian ? To discuss this 
 important question thoroughly would no doubt lead us 
 too far ; I shall therefore limit myself to what follows. 
 An altogether different thing is the steadfastness of 
 a belief which allows of no compromise ; from the fana- 
 ticism of a Torquemada who would destroy a whole 
 nation because it refuses to submit to his beliefs; or of 
 a Calvin, who though himself a Protestant, and conse- 
 quently admitting the right of the free interpretation 
 of the Holy Scriptures, caused Servetus to be burned 
 at the stake, because he expounded these same Scrip- 
 tures differently. But if a man is a believing and con- 
 vinced Christian, he ought for that very reason to be 
 kind and considerate towards the whole world ; to help 
 his neighbor in every way, be he heterodox, Jew, Pagan 
 or Atheist. But this in no way implies an obligation to 
 deny one's opinions or hide one's religious convictions. 
 Can love to one's neighbor make one unfaithful to 
 truth ? That would be either double-faced cowardice, 
 or selfishness adorning itself with fine sentiments. It 
 was just in this way that the bishops of the Vatican 
 Council tried to give a reason for their mode of action. 
 There certainly were amongst them, men of learning 
 
— 19 — 
 
 and culture; they formed an imposing minority, 
 the minoi'ity which rejected the new dogma and 
 which had the power to rescue Christian truth. Un- 
 happily, however, these men fell a prey to selfishness 
 and cowardice. Gradually they forsook the truth, " in 
 order," as they said, " not to grieve the Holy Father, 
 who clung so firmly to his doctrine." This was certainly 
 not the outcome of Christian love or Christian convic- 
 tions. 
 
 I shall take the liberty of adding one or two reflec- 
 tions. The infallibilistic Catholic Church is a politic 
 social structure, which has been shaken to its very 
 foundations. It no longer retains its power which was 
 once so great ; its thunders no longer re-echo in the 
 world, as they did in the middle ages. But it is still a 
 mighty power, — a power too, which dreams neither of ab- 
 dicating, nor of consenting in any way to relax the rigor 
 of its theories, for the purpose of facilitating the con- 
 clusion of peace. Quite the reverse ; whilst growing 
 weaker, she heightens her claims. Par be it from me 
 to wish to assert that Borne is wrong in acting thus; 
 not at all — she is only consistent; nor do I wish to deny 
 the important services which she has rendered in the 
 past; or the good, which, notwithstanding the false- 
 hoods of the Vatican, she is still actually doing. Even 
 now, there are many Catholics who are penetrated by 
 the old Christian Spirit; amongst many of them, the 
 spirit of sacrifice is developed to a high degree. The 
 errors of the Vatican doctrine, have not altogether 
 eradicated the remainder of the Christian Spirit. Dis- 
 cipline in all its strictness is still maintained. I 
 grant all this; but it would be all the greater folly on 
 our side to lay down our arms in the hope of satisfying 
 Borne by overtures of peace; or of being able to ar- 
 range our differences in an amicable manner, etc. . . . 
 They must be men of little clear insight, who can be- 
 lieve it possible for Borne to sacrifice the smallest por- 
 tion of her claims, or to treat more leniently those whose 
 ideas differ from her own. These are only childish 
 illusions. Borne appears more lenient because she has 
 
— 20 — 
 
 grown weaker, because she can no longer enforce her 
 will and principles, as once she did. There is not a single 
 Crusader at her disposal, capable of marching against 
 Alby, Jerusalem or Constantinople: but the principles 
 of Boniface, Hildebrand and, of Innocent, are still 
 to the fore at the Court of Eome. They still inspire 
 the decrees of the Vatican and have lost none of 
 their implacable character. Theoretically speaking, 
 they are more pronounced than ever; and that 
 because the decrees of Eome now cannot be re- 
 formed and are absolute; they keep the soul of the 
 Roman Catholic in eternal bondage. An appeal to a 
 Council or even to a Pope, better instructed (melius 
 informatum), is no longer possible. Is this the kind of 
 antagonism that one can hope to relax or disarm ? Can 
 one expect to induce her to moderate her claims by 
 acting with forbearance and consider ateness? No; that 
 were too naive. Let those who believe it glance at the 
 Syllabus. (1.) 
 
 But to return to the thesis of my respected antagon- 
 ist. 
 
 We, orthodox, also believe: 
 
 1. That there exists revealed truth, to which every 
 man must submit. 
 
 2. That if anyone desires membership in a Church, 
 his freedom of thought must certainly be restricted by 
 that Church's dogma. But for all that, we do not pro- 
 hibit either the study of the dogma, or its criticism by 
 the intellect; quite the contrary, we know that certain 
 doctrines transcend our comprehension, that we cannot 
 
 Ifote 1. — For example, the Syllabus condemns the fol- 
 lowing proposition : Romanus Pontif ex potest am debet 
 cum progressu, cum libralismo et cum recenti civilitate 
 sese reconoiliare et componere. (That the Pope is able 
 and ought to make concessions to progress and liberty 
 §880). Now the Syllabus (as also the Encyclica of 
 1864) is approved by the Pope and is imposed on every 
 •Christian, consequently on the whole Church. It is im- 
 possible to find anything more completely ex cathedra 
 than the Syllabus. 
 
— 21 — 
 
 grasp their full meaning; but we hold none that are 
 self-contradictory. 
 
 3. We also believe that the guardian of these truths is 
 the Church, as Jesus Christ constituted it. Thus far, that 
 is to say, as long as we are dealing with questions of 
 prtaciple ; as long as we only make use of general 
 terms ; so long can we go along with the Roman 
 Catholics. Unhappily, however, as soon as we begin 
 to apply the principles and formulate concrete state- 
 ments, one discovers a disintegrating element pervading 
 the whole Roman Catholic system of doctrine, an ele- 
 ment which puts the possibility of an agreement 
 quite out of the question. This element is the infalli- 
 bility of the Pope which strains every nerve to usurp 
 the infallibility of the Church. This new dif&oulty has 
 increased for Protestants also, the difficulty of reunion 
 with Rome. Leibnitz would certainly never have enter- 
 tained the idea of any understanding under exist- 
 ing circumstances (since 1870). At the time of Bossuet 
 the Infallibility of the Pope would never have been pro- 
 claimed; at that period the stakes would have been too 
 high. 
 
 The relation between ourselves, the Orthodox and 
 Protestants, is of an altogether different character. Our 
 chief stumbling block is that Protestantism is split up 
 into different sects, some of which are extremely lati- 
 tudinarian; so much so, as scarcely to deserve the 
 name " Christian." Yet they constitute a part of the 
 Protestant world, and consider themselves on an 
 equality with those who are more at one with the Church 
 Universal. In fact, these sects cannot be cut off from 
 the Protestant communion. Their rights, their legal 
 position are identical. Unfortunately too, the Anglican 
 Church offers us the same difficulty ; the Established 
 Church comprises not only those who are conservative 
 but also those who are conservative, but also those who 
 are absolutely anarchical, whose doctrine is widely dif- 
 ferent from that of the Universal Church (Low Church 
 and Broad Church). When Protestants reproach 
 Roman Catholics for their Pope, the latter justly reply. 
 
— 22 — 
 
 that amongst them, every member of the commuiiity is 
 his own Pope, his own interpreter- and judge of the 
 Word of God. In fact, whilst Eoman Catholicism lays 
 exclusive emphasis on the principle of authority, Pro- 
 testantism, falling into the opposite error entirely de- 
 nies it and substitutes for it the principle of absolute 
 Kberty. 
 
 Protestantism is an exaggerated protest against the 
 authority which has become the exclusive principle of 
 Eoman Catholicism; whereas both these principles 
 should be represented in the Church and complement and 
 balance each other. This benevolent influence ceased to 
 be wielded after the rupture between the Eastern and 
 Western Churches ; a rupture which had for its imme- 
 diate result the establishment of an ecclesiastical mon- 
 archy over the whole of the Roman Patriarchate. The 
 West lacked the power necessary to keep the Pope in 
 check; he was strong not only in himself, but in the 
 division and strife of his enemies. After a stubborn 
 war, the Papacy (having become the plaything of the 
 Roman Curia) remained mistress of the situation and 
 frustrated the generous efEorts of those who would fain 
 have reformed the abuses which prevailed in the Church 
 and who were anxious to save the principle of liberty. 
 By degrees, reform became more and more impossible. 
 Now, that reform is out of the question, revolution is 
 resorted to; the order of things in the established sys- 
 tem is overthrown. Those who enter on a course like 
 this, always go too far. This was what unhappily hap- 
 pened to Protestism. Luther's attempts to reform the 
 abuses of the Church, failed completely; the impetuous 
 reformer plunged accordingly into a revolution and 
 overshot the mark; the principle of authority was 
 abolished, in a large part of the territory of the West- 
 ern Church, that of liberty was alone left intact; but 
 could not be kept within legitimate bounds. Thus the 
 centre of gravity of the power and doctrine of the 
 Chiu'ch, which with ourselves (the Orthodox Eastern 
 Church) has its seat in the conscientiousness of the 
 Church, as represented by the Oecuminical Councils; 
 
— 23 — 
 
 amongst Roman Catholics (since 1870) has its seat in the 
 consciousness (Bewusst sein) of the Pope; whilst among 
 Protestants, (whether liberal or conservative) it is seat- 
 ed in the consciousness of the individual. 
 
 But matters in the West did not rest there. A ter- 
 rible struggle commenced; Luther's too strong re-action 
 called forth the counter revolution of Loyola — that 
 powerful, sinister and implacable genius. The mighty 
 figures of those two giant foes, well represent the two 
 opposing directions of Western religious thought: The 
 German Luther, prototyge of absolute liberty; the 
 Latin Loyola, that of absolute authority. Towards 
 these two different tendencies, we, the Orthodox of the 
 East hold one and the same relation. We believe that 
 each of these antagonists affirms and develops one half 
 of the Christian truth, to the neglect and misapprehen- 
 sion of the other half, which is equally important, and 
 quite as indispensable as the first. Neither side, how- 
 ever, sees, or wishes to see, or is perhaps able to see the 
 error into which it has fallen. 
 
 Is it not the historical rhission of the Orthodox Bast, 
 to point out the way which will lead to a reconciliation 
 of these opposing tendencies f Is it possible to con- 
 ceive of a higher a holier calling ? " But," interposes the 
 offended West, " have you risen to the height of this 
 great and terrible problem ? Do you believe yourselves 
 called and able to solve it ? " We answer : " It is not 
 ourselves who can solve it, but the Christian truth which 
 we have humbly and carefully sought to guard : this 
 Christian truth which possesses and directs us." 
 
 The disciples of John, the apostle of love, will bring 
 together again the disunited disciples of Peter and 
 Paul, then will be brought about the true and holy 
 unity which its divine founder desired for His Church. 
 But if such is the vocation of our Eastern Church, is it 
 not also that of the Old Catholic Church ? which 
 though weak in numbers, is strong in the knowledge and 
 convictions of her children. For, as has already been 
 stated, we are agreed in the matter of doctrine. The 
 principles of authority and liberty, as amongst ourselves, 
 
--24 — 
 
 so also amongst the Old Catholics, are allowed to comple- 
 ment and balance each other; as was the case in the 
 still united ancient Church. At that time, the Chris- 
 tian life was regulated by the Oecumenical Councils, 
 which consisted of representatives of the faithful, ex- 
 pressing the infallible consciousness (Bewinsst sein) of 
 the Church. They were not simply a parliament of 
 ecclesiastical princes, legislating on doctrinal questions 
 according to their good pleasure (or even sometimes 
 absolutely dumb when they ought to have spoken and 
 spoken with authority.) 
 
 As I am touching the question of the relations be- 
 tween the Orthodox Church, Eoman Catholicism and 
 Protestantism, I shall take the hberty of going a step 
 further. Down to the year 1870, we were much nearer 
 in point of doctrine, to the Eoman Catholics, than 
 to the Protestants (more especially in our conception 
 of the idea of the Church). Since the proclama- 
 tion of the dogma of Infallibility, this is no longer the 
 case. Every trace of liberty in Romanism, has been 
 obliterated : an understanding between them and our- 
 selves is therefore no longer possible. 
 
 Our relations to Protestants may be different ; an 
 understanding between us is not impossible, since every 
 Protestant may and can believe with us, both in the 
 principle of authority and that of liberty; it is not a 
 question of principle that divides us. Protestants, it 
 is true act individually; and no one of them has a right 
 to speak in the name of the entire fellowship; but I 
 have more than once met with the following way of re- 
 garding the matter (among Protestants of sincere faith 
 and moderate views). A Protestant is able and has a 
 right to be in accord with a member of the Orthodox 
 (Greek) Church. A Catholic neither can nor dare; for 
 in so doing, he would be unfaithful to his dogma; he 
 would be excommunicated " lata sententia." Here lies 
 the real difference in our relations respectively to Pro- 
 testant and Catholics. 
 
 Father X. asserts, that Catholics all concern them- 
 selves about the safety and propagation of this truth 
 
— 25 — 
 
 (revealed by God); further, that every Catholic is at 
 liberty to occupy himself, yea, even diligently with 
 Scientific pursuits. (It seems to me however, that 
 these two assertions do not tally with the prohibi- 
 tion to the poor laity) to read the Holy Scriptures. 
 The true Roman Catholic is no longer permitted to 
 inquire into truth for himself; to look at it with his 
 own eyes ; or to grasp it with his own intelligence. 
 Is it not his duty, first of all, to make the " Sacrifizio 
 dell ' Intelleto ' " (sacrifice of the intellect) ? Doc- 
 trine is imposed on him by Rome. He takes no part 
 whatever in its definition, in its defence (at the Oecu- 
 menical Council through the medium of his bishops) 
 and the Councils themselves are but the remnants, 
 the vestiges of an absolutely antiquated fashion of 
 looking at things — a fashion that has gone out of use. 
 
 Objections, it is true, are not raised against the study 
 of mathematics or of chemistry . . . Difficulties 
 begin when we come to theology and philosophy, — these 
 two sister sciences which most profoundly interest men, 
 which determine their morals and which show them the 
 way wherein they should walk. 
 
 How is it possible for the Roman Catholic to guard 
 and uphold revealed truth, if he may only read the 
 original code which contains it, after asking and ob- 
 taining the permission of his Bishops ? Is it anything 
 less than a flagrant contradiction ? Do you believe that 
 the greatest geniuses of the last centuries, Newton, 
 Leibnitz and Kant, could have spoken so nobly and 
 truthfully about religion, unless they had been in the 
 habit of reading the Holy Scriptures from their youth ? 
 It seems to me that a guardian who has no knowledge 
 of that which he has to guard, is not much of a guar- 
 dian. The works of St. Alphonsus Liguori, which have 
 just recently been approved by the Roman Curia and 
 which evidently correspond to what it believes to be 
 true and moral (in any case a strange choice), can 
 hardly take the place of the Word of God. But these 
 are only incidental questions. 
 
 The chief point under discussion is only lightly 
 
— 26 — 
 
 touched upon in the letter of Father X ; by way of com- 
 pensation however, in a very categorical manner. He 
 says: " There is no such thing as the absolute personal 
 infallibility of the Pope; it is a non-entity (Unding)." 
 This is absolutely true ; it is an utterance which I can 
 cordially subscribe; but actual Roman Catholics have 
 no right to think so. The Orthodox Catholics of the 
 East; the Old Catholics; the Anglicans; the Protest- 
 ants; and those among Roman Catholics, who either 
 will not or cannot give an exact account of the real 
 bearing of the new dogma may do so. These last call 
 themselves liberal Catholics and would like to settle tb a 
 difficulties which this doctrine presents, according to 
 their taste, in their own way; they want to philosophize 
 away its real sting. 
 
 But they are not true Catholics; they are illogieal 
 and heretical; they are too late. The Vatican Council 
 settled the question in a very definite and irrevocable 
 manner ; the infallibility of the Pope is based upon a rock, 
 and is therefore immovable. In fact, what else could 
 this Council be said to have defined, if not personal in- 
 fallibility ? iV^on-personal infallibility (Pope and Church 
 combined) had long been accepted in the Western 
 Church ; was admitted even by Bossuet ; and its reiter- 
 ated proclamation would certainly not have called forth 
 such opposition in the heart of the Western Church. 
 But this non-personal infallibility had not reckoned 
 with the Ultramontane party; that party was not satis- 
 fied with it; it wanted its own " non autem ex consensu 
 ecclesise ; " and it has most assuredly got it. Prom its 
 own standpoint, we must admit it to be perfectly right. 
 The Infallibility of the Pope, following unavoidably on 
 the establishment of his monarchy (in the Church) is 
 only a perfectly logical development of the primordial 
 Romish lie. The party which upheld this idea, marched 
 slowly but surely. At the Council of the Apostles, pre- 
 sided over by St. James, no one certainly dreamed of 
 personal infallibility ; it was the Church which, in con- 
 formity with the promise of the Saviour was to decide 
 (sine consensu Papae). After the separation of the 
 
— 27 — 
 
 Churches, the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome gradu- 
 ally develoed into a monarchy. That was the begin- 
 ning of the lie ; we watch the formation of a Papal 
 party and enter upon the second period, that of the in- 
 fallibility of the Church " cum consensu Papae " ; then 
 follows the third period, that of the infallibility of the 
 Pope " cum consensu ecclesiae ; " lastly we arrive at the 
 fourth and last, that of the infallibility of the Pope, 
 " sine consensu ecclesiae." 
 
 The most astounding of all sophisms is finally com- 
 pleted; This idea of primacy changing into infallibility, 
 — an idea which has played so great a part in history, 
 and which for a thousand years dominated that of West- 
 ern Europe, — developed in an absolutely logical manner 
 and ended in absurdity. For the sake of avoiding mis- 
 understanding, I hasten to add, that throughout the 
 following pages, I speak solely of infallibility as regards 
 questions in which the Pope speaks as Pope ; and not 
 as regards those which he decides in his capacity as a 
 private individual. I think it necessary to emphasize 
 this point; I do not assert that the Pope claims infalli- 
 bility in private matters ; but I do maintain, that since 
 the year 1870 he claims to be infallibile when matters 
 of doctrine and morals are in question. He is no longer 
 obliged to ask the opinion of any Council whatsoever ; 
 according to the new theory, Councils are and were alto- 
 gether superfluous. The Comte de Maistre, a well-known 
 apologist of inf allibilism far more outspoken than any of 
 the present times and one who did not shrink from the 
 conclusions which might be drawn from his premises, 
 says in all his letters: "Popes had no reason for calling 
 councils; they only did so out of complaisance towards 
 the Emperors." This is a very daring assertion, — one 
 to which I shall have occasion to refer later on; in the 
 meantime, before closing my reply and letter, I shall 
 take the liberty of asking a question which has regard 
 to Canonical law and which bears upon the theory of 
 Inf allibilism. It is this; Popes, as well as all other 
 Bishops, used formerly to be elected by the community, 
 and this was a perfectly canonical procedure ; but later 
 
— 28 — 
 
 on they were frequently forced upon the Church by- 
 Emperors or by women ; as for example, by the beauti- 
 ful Marosia (Note 1.) 
 
 Matters are not really managed in this way; the 
 Pope is elected by several ecclesiastics (Cardinals), who 
 may not only be ignorant men, but even heretics and 
 prevaricators (my honored adversary would scarcely 
 maintain that Cardinals are infallible ?). They do not 
 become more infallible, when united together in a con- 
 clave : how then can these fallible men communicate in- 
 fallibility to another man; or force the Holy Spirit to 
 communicate it to him? One can only transmit that 
 which one actually possesses. Three Bishops, or in case 
 of necessity, one only, can give to another the divine 
 grace of the episcopate, which they themselves possess ; 
 but whence does the Pope derive the so-called grace, 
 of his so-called infallibility? Is the election of the 
 Pope an eighth sacrament? As a candidate for the 
 papal chair he might be a heretic. Pope Innocent TIT. 
 (an authority on whom even the most inveterate Infal- 
 libilists vpill scarcely cast doubt) admits that even a 
 Pope may be a heritic, and therefore liable to deposi- 
 tion by his diocesans or his Church: much more ought 
 we to allow such a possibility in the case of a bishop; 
 how then is it possible then for him in a trice, to 
 become not only non-heretical, but even infallible? 
 Such questions rise unbidden and ask for a solution 
 which cannot be refused. 
 
 A. KIEEEFF. 
 
 PAVLOVSK, 
 
 August 7th. 
 
 Hote 1. — I am not quoting these well-known histori- 
 cal facts in order to lay blame on the Komish Church. 
 It is not an argument which I would care to make use 
 of in my controversy. To relate anecdotes about an 
 Alexander Borgia, would indeed be a tettimonium pau- 
 pertatis argumenti. I only wish to illustrate my idea. 
 
— 29 — 
 
 We too, in the East, have had to accept poor Bishops, 
 but it was not so much a matter of importance, because 
 our Bishops are not infallible. I also -wish to call at- 
 tention to the fact, that the ordination of Bishops is a 
 sacrament, like any other. Is the election of the Pope 
 also a sacrament ? the 8th ? By whom was it instituted ? 
 
 The following is what this Pope said : Sermo III 
 de Oonsecratione Pontificis (Migne 217, p. 664). 
 
 Propter causam vero fornicationes, Ecclesia Eomana 
 (The reference is probably to the diocesan Church of 
 jRome, which elected its bishops) potest dimittere Ho- 
 manum Pontiflcem. Pornibationem non dieo carnalem, 
 sed spiritualem. . . . id est proter infidelitatis 
 errorem, " The Church of Rome (we are not at present 
 speaking of the Universal Church united together in 
 an Oecumenical Council, but of the small Diocese of 
 Rome) could thus dismiss and depose its bishop 
 because of infidelity; meaning by this rather uncere- 
 monious term, used by the Popes, an error in matters 
 relating to faith, an error of doctrine. Is not this 
 example sufficiently convincing ? (it certainly is not the 
 only one). Can one still conscientiously defend infal- 
 libility? 
 
— 30 — 
 
 SECOND LETTEE OF FATHER X. (SUMMARY.) 
 
 August 15th. 
 
 Father X. lays down the principles according to 
 which the questions touched upon in General Kireeff's 
 answer, may be explained. 
 
 Christ, says Father X., has given Eternal Truth to 
 His Church, He has promised that, by the Holy 
 Spirit's help, this truth shall never fail. This truth is 
 the object of faith, and is in the first instance seated in 
 the consciousness (Bewusstsein) of believers, i. e., of 
 the Church. In this sense, every one is a keeper and 
 guardian (Wachter) of the truth, first, those who ac- 
 cept and guard it in simple faith, then, those who, 
 according to the importance (Maass tab-scale) of the 
 position they occupy in the Church, teach and diffuse 
 it, watching carefully that foreign elements shall not 
 be introduced into the teaching of the Church. The 
 bishops are the representatives of the different parties 
 in the Church, with regard to (Bezug) the faith of their 
 subordinates (Untergebenen), and are at the same time 
 guardians and protectors (Beschutzer) of this faith. 
 But they represent this Church only in conjunction 
 with their supreme head {Oberhaupt) the Pope, out of 
 this union (community) they are also separated (ausge- 
 schieden) from the Church. But the Pope has a 
 further advantage over the rest of the bishops, that, 
 in accordance with the word of Christ (I have prayed 
 for thee that thy faith fail not) and in his capacity as 
 supreme teacher (Lehrer) of the truth revealed by 
 God, he is able of himself (Ex sese) to give irreform- 
 able definitions of dogma (infallible) without depend- 
 ing on the Church's assent. That is to say, in such 
 decisions, he remains always in harmony {concordance, 
 Vebereinstimmung) with the truth which lives in the 
 Church, he can never place himself (stehen) in opposi- 
 tion to the ti-adition of the Church, he can never be 
 opposed to all (alle) the rest of the bishops. The head 
 
— al- 
 and the members, as long as it is their purpose to form 
 one body, can never be separated. If they are sepa- 
 rated, the body ceases to exist. If this is what is 
 meant by personal infallibility, an arbitrary meaning 
 {Nach Willkur) is evidently given to the expression. 
 Theology has not yet settled the disputed question 
 {Streitfrage), whether the Pope can be also personally 
 (aueh personlich) mistaken in matters relating to faith, 
 but this is only a secondary question {nebensachlirhe). 
 The Pope never decides questions of dogma under the 
 influence of a pretended {vergeblich) inspiration, but 
 always after having obtained {verschaft) through the 
 medium of councils {oecumenical), the moral conviction 
 that this or the other doctrine (Lehre) is conformable 
 to the collective mind of the Catholic world (Gesammt- 
 bewusstsein). But the decisions of the Pope are not 
 the outcome of this moral conviction, the chief role 
 appertains to the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, says 
 Father X., all the difficulties which M. Kireeff raised, 
 are solved. 
 
 Father X., then passes on to reply to the following 
 questions: 
 
 1. M. Kireeff wishes to know what the decisions of 
 the Vatican Council were ? My answer is — that 
 between the Pope on the one hand in his capacity 
 as supreme teacher in questions relating to faith, and 
 the Church on the other, there could be no discord 
 (Zwie-spalt) According to Catholic doctrine, the 
 Pope as supreme teacher, represents the mind, the 
 faith of the Church {des Kirchlichen Glaubens bewusst- 
 seins). Who represents the mind of the Russian 
 Church? asks Father X- 
 
 2. De Maistre is not an authority. 
 
 3. What would have happened, supposing a heretic 
 had been elected Pope? asks M. Kireeff. I answer 
 with Mgr. Bishop Fessler, secretary to the Vatican 
 Council, that such a case is highly improbable, {hochst- 
 unwahrscheinlich), but should it ever occur, God would 
 intervene in a special manner (besonderer Beistand) 
 to keep the Church and Pope from an heretical de- 
 
— 32 — 
 
 cision (Aus-bruch). Father X., further adds, that 
 history supplies not a single case of a heretical Pope. 
 
 4. There ought to be in the Church, an infallible 
 organ (Amt charge) relying upon God's help. He who 
 denies the existence of such an office (Lehramt) takes 
 up altogether different ground from the Catholic doc- 
 trine. 
 
 Father X., concludes his letter with supplementary 
 remarks regarding questions of fact. 
 
 " The massacre of Saint Bartholemew and Beziers," 
 he says, " cannot be laid at the doors of the Catholic 
 Church." 
 
 No Catholic is forbidden to read the Holy Scriptures, 
 every one is directed to do so under wise guidance. 
 Whither has the reading of the Holy Scriptures led 
 Protestants and also certain Eussian sects ? asks Father 
 X. Truth must be found in the living tradition (of the 
 Church). Father X. , is surprised that General Kireeff 
 should think that God's word could only be known to 
 us through the medium of the Bible, M. K. must surely 
 believe that the Russian Church is a depositary (Tra- 
 gerin) of revealed truth. Further, have many Russians 
 read the Bible? has he done so himself? 
 
 Finally, Father X, says, "I should like to know 
 whom General Kireeff would appoint arbitrator (auf- 
 stellen mochte) of religious and philosophical opinions 
 {Ansichten) relating to the religious sphere." ' 
 
 Note 1. — Such is the letter of the Reverend Father 
 X. It is remarkable in more than one respect. I do 
 not wish to accuse my adversary of being consciously 
 Jesuitical, but his letter is full of mental reservations, 
 of answers and objections to questions which were not 
 asked. He provides loopholes for himself and raises 
 questions which are irrelevant to the present contro- 
 versy, unless he hopes to entrap me into making a 
 false logical step, into committing a blunder. No, I 
 feel sure, that he means sincerely all that he says, 
 without perfidious afterthought, but it is strange to 
 note, how little capable Roman Catholics (infaUibilists) 
 are, of discussing and defending clearly, simply and 
 
— 33 — 
 
 truthfully, these new theories. It is not a theologian 
 who reasons, but a diplomatist who pulls the wires. I 
 have also felt it to be my duty to quote the German of 
 many of the tei-ms^which Father X., employs. (End of 
 note.) 
 
 ALEX. KIREEFF. 
 
 GENERAL KIRFEFF'S ANSWER TO THE SECOND 
 LETTER OF FATHER X. 
 
 (August 15th 1890). 
 
 In at least one -resfiectfTny honorable antagonist and 
 myself are agreed ; unless we alter our mode of dis- 
 cussion, I can foresee no end to our controversy. Evi- 
 dently I fail to express myself clearly, as the Reverend 
 Father X., seems not to "hnderstand either my answers 
 or my counter-questions. At the outset we kept along- 
 side of each other, our point of departure was the 
 same (the doctrine of the undivided Church) we both 
 affirmed that Christian doctrine is derived from two 
 sources, namely, the written word of God, and the 
 Tradition, both equally true and authoritative. The 
 latter (tradition) is the sum total of what the Christian 
 world has everywhere and at all times, held to be true 
 quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum, 
 est). By the expression all, we understand mainly the 
 Oecumenical Councils, as well as the Fathers of the 
 Church when they agree in their opinions. But having 
 admitted this much, there is an end to our agreement. 
 
— 34 — 
 
 Thencefortli we parted to meet no more. Father X., 
 says, "Over and above the ordinary members of the 
 Church, on every one of whom it is incumbent to guard 
 the truth, the Tope can (according to the words of the 
 Saviour, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail 
 not'") decide questions of dogma, (unchangeable with 
 absolute truth) in his capacity as supreme teacher of 
 revealed truth, and that, moreover, independently ex 
 consensu ecclesioe. (consent of the Church), in his own 
 name, ex sese. First of all, I shall take the liberty of 
 remarking that Father X., makes (unintentionally no 
 doubt) a slight alteration in the text of the Vatican 
 definition, when he writes, that the Pope is able to give 
 infallible decisions, the original text is clearer and 
 more explicit. But this is a matter of no importance, 
 the important point is, that my opponent believes it 
 proved and indisputable that the words of the Saviour 
 addressed to Saint Peter, confer the gift of infallibility 
 on the Pope of Eome, whereas this is the very thing to 
 be proved, this is the point under discufesion, and the 
 " omcs probandi," the duty of proving it, devolves on 
 Father X. Much has been written on this subject and 
 so far as I know, the Fathers of the Church never 
 arrived at a unanimous decision on the question, ac- 
 cording to the idea of the infallibilists. These words 
 should not be taken absolutely — not even with regard 
 to the Apostle himself, still less with regard to his so- 
 called successors, for immediately after addressing 
 them to Saint Peter, the Saviour speaks of his future 
 apostacy. (Luke xxii. , 34.) Is it not quite clear that the 
 promise did not absolutely guarantee even the faith of 
 the Apostle himself? (it vacillated). So too with 
 regard to the exhortation of the Saviour to Saint Peter 
 "to establish and strengthen his brethren in the faith." 
 This also cannot be taken in an unconditional sense, 
 because we know that he did not always obey it, and 
 that he misled the brethren at Autioch, on a most im- 
 portant canonical question, the question viz., whether 
 old Testament laws were equally binding on Christians 
 and Jews Saint Paul charges Saint Peter with being 
 
— 35 — 
 
 unfaithful to the truth of the Gospel (Gal. II., 11-14), 
 " when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according 
 to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter " . . .). 
 This passage has frequently been expounded by the 
 Fathers of the Church in an anti-infallibilislio sense. 
 But to proceed further. Father X., continues, " That is 
 to say, in these decisions, the opinion of the Pope 
 never departs from conformity with the truth which 
 dwells in the Church and will never place himself in 
 opposition to the tradition (of the Church) etc." . . . 
 This seems to me, to be a most precarious gloss, the 
 legitimacy of which ought to be proved, though my 
 opponent makes no attempt whatever to supjsly the 
 proof. Instead of that, he tries to support his ideas, 
 by an "illustration" (an illustration frequently used 
 by the Ultramontanes) drawn from the comparison, of 
 the Church with a body, whose head is the Pope. 
 That a comparison, so materialistic, may serve as an 
 illustration-iraxi awkward one, at the best — I am willing 
 to allow, but it is not surprising that theologians should 
 use it as an argument and take it literally? 
 
 It is met within the early Church, among the 
 Fathers (e. g. Augustine and Cyprian), but taken sym- 
 bolically. They never conceived it so grossly, neither 
 did they dream of a head in the material sense, their 
 idea of religion was too high, too ethereal, for that. 
 One cannot fail to see that the practical Roman spirit, 
 so proxically juridical, has unquestionably had, and 
 still has, a disastrous influence on the minds of those 
 who lack philosophical or religious elan. Even the 
 term employed to express the relations between God 
 and His creature — the word "religion," has a material 
 and juridical character. " JReligion " comes from the 
 word " religare," to bind, the terms used by the East 
 are more idealistic. The Russian call it " Yera " which 
 means faith, in Greek it is " Eusebeia," piety. This 
 same materialistic way of looking at things shows itself 
 still more clearly in the doctrine of punishments and 
 rewards, which is treated with so much minuteness in 
 Ultramontane theology. Only the mind of an advo- 
 
— 36 — 
 
 cate, of a lawyer, could have invented and developed 
 the theories of purgatory and indulgences. Only legis- 
 lators could have introduced a system of accounts so 
 minute, detailed even to a crown or to a genuflexion — 
 into the relations of Grod and man, an account-keeping 
 which really transforms the sanctuary of forgiveness 
 into a banking establishment, at which alms are re- 
 ceived, debts paid, advances made, etc. This material- 
 istic element has turned the development of the idea of 
 unity in the Western Church into an altogether ma- 
 terialistic channel. A member of the Western Church 
 (I speak of those who are inclined to judge matters in 
 a materialistic way) wishes to have over his Church, a 
 material head, whom he can see and handle, otherwise 
 he can neither grasp nor understand it. That which 
 he cannot see with his bodily eyes has no realitj' for 
 him, as if a moral head, as if the symbol of unity, were 
 not sufficient. Is the only possible head, or chief 
 leader of a State for instance, one in the form of a ma- 
 terial person ? Were this the only possibility a Ee- 
 public couM never have a chief. " Nihil est in intel- 
 lectu qiiin prius fuerit in sensu," says the materialistic 
 philosopher, this also applies to Ultramontanists, a 
 head, a chief, who cannot be seen and felt, whose 
 slipper cannot be kissed, has no existence for them. 
 This tendency to treat theological questions in a juridi- 
 cal manner, and a marked preference for the study of 
 law, were peculiarly characteristic of the Roman theo- 
 logians, particularly in the Middle Ages. Law prepon- 
 derated greatly over Theology. Theology flourished 
 in France, in Italy it was law. Even Innocent TV. 
 founded a school of law at Eome. Theology did not 
 supply materials for the building up of an all-powerful 
 Papacy, and so they turned to law. When Theology 
 lacked arguments, they betook themselves to jurispru- 
 dence, which was not so particular in its choice of 
 means. Pseudo-Isidore, Gratian, Pseudo-Cyril — every- 
 thing was utilized. There was at first no lack of pro- 
 tests, Roger Bacon, for example, says {Opus Tertiutn, 
 Rerum Uritannicarum Medii devi Scriptores, London, 
 
— 37 — 
 
 1859, p. 84-85). All wisdom was contained in the Holy- 
 Scriptures. Nunc noil est ita, nam plus laudatur in 
 Ecclesia Dei unus jurista civilis, licet solum sciat jus 
 civile et ignoret jus canonicum et theologiam, quam 
 unus magister in theologia et citius eligitur ad ecclesi- 
 asticas dignitatis, (i. e. Nowadays the Church is 
 readier to commend a lawyer if he OJily know civil law 
 and be ignorant of canonical law and theology, than a 
 master in theology, and he has a greater chance of 
 being raised to ecclesiastical dignities). Further on 
 he regrets the abuse of the law, which has ericroached 
 upon theology, etc. These words are all the more 
 remarkable, as the relations between the Pope and E. 
 Bacon were notoriously of a friendly character. But it 
 was not only theologians who complained of this state 
 of affairs, poets and thinkers too were of the same 
 mind, thus Dante says (Canto ix, vi. 35, Paradise). 
 
 Per questo I'Evangelio e i dottor magni 
 Sono derelitti: e solo ai decretali 
 Si studia si, che pare a lor' vivagni. 
 A questo intende il Papa e i cardinali 
 Non vanno il lor' pensieri a Nazarette 
 La dove Gabriel a perse I'ali. 
 
 That is why the Gospel and the great teachers are 
 forsaken, only the decretals are studied now, so much 
 can be gathered from the margins (of their books). 
 The Pope and the Cardinals have come to an under- 
 standing as to this, their ideas do not go to Nazareth, 
 where the Angel Gabriel unfolded his wings." 
 
 But let us return to the theses of my honored adver- 
 sary, he says: 
 
 1. That every Christian should teach the truth ac- 
 cording to the position he occupies in the Church. As 
 the Pope occupies the highest position, he is in posses- 
 sion of a gift which the others do not share, viz., 
 Infallibility. 
 
 2. "That the Pope possesses it according to the 
 words of Christ to Saint Peter, "I have prayed for 
 thee, etc." . . . 
 
— 38 — 
 
 3. That this gift consists in this, that the Pope 
 when pronouncing infallible decrees, remains {bleibt) in 
 conformity of opionions with the Church. 
 
 To this I answer: 
 
 Ad. 1. There is not the slightest resemblance 
 between the teaching power possessed by Christians 
 generally and the power which the Vatican Council 
 attributes to the Pope. There is no likeness between 
 these two talents. On the contrary, there is a differ- 
 ence not only of quantity, but also of quality. The 
 power attributed to the Pope is of an altogether differ- 
 ent character from that which every Christian pos- 
 sesses, uamely that of teaching infallibility — a power, 
 which according to the words of the Saviour and to 
 Orthodox Eastern doctrine, has only been given to the 
 entire Church, the Church as a whole. There is the 
 same difference between these two gifts, as there is 
 between any given number, no matter how great its 
 value, and the Infinite. It is easy to see that there is a 
 breach of continuity between these two ideas or con- 
 ceptions. The Early Church, before the rupture, and 
 the Eastern Church, always understood this difference, 
 these two terms could only have been confused by men 
 destitute alike of true faith and philosophical culture. 
 A number, however great its value, is always a finite 
 number, such also is the power of understanding and 
 teaching religious truth, which appertains to Christians 
 generally. The infinite has no limitations, such too is 
 the supernatural and superhuman power which Christ 
 conferred on the Church in its entirety. And, I repeat, 
 the United Church never transferred this privilege to 
 any of her members, no matter how profound his learn- 
 ing or how great his saintliness. There is not the 
 slightest indication in Holy Scripture to warrant the 
 supposition that even the Apostles enjoyed this prerog- 
 ative. Quite the reverse. But this is transgressing 
 the limits of our controversy, the sole aim of which is 
 to elucidate the character of the infallibility attributed 
 to the Pope, not to prove its illegality and absurdity. 
 I again repeat — according to Eomanists, the teaching 
 
— 39 — 
 
 power of the Pope is infallible, whereas that of other 
 men is not so, and the two therefore differ quali- 
 tatively. 
 
 Ad. 2. There is no logical connection between the 
 words which the Saviour addressed to the Apostle 
 Peter and the so-called infallibility of the Pope. 
 
 (a) Neither in that text, nor any where else in Holy 
 Scripture is there a question of Pope, Patriarch or any 
 other Primacy. 
 
 (b) The Saviour speaks of the wavering (wajiken) 
 faith of Saint Peter — a wavering, which manifested 
 itself in the most obvious manner, not only in his per- 
 sonal character, but also in his doctrine. Notwith- 
 standing this, Christ assigned to him, conjointly with 
 John, .James and Paul, a high position and a vast 
 sphere' of action. The threefold denial of Peter was 
 counteracted by the Saviour's threefold exhortation 
 and by His prayer. Such is the explanation given by 
 the early Fathers of the Church. The majority express 
 themselves very positively, in a sense directly opposed 
 to that of the infallibilists, especially the most recent 
 infallibilists who overpass all bounds and are driving 
 under full sail towards the absurd. 
 
 Ad. 3. This point is intended to be a more detailed 
 explanation of the decree of 1870. Let us consider it 
 more closely. It is impossible to study the doctrine of 
 the infallibility of the Pope too carefully. It is now 
 and will be henceforth the corner-stone of the whole 
 doctrinal system of Rome. Theoretically speaking, it 
 is of infinitely greater importance than the " filioque " 
 (which was the beginning of the doctrinal division of 
 the Churches), practically speaking, it is much more 
 important than the theory of indulgences, which cost 
 Rome the most civilized part of her flock. I confess 
 that I fail to understand how the explanations given 
 by Father X., can be applied to the original text of the 
 Constitution. In this text, which is perfectly clear and 
 distinct, it is said and laid down, that the Pope when 
 he speaks in his capacity as teacher of the Church, that 
 is, to use the term agreed on, " ex cathedra," gives 
 
— 40 — 
 
 irreformable i. e. infallible decisions. Nothing more is 
 added, there is not a word of that which Father X., 
 adds to it — there is no stipulation that the Pope shall 
 remain in harmony of opinion with the Church, nor 
 that he shall not contradict the tradition of the Church. 
 What my honored adversary says on this subject, would 
 no doubt be very convenient and comforting for the 
 Catholics, but unfortunately nothing of the sort is to 
 be found in the new dogma — quite the reverse. The 
 opinion of the Church is dismissed in the most positive 
 and peremptory manner. 
 
 The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope in con- 
 junction with the Church was held in the Western 
 Church (e. g. by the Galileans). But at a later period, 
 as is well known, it was set aside, that loo in the most 
 positive manner, by the Vatican Council. What justific- 
 ation then has Father X., for trying to introduce this 
 new point of view, in his explanations ? On this occa- 
 sion, as also on many others he evidently reasons in 
 the following manner (it is the way the Ultramontanes 
 follow when they run short of arguments based on 
 Holy Scripture, or on the consensus Patrum, on the 
 agreement of the Holy Fathers). The Church is a 
 body, and every body must have a head, now in this 
 case, the head is the Pope (1), and if the two have to 
 live, nay even to exist, they cannot be separated or dis- 
 joined. Is this sufficiently clear and simple ? But 
 again, we' are concerned with theology, and not with 
 anatomy. This manner of reasoning is false, it is inap- 
 plicable to the subject under consideration, for it is too 
 materialistic, it is inapplicable not only to theology, as 
 I said before, but even to politics, which certainly have 
 to do with very tangible and material questions. My 
 antagonist, no less than the rest of his colleagues, for- 
 gets that what is true of a zoological organism, can 
 only be applied to the Church in an allegorical sense, 
 for the simple reason, that the Church is not an 
 animal, but a mystical organism, whose head is Christ. 
 
 Note 1. — Jesus Christ does not suit them. He no 
 longer satisfies them. 
 
— 41 — 
 
 But this is not sufficiently tangible for Papists, what- 
 ever they cannot see, feel and touch, does not exist for 
 them. A Mystical Head does not suffice us, they say, 
 we need someone who can speak materially, someone 
 who can teach us with an audible voice, where is this 
 mystic head ? It is as though we heard the disciples 
 of Christ, still entangled in the bonds of matter, say- 
 ing ..." Shew us the Father and it sufficeth us." 
 As if nothing had taken place since then, as if we had 
 not been taught the spiritual doctrine of the Saviour, as 
 if He had not died for our sakes, as if the letter which 
 killeth, had not been replaced by the life-giving spirit. 
 And Romanists dare to speak of progress. But what is 
 strangest of all, is, that these arguments are repeated 
 at a time, when on all hands, societies without a visible 
 head, are springing into existence, societies which, 
 from the Roman standpoint, being without head, are 
 incapable of life. Leaving political States or Republics 
 altogether aside, do we not see societies of every 
 description, learned, charitable, economical and finan- 
 cial, existing without material head ? Do Romanists 
 imagine that a Church has less vitality than an 
 academy, a university, or a republic? Does Father X., 
 cling to the naive arguments of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 
 on Monarchy in the Church ? It is true, that amongst 
 the early Fathers of the Church, we find more than one 
 hyperbole, more than one comparison and allegory 
 such e. g. as father, head, pillar, foundation of the 
 Church, etc., but it would never enter into the head of 
 any man with a knowledge of Scripture and Church 
 History, discussing the subject bona fide, to take ex- 
 pressions of the kind literally and make them the basis 
 of juridical laws. A third rate special pleader might 
 try to base material rights on expressions of piety, 
 love, or respect, found in some letter written by the 
 parties to a suit, but not so a serious controversialist. 
 Yet it is just the way of Roman controversialists to 
 have recourse to such arguments, a fact which corro- 
 borates what I said regarding the deleterious influence 
 of Roman jurisprudence on Roman Catholic theology. 
 
— 42 — 
 
 The defenders of Papism answer, Christ it is true, 
 did not speak of Popes, but neither did he speak of 
 Bishops or Patriarchs. This is an argument which we, 
 Orthodox, are quite willing to accept. These titles are 
 not found in the Gospels, and these dignities were in- 
 stituted by the Church, they cannot therefore claim di- 
 vine right, but only ecclesiastical right, the right of the 
 Pope is the same as that of all the rest. "We are also 
 quite willing to admit his rank, yea even his primacy 
 inter pares, but only as having been instituted by the 
 Church. 
 
 In the constitution of 1870, then, there is no trace of 
 that which Father X. imports into it. No reference is 
 made either to the infallibility of the Pope in conjunc- 
 tion with that of the Church, or to the union of the 
 Jr'ope with the Church, — a union which would produce 
 this new collective infallibility, (Gesammtunfetlbarkeit) 
 nor to the reunion of both these infallibilities, (Pope 
 and Church). There is no mention of anything, but 
 the personal infallibility of the Pope. My antagonist 
 adds, that the question whether it is possible for the 
 Pope personally to err in a matter of faith, though in- 
 cidental and of little moment, has not yet been theo- 
 logically settled, and that it is still a matter of contro- 
 versy (Streitfrage). Is my antagonist speaking serious- 
 ly ? does he not see that the whole future of the West- 
 ern Church depends on the solution of this problem, 
 which however cannot be said to be any longer a ques- 
 tion, inasmuch as it has been settled, — in the most in- 
 dubitable manner, negatively, by Orthodox and Protes- 
 tant Theology, afflrmatively, in 1870, by the Vatican 
 theology. Down to the year 1870, this infallibility 
 was most emphatically denied by learned Catholics, 
 now it can no longer be denied, for the wording of the 
 new constitution is categorical and irrevocable, and it 
 is precisely to the person of the Pope, acting indepen- 
 dently of anything, the Church may think or say, \non 
 ex ejus consensu) that infallibility is ascribed. This is 
 the vice which holds the Roman theology in its grip, 
 and which sooner or later will altogether strangle it. 
 
— 43 — 
 
 Father X. asserts, tliat Popes never announce de- 
 crees under the influence of a pretended " inspiration," 
 but always after arriving at a moral conviction that the 
 doctrine under consideration expresses the mind of the 
 Church as a vchole (Gesammt-bewusstsein), and that 
 the doctrine called for the degnition given. Neverthe- 
 less, he adds, the truth, the infallibility of the decisions 
 of the Pope do not depend on this moral conviction, 
 for it is the Holy Spirit who plays the chief role {die 
 Hauptrolle). 
 
 After this explanation, adds Father X., all M. Kireeff's 
 doubts ought to vanish. 
 
 Alas, quite the reverse. New doubts associate them- 
 selves to the old ones. To begin with, what do the 
 words mean. — "A Pope never decides, etc. ?" But my 
 adversary and myself are not engaged in discussing a 
 fact, a possibility, the power possessed by 'the Pope of 
 issuing decisions, but his pretended right of issuing 
 them without the consent of the Church, of prescribing 
 and defining dogmas, without seeking to know what 
 the Church thinks of them. Nothing that Father X. 
 has said on the matter, constitutes an answer to my 
 arguments, we are not concerned with a question of 
 history, but with a question of right. The point of im- 
 portance is to know, not what the Popes have done, or 
 are doing, but what they have the right to do, by rea- 
 son of their infallibility since 1870. 
 
 "It is not an inspiration," says Father X., " it is the 
 help of the Holy Spirit." But in what does this help 
 consist ? What is this role ? Does the Holy Spirit 
 point out the truth to the Pope? Does he morally 
 compel him to proclaim it ? In any case, the Holy 
 Spirit according to this theory, no longer acts on and 
 in the Church, but concentrates His activities upon a 
 single individual, the Pope. " Chief role," says Father 
 X , but where the Holy Spirit acts, there is no possibil- 
 ity of, no room for, other influences, there are no " sec- 
 ondary " roles. 
 
 To my question — " What then has the Vatican Coun- 
 cil defined ? " Father X. answers,— it has decreed that 
 
— 44 — 
 
 discussions (Zwiespalt) can no longer arise between the 
 Pope and the Church, and now the Pope, in his capac- 
 ity as supreme teacher, has become the expression of 
 the mind of the Church. But once again, — where is 
 this to be found in the constitutio doc/matica ? It lends 
 to these statements of Father X. not the slightest sup- 
 port. We find there that the Pope proclaims dogmas 
 " non ex consensu JEcclesiae," but " ex sese." Evident- 
 ly then, under such conditions, no dissension or con- 
 flict can possibly arise, when one of the parties posses- 
 ses the privilege of speaking infallibly, and the other 
 restricts itself to humbly registering what the first says, 
 dissension is obviously impossible. 
 
 Father X. wants to know how we settle such ques- 
 tions in our Church. Just as they did in the Undivided 
 Catholic Church of Old. We are only bound by the 
 written word of God deposited in the Scriptures, and 
 by the decisions of the true Oecumenical Councils. 
 Our dogmas, are those of the "Undivided Church, the 
 very same as those which were recognized by the Old 
 and true Western Church of the first ten centuries, 
 down to the epoch when this Church separated itself 
 entirely from the East, and began without valid reasons 
 to introduce new dogmas into her system, thus corrupt- 
 ing the old doctrine which, as it would seem, she found 
 insufficient to lead humanity to salvation. It is no 
 part of my purpose to submit the pretended dogmati- 
 cal progress of the West, to historical or theological 
 criticism. I shall content myself with saying, that the 
 dogmas of the Filioque, of the Immaculate Conception 
 of the Virgin, of Indulgences, and especially the latest 
 one of infallibility (which neither the Council of Flor- 
 ence, nor even that of Trent, thought of) are the true 
 reasons for the disunion of the Churches. All now de- 
 pends on whether the Western Church (at present the 
 Pope) is willing to retrace its steps. If it were to de- 
 clare these dogmas non-obligatory, and convert them 
 into mere opinions, the beginning of the union would 
 have been made. We shall not object to concede to it 
 the primacy, with all the privileges therein involved. 
 
— 45 — 
 
 An, understanding can be brought about in no other 
 way, and the partisans of the union of Florence have 
 only to say so to themselves. 
 
 I had believed that the ideas of de Maistre received 
 the support and the highest approval of the Curia, — 
 Father X's denial surprises me exceedingly. 
 
 Father X., in speaking of the possibility of the elec- 
 tion of a heretic to the see of Rome, boldly asserts, 
 " God will preserve any such heretic from a heretical 
 decision." How exact he is. Unfortunately this has 
 still to be proved. Is not the vicious circle in this 
 reasoning quite apparent ? " God will always preserve 
 the Pope from error. Why ? because if He did not do 
 so, the Pope would be fallible, whereas he is infallible. 
 He is infallible, because he is under the protection of 
 God." And so on. One used to argue more closely. 
 Gregory VII. himself said, that if a Pope were a 
 heretic, the community had only to depose him. This 
 was plain and true. Father X., is certainly quite right 
 in counting upon God's help, but this help was 
 promised and given to the Church not to the Pope, 
 above all, not to the Pope when he wants to govern 
 the Church without the Church, and when he himself 
 might be either a heretic or a child. The story of the 
 Popess Joan is probably a pure invention (when a 
 woman of influence desired to rule the Church, she had 
 only to appoint as Pope an individual who suited her), 
 but is the election of a child less monstrous than that 
 of a woman ? 
 
 " The Church cannot be held responsible for Beziers 
 and Alby," saj's Father X. That I allow, but certainly 
 the Pope, for he it was who ordered the Crusade, he 
 sent his legates with the armies of the crusaders, in 
 order that they might keep him acquainted with all 
 that was done, and filially he gave large indulgences to 
 Simon de Monfort and his loarriors. Is it possible to 
 deny these well known historical facts ? 
 
 We come at last to the question of the reading of the 
 Holy Scriptures by the laity. Has a Eoman Catholic 
 
— 46 — 
 
 the right to read the Bible without previously asking 
 permission ? Yes or no ? 
 
 Like my adversary, I also believe that the Bible is 
 not sufficient by itself {nic.ht ausreicht), and that it is 
 good for everyone to read the Word of God, but the 
 Eeverend Father adds, that it should be done under 
 wise direction {Fuhrung). This is not precise. This 
 method of reading appears to me to contain a masked 
 prohibition. The reading of the Scripture can only in- 
 fluence the heart of man for good, when it is free. True, 
 mistakes may be made, false conclusions may be drawn 
 from that which is read, but there can be no moral 
 progress without liberty, nor unfortunately without 
 the risk of falling into error. He who cannot venture 
 on such reading without a director of his mind, will 
 not advance far. 
 
 The " Magister dixit" is good for children, but the 
 time comes when a Christian may and ought to be a 
 man. I can imagine the indescribable astonishment 
 which the Evangelists and Apostles would have felt, if 
 one had told them that their writings, up to a certain 
 point, would be put on the "Index librorum jyrohibi- 
 torutn." 
 
 My adversary asks not without a certain irony, a 
 rather personal question — he wants to know whether 
 many Russians have read the Bible? and whether I 
 have done so myself? I can answer, that now when 
 reading has made such rapid progress amongst the 
 people, many of them, read the Tew Testament. 
 During the last fifteen or twenty years, elementary 
 schools (for the people) have increased immensely; 
 thousands of copies of the Gospels have been printed; 
 and the peasant who has learned to read, has certainly 
 read the Sacred Scriptures. How many of them are 
 there ? asks Father X. I should be at a loss to answer 
 this question; but at all events there are many more 
 than in the countries which are par excellence Catholics 
 e. g. Italy, Spain and especially Paraguay, where 
 Jesuits have long held undisputed sway. As for my- 
 self personally, I read and study the word of God as 
 
— 47 - 
 
 mucli as a layman, a poor self-taught man, can pos- 
 sibly do. 
 
 I shall now try to sum up what I have said regarding 
 the central point of our discussion. I must say that 
 the arguments of my honored adversary have in no 
 wise convinced me. It seems to me that he has failed 
 to prove that the infallibility of the Pope does not 
 differ from that of the Church; and that whatever has 
 been accorded to the Church has also been accorded to 
 the Pope. Up to the year 1870 infallibility was an 
 opinion open to dispute; now it is so no longer — it is a 
 dogma. He who rejects it, becomes ipso facto a 
 heretic, and is anathematised lata sententia. Still 
 further, this infallibility is absolutely personal; it 
 belongs to the Pope. What then is a personal thing or 
 faculty? Surely that which belongs specifically to 
 some one; which is his faculty, his particular gift — 
 that which he possesses in his own right. If anj' one 
 exercises a right which belongs to himself alone which 
 is not shared by another — a right which he can use- 
 according to his own will, without consulting the 
 opinion or will of others (as for instance the Pope, 
 without the consent of the Church) then this right,, 
 this privilege is personal. 
 
 The amplification, elucidation of the rights of the 
 Pope, permitting him of himself and independently of 
 the consent of the Church, to pass decrees, is so clear, 
 so precise, that I cannot understand how anyone,, 
 unless he is blind can fail to see its exact force. I 
 imagine that Eoman Catholics, if they cannot deny it, 
 try at least to lessen its import by means of Jesuitical 
 quibbles ; but it cannot be done in good faith : I simply 
 appeal to common sense, to a dictionary and a gram- 
 mar. The authors of the Constitution knew perfectly- 
 well what they were about and what they wanted to 
 attain; they did not say: ex sese non autem ex consulta- 
 tione, ex inquisitione, etc., no that was insufficient, that, 
 appeared too much of an anodyne; they said: "without 
 the consent." Not only might the Church be left un- 
 consulted, but even, if, having been consulted, it ven~ 
 
— 48 — 
 
 tured to refuse consent, it might be passed over with- 
 out notice. And yet the hope expressed of being able 
 to revive, to keep alive the little liberty which was left 
 to the Church after the publication of the Immaculate 
 Conception and the Syllabus? Quite involuntarily, 
 there came to my mind the rather hard, but true, 
 words, spoken to me by the general of the Jesuits, 
 Father Beck, during the audience which he granted to 
 me. 
 
 (Sd.) A. KIREEPF. 
 CHATEAU PAYLOVSK, 
 
 l-13th September, 1890. 
 
 THIRD LETTER OF THE REV. FATHER X. 
 
 (OF i 16 SEPTEMBEE 1890. SUMMARY.) 
 
 M. KireefE imagines that I confound the two infalli- 
 bilities (that of the Pope and that of the Church) after 
 the manner of the Gallicans; and that I have contra- 
 dicted the decisions of the Vatican Council. This is 
 not correct. The Galileans affirmed (1682, Article lY.) 
 that in the decisions of matters of faith, the Pope takes 
 the preponderating share, that his decrees affect all the 
 Churches, taken as a whole or individually; but that 
 nevertheless, his judgment is not irrevecable, until the 
 Church gives ils consent. "In fidei quoque quoestioni- 
 bus summi Pontificis esse partes, ejus que decreta ad 
 omnes et singulas Ecclesias pertinere, nee tamen irre- 
 formabile esse ejus judicium nisi ecclesise consensus ac- 
 cesserit." This, says Father X., is a contradiction 
 whereas there is none in the " Vaticanum." (') 
 
 JVote 1. — Certainly there is none: but there would 
 be one if the explamations of Father X. were correct. 
 There is no inner contradiction in the wording of the 
 Vatican decisions; but the whole is contradictory to tfie 
 word of Qod and the tradition of the Church. There is 
 the difficulty. 
 
— 49 — 
 
 The Vaticanum decrees: "Romanum pontificem ea 
 infallibilate pollere qua divinus Redemptor ecclesian 
 suam instructam esse voluit. Ideoque ejusdem Romani 
 pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu 
 ecclesise irreformabiles esse." That is to say, the Galli- 
 cans affirmed that the decrees of the Pope were not un- 
 alterable, unless the consent of the Church had been 
 given {7iisi accesserit); the Vaticanum states that the 
 Pope possesses (pollere) the same infallibility {ea in- 
 falUbilitate) as that with which the divine Redeemer 
 willed to endow [instruere) His Church. That is why 
 (ideoque) the decrees of the Roman Pontifif are unalter- 
 able in themselves (ex sese) and not (ex) the consent of 
 the Church, iind so, says the Reverend Father X., the 
 infallibility of the Church and that of the Pope, are one 
 and the same thing (eins und dasselbe); the Church and 
 the Pope together constitute a unity (einheit). The 
 Pope in his declarations (Erkldrungen), expresses the 
 truth which dwells in the Church. 
 
 It follows from this that the GaUican doctrine is 
 false. The centre of gravity lies in the first part of the 
 Vatican definition, and not in the second, which is 
 merely the result of the principle established by the 
 definition (des aufgestellten Frincips), and which has 
 regard to a special case, namely, Gallicanism. 
 
 He says that infallibility is a grace inherent in the 
 office of Pope (eine Amstgnade). The person of the 
 Pope is infallible solely in consequence of his office 
 (bios in Folge); it is organically incorporated (eingeg- 
 liedert) in the organism of the Church. But, he adds, 
 one ought not to designate anything personal, which is 
 only attributed to the holder of an office. In official 
 acts, in declarations (Erklarungen) which have not the 
 character of a decision (Aussbruch ex cathedra), the 
 Pope can give expression to opinions which may be 
 amended (verbessert, improved upon), in books, etc., (') 
 that is to say, in all such cases, they are not infallible. 
 Other theologians however deny it with reference to 
 
 Note 2. — It is plain that Father X. is referring to 
 Pope Sixtus v., and his translation of the Bible. 
 
^50 — 
 
 official declarations. (We shall see that these latter 
 are right and not Father X.) It is contrary to usage 
 (Sprachgebrauch) to call anything personal, which only 
 belongs to someone in virtue of his office. 
 
 Father X. is surprised that M. Kireeff should think 
 Thomas Aquinas naive; that is a quality which he has 
 not discovered in him before. In answer to General 
 Kireeff, who speaks of the election of a woman or of a 
 child to the Papal chair. Father X. says, that he bases 
 his faith on the words of the Saviour addressed to 
 Saint Peter (" On thee will I build my Church"); and 
 that he firmly believes, that who ever may be seated in 
 the chair of Peter (even though it be a child or a 
 sinner), God will still be the ruler of the Church, and 
 the faith will never have to suffer in consequence. 
 
 He further adds, history confirms our conviction, 
 that faith has never had to suffer owing to a bad choice 
 of Popes. (') 
 
 The Catholic Church remains (steht da) and is seen 
 to be a moral power ; but what has happened to those 
 who separated themselves from it ? Have the Churches 
 of the East fulfilled this mission of culture {Kultur 
 aufgabe)? Have they understood it ? And Protestant- 
 ism—is it to be envied in its disintedration (Selbstauf- 
 losung) ? 
 
 Note 1. — Are these words to be understood "cum 
 grano salis ? " Does my adversary believe that he 
 knows more about it than the Fathers of the Third 
 CEcumenical Council of Constantinople (Vth Session of 
 28th March, 681) ? 
 
 N. B. I shall content myself with this quotation, as 
 I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of the 
 fallibility of the Popes. That would carry us too far. 
 The aim of our controversy is to determine the precise 
 nature of the decree of 18th March, 1870 (Vatican). 
 
— 51 — 
 
 GENERAL KIREEFF'S ANSWER TO THE THIRD 
 LETTER OF THE REV. FATHER X. 
 (Of 4th September). 
 
 No indeed, we are not of the same opinion as regards 
 infallibility. For myself and many others, it is a 
 stumbling block; it does not appear to be so for my 
 adversary. It is plain that we shall never be able to 
 effect a compromise. The matter seems quite simple to 
 the Reverend Father; and he is surprised that I find it 
 quite otherwise. But that the matter is not so plain 
 and clear, is superabundantly proved by the energetic 
 opposition which the definition of the new dogma 
 aroused amongst the Bishops assembled at the Vatican; 
 and the opponents (more than 200) were just the most 
 enlightened and learned. After an obstinate struggle 
 and after more than fifty of the opponents of the 
 dogma had withdrawn from the Council, the rest laid 
 down their arms; though the arguments which they 
 had advanced against the new dogma vjere not refuted. 
 After their submission, they took good care not to ex- 
 plain the reason of it. The desire not to grieve the 
 Holy Father, to avoid a rupture, are not arguments 
 worthy of theologians — still less of Christians; for no 
 one has a right to act in opposition to his conscience. 
 
 No, I cannot accept the arguments of the Reverend 
 Father X. He says : " M. Kireeff believes that I accuse 
 him of wishing to confound the two infallibilities (that 
 of the Pope and that of the Church), like the Galileans; 
 and that I am setting myself in opposition to the Vati- 
 can Council, which attributed infallibility to the Pope, 
 without taking into consideration, that which the 
 Saviour gave to the Church." The Reverend Father is 
 correct; that is just my humble opinion. It seems to 
 me that the contradiction between the ideas of the 
 Council of 1870 and those of Father X., is evident. 
 When I asserted that he accepts Galilean ideas on this 
 
— 52 — 
 
 point, I had in mind his desire to identify the Pope 
 and the Church in relation to the graces and rights 
 which are accorded to them; but I quite admit that 
 G-allicans were not infallibilists and that Father X. does 
 not wish to be a Gallican. I also acknowledge that 
 there was false reasoning in Gallicanism; particularly 
 in that, up to a certaia point, it recorded the gift of 
 infallibility to the Pope. GaDicans hoped to escape 
 from the difficulty, " to blunt its edge," by indissolubly 
 uniting the Pope and the Church. That was a mis- 
 take, a contradiction; the point of view of the early 
 Church is not identical with that of the Galileans; still 
 less so, with that of the infallibilists. That is quite 
 certain. But since 1870, these discussions have only 
 an archselogical interest. The Vatican CouncU finally 
 settled the question, by adding to its definition the ex- 
 planatory words: "ex sese," (of himself) and not by the 
 consent of the Church. And this is what the "pro- 
 gress " amounts to. But before returning to our prin- 
 cipal question, I shall take the liberty of answering 
 some of the incidental questions raised by the Reverend 
 Father X. 
 
 We are of the same opinions with regard to Gallican- 
 ism (although our starting points differ). 
 
 I shaU not stop to consider the prohibition of the 
 reading of the Gospel; that has not yet become a 
 dogma of the Romish Church, and may still be with- 
 drawn by a Pope, " melius informatus." But is it really 
 possible for one who studies the history of the early 
 Church or even reads the Epistles, to defend this mode 
 of looking at the matter? 
 
 I do not remember having said that Saint Thomas 
 Aquinas was naive, that would have been a very regret- 
 able lapsus calami ; I thought I only referred to his 
 reasoning (on the monarchy) as naive; and to his idea 
 that a monarchial form of government was best, even 
 for the Church. Naive arguments are sometimes 
 advanced by writers who are far from being them- 
 selves naive. The great Doctor of the Middle Ages 
 was certainly not naive himself; it is a pity that in his 
 
— 53 — 
 
 opuscules Contra Qrmcot, Saracenos, etc., he puts them 
 on the same footing (he knew Greek so imperfectly;) 
 above all, that he should have accepted without criti- 
 cism, the nonsense of the false Decretals. 
 
 I must say that I should find it more difficult to 
 imagine a child seated on the Papal throne, than a 
 wicked man. Does the Pope then not need to have a 
 personal faculty of judgment, of understanding? Is 
 he only an infallible "speaking machine;" a kind of 
 telephone which transmits to humanity dogma pro- 
 nounced by the Holy Spirit ? I don't think that Popes 
 like Innocent III. or Gregory VII. would have felt flat- 
 tered by an occupation of this kind. What could the 
 members of the Eoman Curia have been thinking of, to 
 dress up a child with a tiara? ... An infallible 
 child. Does not that sound strange? At the same 
 time, from the point of view of a non-Vaticanist Chris- 
 tian, it is quite as difficult to believe in an infallible 
 man, as in an infallible child. Both are demi-gods, or 
 rather gods as well as men; and therefore men-gods. 
 . . . Till now I thought there was only one God. 
 
 At last Father X. drives me into a corner and uses 
 an argument "ad hominem." He says: The Catholic 
 Church is there, still stands erect; it is a power; and 
 what has become of those who forsook it ? Had the 
 Eastern Orthodox Church fulfilled its mission ? Has it 
 understood what it should have done for the culture of 
 humanity? That is a very big question, thrown out by 
 my adversary quite incidentally, and put very vaguely. 
 One might discuss it from various points of view: for 
 instance from the point of view of the influence which 
 the Church should exercise on the morality of her 
 children. . . . Well, I certainly believe that in this 
 respect we are not worse ofl: than the countries where 
 Catholicism is the master, for example Italy and Spain. 
 The question might also be considered from the point 
 of view of the relations between the State and the 
 Church. In the West these do not seem to be of a re- 
 markably sincere and tender kind? — the Pope, at all 
 events, does not seem satisfied with them. But the 
 
— 54 — 
 
 chief point undoubtedly is that of dogma. Eoman 
 Catholics are unquestionably richer in this respect 
 than we are; you have things which we do not possess; 
 you have the ftUoque ; you have indulgences, you have 
 the Immaculate Conception; finally you have infalli- 
 bility. You have lost the cup, however; but that is a 
 question of rite, (') still a right instituted by Jesus 
 Christ. Yes, you have all this and you are satisfied. 
 So be it. All the better if this contents you; but it 
 still remains to be seen whether all this has bettered 
 your morals and promoted your intellectual develop- 
 ment. There seems to be a diversity of opinion on this 
 subject (Cardinal Manning for instance, believed, that, 
 thanks to the proclamation of the " Immacula," he 
 could more easily understand the relations existing 
 between the persons of the Holy Trinity.) We 
 Orientals believe that it is not by increasing the 
 oiumber of dogmas that the moral and intellectual 
 progress of a people can be furthered, but by doing 
 our utmost that the existing dogmas may be thor- 
 oughly understood and assimilated by the children of 
 the Church. ... To me, these seem to be con- 
 quests, moral conquests; more precious than any of 
 mundane, outward and formal character; it is to such 
 objects that our energies should be consecrated. Far 
 be it from me to deny the great services which the 
 Komish Church has rendered to the Christian world, 
 especially in the East, for example, in the time of the 
 Iconoclast Emperors: it would be childish and unjust 
 to do so. But where do we actually stand ? Father X. 
 lays emphasis on the power of Rome. Her power is 
 undoubtedly still great ; but what is power considered 
 in itself? 
 
 My adversary makes too much of it, and seems to 
 confound it with right and truth; which are different 
 things. One of the greatest statesmen of our times 
 sets a high value on power and strength; and he may 
 have been right in politics, but not in theology. Was 
 
 Note 1. — True: instead of it you have got various 
 kinds of new scapularies, etc. 
 
— 55 — 
 
 not Mohammedanism for several centuries a great 
 force ? Materialism is also a great force — a force, by 
 the way, which gains ground in the West (especially in 
 the Roman Catholic countries, more so even than in 
 Protestant countries). 
 
 "What numbers of unbaptised children there are in 
 the West. How manj- marriages, which have onh' 
 been sanctioned by the civil authorities ! True, it is 
 difficult to bring statistics for all these things. The 
 Eeverend Father speaks of those who have left the 
 Romish Church. I shall only make one remark on that 
 subject. Those who leave our Church, our Schismatic 
 " Raskolniki," are nearly all ignorant and little civil- 
 ized: but what about those who have abandoned the 
 Church of Rome ? In the IXth and Xth Centuries, at 
 the time of the separation of the Churches, the Eastern 
 Church was unquestionably the more civilized, the 
 more educated of the two; but she "forsook," as 
 Father X. expresses himself, the Romish Church. 
 Later on came the great Reformers, Abailard, Wicliffe, 
 Huss, Luther, Melanchthon, the Port Royalists . . . 
 can these men be accused of having been the less en- 
 lightened ? Will the Reverend Father X. try to prove 
 that modern Protestant theologians are less in earnest, 
 less learned than the infallibilistio theologians ? I do 
 not believe that he will dare. And since 1870, is it not 
 the most scholarly section of Roman Catholic theolo- 
 gians that has left Rome and rejected the new dogma ? 
 I am speaking of the old Catholics. As regards our 
 Church, in particular, I assert that its influence on our 
 people is far greater than is credited in the West; and 
 that this influence, far from diminishing, is visibly 
 growing, which certainly is not the case with the 
 Romish Church. But let us come to our chief ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The centre of gravity of the decisions of the Vatican 
 council remarks Father X., is to be found, not in the 
 second clause of the formula, but in the first; for the 
 second has regard only to a special case. These are 
 the words, says he "Romanum pontificem ea infallibate 
 
— 56 — 
 
 pollere, qua divinus Eedemptor Ecclesiam suam • 
 
 • • • instructam esse voluit (first clause.)" The 
 Council declares that the Pope enjoys the infallibility, 
 (ea, the very same) with which the Saviour equipped 
 His Church. "Ideoque ejusdem Romani Pontificis 
 definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, 
 irreformabiles esse." (second clause). Wherefore, 
 (ideoque) his decisions are unalterable (infallible) in 
 themselves, and not of the consent of the Church. 
 This is an easy way of explaining the texts; but it 
 has one fault, it is arbitrary and false. "What is its 
 foundation? It has absolutely none. Quite the 
 reverse. The second clause, connected with the first 
 by the word "ideoque" (for this reason in the same 
 manner as "ideireo,") is only an inference says Father 
 X., from the first, — its corollary, its development. On 
 the contrary, it is just the most important part of it — 
 the one that contains the novelty in the dogma. The 
 firgt is merely a starting point (false, it is true,) whose 
 logical issue is "non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae." 
 It is just the words, " ex sese, non autem," which 
 renders it impossible for any one whose mind has not 
 been confused and hypnotised by a long course of 
 sophisms, to accept the dogma of 1870. The defenders 
 of infallibilism perceive this, and in all manner of 
 ways, try to minimise its import. They have their 
 document, this precious document, which delivered 
 the Western Church into their hands with the little 
 remaining liberty it still possessed; but for the time 
 being, they make no use of it; it would be too much. 
 Bye and bye men must become accustomed to the 
 absurdity. Given the proper time and place it will be 
 brought out and put in force; for the present it is 
 mentioned as little as possible. Several young Roman 
 Catholics with whom I happened to ^peak of the 
 dogmatical constitution of 1870, did not even suspect 
 its meaning; the original text had never been quoted 
 to them. Many others answered good-naturedly, 
 " Infallibility ? I don't believe in it. Who does 
 believe in it ?" These unhappy people had ■ no idea 
 
— 57 — 
 
 whatever, that from the moment of uttering these 
 words, they were excommunicated lata sentenia. No, 
 a dogma of such importance and force will not let you 
 o£E easily. As long as it was merely an opinion, it 
 could be discussed, a more inoffensive meaning could 
 be put on it, that is now impossible, the Jesuit Fathers 
 edited well and knew what they were about. If the 
 Church, says Pius IX, is not of my opinion, so much 
 the worse for her; since 1870, I have the right and the 
 power to pay no attention to it. No, my very Kev. 
 Father, these words are not an amplification (Zusatz), 
 especially aimed at the Galileans or Liberals. For any 
 one who has read the text attentively and who has 
 not yet made the "Sacrifisio dell intelletto," for anyone 
 who is still capable of reasoning, and who has a little 
 knowledge of Latin, these words are of terribly grave 
 import. If one could only put logic and grammar 
 under lock and key ! Unfortunately that it is impos- 
 sible. Voltaire says somewhere, "There are devils who 
 refuse to be cast out by any exercism whatsoever, not 
 even, for instance, by that of logic ! This cynical pupil 
 of the Jesuits, this great blasphemer, was right in his 
 affirmation. Until the " sacrifisio " is made, men will 
 not be able to believe the new dogma. 
 
 Infallibility, says Father X., is a grace inherent in 
 the office of Pope (Amtsgnade) its bearer is doubtless a 
 person, but it is only by reason of his dignity or office, 
 and of his being as such incorporated in the organism 
 of the Church, that he is infallible. Everyone of us 
 knows, that the Pope, even in acts and declarations 
 having regard to faith and morals, but which have not 
 the character of decrees pronounced ex cathedra, may 
 give expression to opinions which can be altered, which 
 are not infallible, especially when they are contained 
 in books (Buchern). Other theologians however, 
 assert that the Pope is infallible, when his decisions 
 relate to dogma and morals, and are formulated ex 
 officio (amtliche) even though they are not decisions ex 
 cathedra. It is contrary to usage, to call anything 
 personal, which only belongs to a man in virtue of his 
 
— 58 — 
 
 office. Such is the argument of my honorable antago- 
 nist. This clever and captivating exposition is fol- 
 lowed by a quotation from Cano, in which this theolo- 
 gian tries to identify the authority of the Church with 
 that of the Pope, and according to custom, the Pope is 
 compared to the head, and the Church to the body. 
 Father X. exclaims, "If, even after this, M. Kireeff 
 cannot accept my mode of looking at the subject, I am 
 at the ends of my wits (meiner Weisheit.) 
 
 No, I do not accept it, it is just this adroit argument 
 that prevents me. Let us look at the matter a little 
 more closely. 
 
 My adversary states that infallibility is a grace 
 inherent in the office (Amtsgnade) of Pope. That is 
 correct, but as this virtue belongs to the Pope, as his 
 office is inherent in him and tied to his person, and 
 as all other human beings are, as a matter of fact, 
 excluded from this grace, the gift must be a personal 
 gift, and this right a personal right. I do not mean to 
 say that it belongs to the person independentlj' of his 
 office, but I do say, that it belongs to the Pope person- 
 ally. Let us now see, whether he can dispose of this 
 virtue at his own pleasure, whether, in the use which 
 he is able to make of it, he is in any way restricted by 
 conditions "independent of his own will" to which he 
 is bound to submit. The whole question rests here. 
 A discussion which did not resolve this aspect of the 
 difference between papists and their opponents would 
 be an absolutely useless war of words without aim or 
 object. Father X. asserts that the Pope is incorporated 
 (einverleibt) in the Church, that his infallibility is 
 united (blended " verschmolzen ") with that of the 
 Church, that they are one, &c., &c. 
 
 All this would be very good, but for the decree of 
 the 18th July, 1870, or at least if that decree had been 
 less clearly worded. The terrible words, "non autem 
 ex consensu ecclesiae " have absolutely and irretrievably 
 separated the Church from the Pope, prior to this 
 definition, one might have had recourse to the allegory 
 (somewhat gross and materialistic) of the body and its 
 
— 59 — 
 
 head, now this coui'se is not open to us, the head alone 
 is worth anything. During the first centuries, the 
 Church was everything, she was infallible, her mystical 
 head was Christ, there was no other (this is still the 
 view of the Orthodox Church of the Bast.) By degrees, 
 in the West, the Pope, not content with the Primacy 
 amongst equals, a Primacy which was universally 
 admitted, exalts himself and gets hold of power at the 
 expense of the Church. At the same time, he is still 
 bound to the Church, and still shares with her the 
 supernatural gift of infallibility, for several hundred 
 years moreover, this was the ground on which theories 
 were built up and views were set forth which though 
 often self-contradictory, were still lawful. Now, 
 nothing more of the kind ! The head is everything, 
 the body nothing, The gift of infallibility has never 
 confiscated by the head, the body provides the nourish- 
 ment, e. g., Saint Peter's pence, but it has not a word 
 to say. To me it seems, that for an unprejudiced 
 mind, the position is quite clear. There still remains 
 the important question "of guarantees. Let us see 
 vrhat there is in it. The Rev. Father X. recalls the 
 conditions of an infallible proclamation by the Pope. 
 The gift of infallibility only acts, he says, when the Pope 
 speaks ex cathedra ! That is a common phrase amongst 
 so-called Liberal Catholics, it is a " limitation " 
 of the papal power, a " guarantee " against the abuse 
 of this power, they say ! Under this masque they 
 hope to get infallibility accepted. There are some 
 embarassiug and inconvenient things in the past history 
 of the Popes (Honorius, Liberius, Vigilius, &c., &c.) 
 But a stroke of the pen and all is arranged. Every- 
 thing that perplexes is cleared away, none of the em- 
 barassiug things were utterances ex cathedra ! 
 
 To be sure the means would be good, if they were 
 admissable ! Unfortunately this is not the case ! The 
 text of the dogmatical constitution is there, present 
 arms, speak out, from that text no inference of the kind 
 can be drawn. It is written. When the Pope speaks ex 
 cathedra, that is to say, as the supreme teacher of the 
 
— 60 — 
 
 Church, and when he declares to her his ideas on 
 questions of dogma and morals, he speaks infallibly. 
 This is all, yes, but that includes everything, permits 
 everything! As supreme teacher of dogmas, he cannot 
 speak in one way to the whole Church in a different 
 way to an individual Christian, for dogmas are absolute 
 truths. Whatever the Pope says about doctrine or 
 morals cannot vary, whether he addresses one individ- 
 ual, or ten or a hundred, or thousands. Absolute 
 truth cannot vary, what is truth for one cannot be 
 falsehood for another, otherwise one would contradict 
 oneself and give utterance to nonsense. Everything 
 a I'ope says (has said or toill say) on this subject is 
 absolute truth, and must be believed on pain of excom- 
 munication ! A decree, a decision is ex cathedra 
 according to the subject to which it relates, and not 
 according to certain formalities and ceremonies subse- 
 quently invented. The expression itself is comparative- 
 ly recent, it was altogether ufiknovni in the Early 
 Church, as much unknown as the infallibility of the 
 Pope ! I repeat, — the decree of 1870 has been vigor- 
 ously thought out and considered, it leaves room 
 neither for action, nor for conclusions one would like 
 to draw, its point of steel cannot be bent. Messieurs 
 les Jesuits are good dialecticians and do not shrink 
 from the conclusions that may follow from their writ- 
 ings. 
 
 My honored adversary affirms that it is contrary to 
 usage (Sprachgebrauch) to say that a faculty is per- 
 sonal, when it only belongs to a person on the ground 
 of the position he occupies. Even if this were the case, 
 I should still prefer logic to usage. No ! The Vatican 
 infallibility is and remains a personal endowment, 
 because it belongs solely to the Pope, and because 
 above all, it depends on no other person but himself. 
 My antagonist rightly remarks that these questions 
 have been discussed for centuries, yes, most certainly, 
 but in 1870, the dogma was at last defined and pro- 
 claimed, the Romish sophism reached its culmination. 
 It is logical, it is rigid and neic ! 
 
— 61 — 
 
 I should be obliged to the Reverend Father, if he 
 would give me the title of the latest and best work on 
 the subject of our controversy, one, however that is not 
 based on new writings, or on dialectical combinations 
 and deductions, but on the Word of God and the con- 
 sensus Fatrum (the unanimous opinion of the Fathers 
 of the Church). 
 
 A. KIEEEFF. 
 26th September. 
 
 FOURTH LETTER OF THE REV. FATHER X. 
 
 (SUMMARY). 
 
 The Galileans, says the Reverend Father, withstood 
 the Church and the Pope, in teaching that the deci- 
 sions of the Pope only become irrevocable and infal- 
 lible after the adhesion of the Church. If this adhesion 
 is not given, the decisions of the Pope become null and 
 void; the judgment, the opinion of the Church prevails. 
 This is false, says the Reverend Father. 
 
 The decree of the Vatican affirms, in principle, that 
 the infallibility of the Church and that of the Pope are 
 one and the same thing, wherever the latter in his 
 capacity as supreme teacher of Christianity, issues an 
 official decision (amtliche) obligatory on all. It was on 
 this position the Council took its stand, when it 
 affirmed that the decisions of the Pope are infallible 
 without the consent of the Church: for inasmuch as 
 the infallibility of the Pope and that of the Church are 
 one and the same thing, they cannot cantradict each 
 other (Widerspruch). That the second clause of the 
 definition, says the Rev. Father X. is a deduction 
 (Folgerung) directed against the Galileans, is clearly 
 
— 62 — 
 
 proved by the work "ideoque" (?!). I do not under- 
 stand why M. Kireeff maintains so persistently that the 
 Pope must be infallible when he speaks at all (uber- 
 haupt) regarding doctrine and morals ? The definition, 
 let us grant, does not exclude this view of the matter, 
 and there are certain Catholic theologians, who wish to 
 vindicate even this right for the Pope. But as the 
 Council never contemplated the formulation of a deci- 
 sion on this view, it simply defined in what capacity 
 (Eigenschaft) and under what conditions the Pope is 
 absolutely infallible; namely, when he speaks ex cathe- 
 dra ; and when he decides what is to be believed by 
 the whole Church. The Rev. Father lays special stress 
 on this point. He explains his idea, by comparing the 
 Pope to a judge. It is competent for a judge he says, 
 to have a private (privatim) opinion and express it; so 
 for the Pope, when an undefined point is in question; 
 yea, even when it is connected (Zusammenhang) with a 
 dogma. If the Pope makes known his opinion, it will 
 be an important indication (Fingerzeig), but such an 
 opionion is not obligatory. 
 
 It goes without saying (selbstverstandlich) that there 
 is a difference between a person and the dignity held 
 by a person; every one recognizes that, a declaration 
 (Ausspruch) which is not ex cathedra and not official 
 (nicht amtlich), is not obligatory, is not binding fnicht 
 bindend). What the Pope does not decide ex cathedra, 
 is not a dogma. A question may even be discussed 
 which is opposed to the ideas of the Pope and remain 
 undecided; thus for example, the question as to the 
 state of the souls after death. It was not definitely 
 decided by Pope John, yet in reality it is decided. 
 
 The standpoint of the Galileans is definitely con- 
 demned in the second clause of the definition, ideoque, 
 &c. 
 
 The Council of the Vatican defined the doctrine of 
 the infallibility of decisions ex cathedra, as (wie) it was 
 accepted by the Greeks and Russians at the Council of 
 Florence (! ?). It is not a new doctrine as M. Kireeff 
 thinks. 
 
— 63 — 
 
 In support of this opinion, Father X. cites the famous 
 sentence — "Eoma locuta est, causa finita est." 
 
 In M. KireefE's place, he says, I should not have 
 quoted the so-called Old Catholics. Does he think that 
 Professors Huber, Eeinkens, Schulte, (Doellinger con- 
 tradicted himself) are the coryphaei, the cream of Ger- 
 man Catholic science? 
 
 M. Kireeff is acquainted with Catholics who do not 
 admit Infallibility, and nevertheless wish to remain 
 Catholics. I do not count that a crime. For certainly 
 they are not under obligation to admit the infallibility 
 which M. Kireeff discovers in the dogmatical constitu- 
 tion of 1870. But if the Pope were to say to one of 
 them: "My child, you must modify (berichtigen), 
 correct your ideas in this or that way," he would sub- 
 mit to this indication, without the necessity of its 
 being made an infallible decision; everj- child of the 
 Catholic Church knows that the Pope is the supreme 
 teacher of the Church. That many Catholics are com- 
 pletely ignorant of the words "sine consensu Eccle- 
 Bise," I quite believe. They are not specially referred 
 to, because in teaching the Catechism, it is impossible 
 to go into Galilean questions. It is also possible, that 
 even if they have learned this section (Stelle) they may 
 have forgotten it. 
 
 No one is anathematised without preliminary trial. 
 
 The Eev. Father X. asserts with regard to Pope 
 John ('), that even though a child, he possessed infalli- 
 bility in virtue of his office (Amt), and that if there had 
 been any necessity for the exercise (Bethatigung) of 
 the gift of infallibility, the Holy Spirit would certainly 
 have guided him in the decisions he would have taken. 
 M. KireefiE would do well to be careful when he has re- 
 course to historical arguments. 
 
 1st October, 1891. 
 
 I^ote 1. — No doubt Pope John XII. is here referred 
 to. He was deposed by the Council of Rome, but sub- 
 sequently resumed his ofBce. 
 
— 6i — 
 
 ANSWER TO THE FOURTH LETTER OE THE 
 REV. FATHER X. 
 
 October 1st. 
 
 This letter of General Kireeff's includes numerous 
 annotations by Father X. These annotations are giTen 
 in full; though occasionally replies are added by M. K. 
 
 My journey to the Crimea has prevented' me from 
 replying immediately to my honoteS adversary's letter. 
 
 I suppose that to-day's answer will close our contro- 
 versy, for, unless we are to embari on the high seas of 
 theology, we shall be unable to say anything more on 
 the subject under discussion; we could only repeat 
 what has been already said, for our correspondence has 
 had but one object in view, viz., that of clearing up the 
 very important, though very special question, as to the 
 personal character of the infallibility of the Sumnus 
 jPontifex. 
 
 After first replying to the incidental questions raised 
 by my adversary, I shall try to sum up our whole dis^ 
 cussion. 
 
 So then the Galileans, who in Father X. 's argument, 
 play the part of scapegoat, which must suffer for the 
 evil-doings of the Vatican, are not as I thought them, 
 merely a reminiscence of old times, men who are dead 
 and buried. It was not the Galileans whom the Vati- 
 can aimed at overthrowing, but the Liberals in general; 
 for they still exist in the Roman Catholic Church. 
 Rome's great enemy is religious liberty and its parti- 
 sans. It is with them that the Vatican Council quar- 
 relled; it is they who within the limits of its dominion, 
 have been definitely overthrown. Her enemies are 
 tbose who refuse to forget and misunderstand the 
 many passages of Scripture where the principle of 
 liberty is unmistakeably affirmed — those who know and 
 
— 65 — 
 
 believe that the principle of liberty is as important as 
 the correlative principle of authority — thoae who know 
 that without liberty' one can only be a slave to the 
 Popes and not a son of the Church, and that without 
 liberty, love itself is but a vain word. It is they who 
 are actually the irreconcilable enemies of infallibilism; 
 and it is only now, after the proclamation of the new 
 dogma that Eome insists, in terms which admit of no 
 reply, on the " Sacrifizio dell' Intelletto." These are the 
 enemies whom Rome fears, not the Galileans (never of 
 much importance), nor the politico-religious nihilists. 
 
 Both Father X. and myself are dissatisfied with the 
 Galileans, but Father X. accuses them of having less- 
 ened the power of the Pope; and myself of having ex- 
 aggerated it. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking 
 that it will be difficult to set aside without further 
 ceremony or considera'tion, men like d'Ailly, Gorson, 
 Bossuet, Fleury, all Port-Royalists (who on this ques- 
 tion, reasoned like the Galileans), and finally the cele- 
 brated Sorbonne itself. I cannot pass silently by a 
 fact worthy of notice, namely, that the Galileans, sup- 
 ported in this respect by the most learned corporation 
 of the world (la Sorbonne), were able for centuries 
 freely and publicly to profess a doctrine absolutely 
 opposed to that which was promulgated in 1870, with- 
 out bringing upon themselves the anathema of Rome. 
 How does this fit in with the quod semper, quod ubique, 
 quod ad omnibus creditum. estf The fact of the 
 novelty of this "dogma" and that it has found few 
 believers, is further proved by another circumstance 
 reported by Theiner, namely that down to 1793, the 
 Catholic Bishops of Ireland were in the habit of sign- 
 ing a formula, which affirmed that it was not of " faith " 
 to recognize the Pope as infallible. 
 
 We need not discuss the question of Thomas 
 Aquinas. If I applied the term "naive " to himself, it 
 was a lapsus calami, which I regret, but if my words 
 referred to his argumentation, I hold to my descrip- 
 tion. Great men may have naive ideas, are not the 
 politico-economical opinions of Plato on riches, very 
 
— 66 — 
 
 naive ? and those of Shakespeare on geography ? My 
 respected antagonist says that in speaking of a child 
 who was Pope, he had in mind John, who wore the 
 tiara at eighteen years (which in itself is rather 
 awkward for infallibilism). But I was thinking of 
 Benedict IX., to whom the Cardinals gave the tiara 
 when he was only ten years old. Does that not seem 
 too absurd ? A boy of ten years, as infallible doctor, 
 teaching the truth to humanity, upholding the Church 
 of God. M.J antagonist undoubtedly guarantees the 
 infallibility of the little Pope ? Yes, he will reply, but 
 only his official infallibility, that which belongs to his 
 oflB.ce. Very good, the opinions of His Holiness on his 
 toys and sweets are not of importance for the Catholic 
 world, which could not conform to them. Happily in 
 this respect, it is free, perfectly free. That we under- 
 stand. Still, infallibility exists for questions of dogma, 
 and the little lad settles infallibly important questions 
 of theology as well as of morals. On this point, I own 
 that scepticism gets the upper hand of me. The 
 theory of the ex opere operato is really carried to a 
 great length. You seem not to take the personality/ of 
 the Pope into consideration at all, when he acts ex 
 officio? Is that a matter of absolute indifference to 
 the Holy Spirit, whose it is to confer infallibility on 
 this very person? To me it is quite impossible to 
 follow this train of thought. . . . The Pope is 
 dead; a new one has to be elected. . . . The Holy 
 Spirit awaits the decisions of Cardinals. . . . Is it 
 really to be believed that the choice is a matter of in- 
 difference to Him 1 Among the Cardinals who manu- 
 facture the Pope, there are good men as well as 
 rogues. They must elect a Pope. Out of a number of 
 candidates they are of different kind, here is a saint, 
 there a child; further on a lover of Marosia, and then 
 one of Theodora. ... At last after many pour- 
 parlers, the Pope is elected by the Roman community, 
 or by the Conclave, or is dictated by an Emperor or by 
 one of these ladies. . . . The Holy Spirit submits 
 to the choice and bestows on the chosen one the gift 
 
— 67 — 
 
 of infallibility. Is not all this incomprehensible, 
 strange, awful? In order to accept this, it is really- 
 necessary to have submitted one's intelligence to a 
 special training. You have no right to object that the 
 same may occur at the ordination of any other ecclesi- 
 astic, for not one of them possesses the gift of infalli- 
 bility, which in the case under consideration is just the 
 stone of stumbling. And how could the election of a 
 little boy have been valid ? Is there no minimum age 
 for a Pope ? But let us leave this infallible head of 
 the Eoman Catholic world resting in the arms of his 
 nurse, and pass on to the other matters. I am obliged 
 to the Eev. Father for the advice he gives me to be 
 careful as regards historical illustrations. His opinion, 
 that the Church is strong on the historical side, is 
 true, I never doubted it, I further agree with him 
 when he says that one ought not to support dogmas by 
 rationalistic proofs (Vernunftsbeweise). Still it seems 
 to me, that the so-called development of the dogma 
 has been marked by this very fault. For example in 
 the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Concep- 
 tion of the Holy Virgin, rationalistic arguments played 
 a greater part than the study of the Scriptures or that 
 of the Church Fathers who are far from approving of 
 it (see Saint Bernard of Clair vaux, who I believe is a 
 great authority). (') 
 
 The Eev. Father X. quotes in support of his theses 
 as to the absolute supremacy of Eome (which it ap- 
 pears, must not be confounded with Infallibility), the 
 
 Note 1.— Remark of Father X., M. Kireeff should 
 find no difficulty in accepting the dogma of the Immac- 
 ulate Conception; for it is recognized by the Eussian 
 Church (sic). 
 
 General Kireeff s answer. By no means. Our 
 Church observes the festival of the conception of the 
 Holy Virgin, but that has nothing in common with her 
 immaculate conception. Our Church also observes the 
 feast of the conception of St. John, on the 23d of 
 September. 
 
— 68 — 
 
 famous saying of Saint Augustine (" Roma locuta est, 
 causa finita est.") (Rome has spoken, the cause is 
 settled.) It is notorious that the text of this is 
 mutilated; and it quoting in, the Rev. Father seems to 
 set little value on the advice he gives to me to use his- 
 torical arguments circumspectly. It is notorious that 
 this saying ascribed to Saint Augustine, is not his at 
 all, and that it does not fit into the passages as a whole 
 of which it forms part. One has only to read the 
 passage in order to see that Saint Augustine's idea 
 was something quite different, he never looked upon 
 the decisions of the Pope of Rome as definitive. C). 
 
 Note 2. Observations of the -Rev. Father X. The 
 words of Saint Augustine in many of his writings are 
 plain, his manner of treatment is well-known, and it is 
 useless to put detached sayings, found in his works on 
 the rack. The words quoted are found in Sermo 131, 
 n. 10. Answer. I had no need to "put words on the 
 rack," in order to prove that Saint Augustine was not 
 an infallibiUst. As usual, learned Papists try to intro- 
 duce the acknowledgement of his infallibility into 
 phrases where the Holy Father is simply referred to 
 with deference, respect, submission (aU which were 
 due to the Patriarch of the first bishopric of Christen- 
 dom. This is the method of bad lawyers, a procedure 
 which would be absolutely immoral, were it not (often) 
 unconscious. All students of theology, are aware of 
 the exaggerations of style the hyperboles which were 
 in use, for example, during the Middle Ages. What 
 pretentions might not be based, for example, on the 
 titles given to certain doctors of the Church, angelicus, 
 seraphicus, &c. Yet the Church did not regard them 
 as the equals of angels or seraphim. The famous ser- 
 mon 131, treats of the question of the Donatists. 
 Saint Augustine, in speaking of the decrees of the 
 Councils of Carthage and Milene, says "jam enim de 
 hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostoli- 
 cam: inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est: 
 utinam finiatur error." The question had been raised 
 
— 69 — 
 
 According to Saint Augustine this decision could 
 only be given by the Universal Church, not by the see 
 of Eome. I am referring to what he says with regard 
 to the decrees of Pope Melchiades (Miltiades). I do 
 not understand what my respected opponent means by 
 quoting the Council of Florence, for it will certainly 
 not supply him with arguments in favor of infallibility, 
 in fact the subject was not mentioned there at all. The 
 precedence of the Pope, his authority, his rights as 
 Primate and the power which the Church had con- 
 ferred on him, were discussed, but no one spoke of 
 infallibility. Would my Reverend antagonist like to 
 make the rather desperate attempt. (') to identify his 
 
 in the "West, especially in Africa. Evidently the deci- 
 sion of the Pope was of the highest importance, and 
 would turn the scale either on one side or the other; 
 but Augustine knew perfectlj' well that that was not 
 the definitive decision; that it had not been given by 
 Eome; but by CEcumenical Council. He says so ex- 
 pressly in his forty-third letter (chap, vii., par. 19). 
 The Donatists had already been condemned (and 
 rightly so) by Pope Melchiades; and as they persisted 
 " in suo schismate " Augustine says to them, If you are 
 not satisfied with the decisions of the Roman judges 
 (the Pope), "restabii adhuc plenarium Ecclesice uni- 
 versce concilium, ubi cum ipsis judioibus causa posset 
 agitari, ut si male judicasse convioti essent (those 
 judges of Rome) eorum sententiae solverentur" (there 
 is still open to you the plenary court of the Universal 
 Church, where the cause could be debated with the 
 judges themselves, so that, if these judges should be 
 convicted of having judged wrongly, their sentence 
 could be cancelled)." I should think this is perfectly 
 plain. 
 
 Note 1. — Remark of Rev. Father X. There would 
 be nothing desperate in the attempt. These are ideas 
 which are all connected (hangen zusammen), besides, 
 did not the Council of Florence call the Pope " teacher 
 of the whole Christian world ?" 
 
 Answer of General K. It would be better to indi- 
 
— 70 — 
 
 authority, his power, &c., &c., with infallibility? It 
 could not possibly succeed, they are altogether differ- 
 ent things. Moreover, how could infallibility have 
 been mentioned at the Council of Florence? The 
 memory of the Council of Constance was still too re- 
 cent; the deposition of the Popes by that Council was 
 an incontestable and incontested fact, no less so, the 
 confirmation by Pope Eugenius of the famous IVth 
 session. It was too early. Jesuits only came on the 
 scene a century later. Infallibility made its first ap- 
 pearance at the Council of Trent — that too in a very 
 timid way. As for the decisions of the Council of 
 Florence — they were still less recognized in Russia 
 than elsewhere. We Russians look upon this Council 
 as a repetition, under less disagreeable aspect of the 
 brigandage of Ephesus. From our Orthodox stand- 
 point the Bishops forming a Council, are not legis- 
 lators, but only representatives of the faith of their 
 diocesans. " Concilium non est ipsamet Eoclesia " says 
 a learned Catholic, "sed ipsam tantum representat. 
 Episcopi, illi qui concilio adsunt, legati mittuntur ab 
 omnibus." And further on, " The Bishops are ejusmodi 
 legati omnium ecclesiarum, procuratores quibus nefas 
 esset procurationem sibi creditum tantillum excedere. 
 (') All this, Father X. knows better than I do and 
 remembers it. Pope Nicholas himself said expressly, 
 " Quae de fide sunt, nom solum ad clericos, verum ad 
 laicos et ad omnes omnino pertinent christianos." 
 
 cate the passages more definitely, in any case, this title 
 could not serve as a dogmatical basis for infallibility, 
 seeing that on many of the Church Fathers even more 
 hyperbodical titles were conferred. Besides the title 
 of teacher of the entire Church, and that of infallible 
 teacher, are by no means identical. 
 
 Note 1. — The Council is not the Church itself, but 
 only its representative. The Bishops who are present 
 at a Council are sent there by all the faithful, so that 
 the bishops are the delegates of all the Chvirches, they 
 are procurators, mandatories, who may not in any way 
 go beyond their mandate. 
 
— 71 — 
 
 (Matters of faith belong not only to the clergy, but to 
 all the laity and to all Christians without exception 
 (omnino) {'). 
 
 What the Bishops affirm in Council needs to be con- 
 firmed by the Church. Everybody knows that the 
 theses of Florence were rejected by the orthodox 
 (Ecclesiastics and Larity) of the Grand Duchy of Mos- 
 cow. (') It is true, the union of Florence was subse- 
 quently introduced in Western Eussia (forcibly and 
 with the help of the Polish Government). The Jesuits 
 took the matter into their clever hands. In the six- 
 teenth and seventeenth centuries they were the life 
 and soul of the Polish State and had recourse to 
 skilful seductions, corruptions the most refined, as also 
 to means the most gross, the most violent and the most 
 tyrannical (the Orthodox Churches y^ere let to the 
 Jews, &c. (") 
 
 JVote 2. — I sincerely hope, adds Father X., M. 
 Kireeff is not in earnest when he quotes Pope Nicholas 
 as an opponent of infallibility. 
 
 Ansvjer. Quite seriously, even to Pope Nicholas, the 
 infallibility of 1870 would have seemed something 
 new. 
 
 JVote 3. — By whom and by what right? demands 
 Father X. What about the Council of Lyons ? 
 
 Answer. Of course by the right which the Church 
 possesses of controlling the actions of her representa- 
 tives. 
 
 JVote 4. — Will General Kireeff, says Father X., even 
 refute the history of the union by Pelezz? The 
 " Uniates " were very happy in the Catholic Church, one 
 knows how they became Orthodox again. Was it to 
 increase liberty and love ? The Russian Popes of the 
 countries formerly Uniate, and of the Baltic provinces, 
 are they pupils of these bad Jesuits ? 
 
 Answer. I think it will be much more awkward for 
 my Eeverend adversary to refute the work of Professor 
 Koyalovitch on the "Union," than for me that of 
 Father Pelezz. 
 
— 72 — 
 
 Fortunately, they had no lasting influence over the 
 Russians. The efl'orts of the Jesuits had only one re- 
 sult—the fall of Poland. But this belongs to the 
 domain of politics. 
 
 There is still another incidental question, the an- 
 athoma. My opponent states that the anathema can 
 only be pronounced after trial. I admit it because 
 Father X. says so, but I know all the same that the 
 anathema " lata sententia, " exists to the present 
 day. (•) 
 
 Besides the matter is logical, if I reject a dogma, 
 if I do not accept a dogma, which my Church clearly 
 and emphatically affirms, I am ipso facto anathematised. 
 It would go against my conscience to remain member 
 of a Church which recognizes an untruth as a dogma, 
 or one which I consider to be such. For myself at 
 least, that would be a moral impossibility. "Why 
 should I wait for legal proceedings when my con- 
 science tells me that I neither may, nor can accept such 
 and such a dogma ? I am not a child like the Pope 
 Benedict. 
 
 I have not reached the culminating point of our con- 
 troversy. 
 
 What did the dogmatical constitution of 1870 decree 
 "(session IV of the Vatican Council)? I answer, the 
 personal infallibility mula, clear though it be as sun- 
 light, and drawn up by a skillful and learned man, 
 altogether differently. Is it not strange? still 
 stranger, however, is it, that this decree " is seemingly 
 also differently understood by the Catholic World, by 
 some in an elastic, by others in a rigid sense. My hon- 
 ored adversary takes it in the first sense. Let us see 
 if this is possible. 
 
 JVote 1. — Even in a case of anathema "lata sen- 
 tentia," the fact of the fault must be legally estab- 
 lished, unless it be matter of public notoriety. It is 
 quite the regular thing (in der ordnung) for one who 
 does not find things to his taste, to go his own way. 
 
 Observation of Father X. 
 
— 73 — 
 
 Let us look at the matter more closely. 
 
 With regard to this new so-called infallibility of the 
 Pope, I maintain. 
 
 1st. That it is a divine gift, absolutely personal 
 (although attached to the dignity of Pope) belonging 
 exclusively to the Pope, and that he does not share it 
 vyith anyone else ("). 
 
 2nd. That in practice, it suppresses the infallibility 
 of the Church, because it is a gift, a grace, vs'hich 
 exists and which is applied, not only without needing 
 any confirmation, but also without requiring any assent, 
 any ratification, yea, even without the consent of the 
 Church. (') 
 
 3rd. That it is a new dogma, clearly defined, stated 
 with precision which has not been believed either 
 semper, or ubique, or ab omnibus, if) 
 
 4th. That Christ who bestowed infallibility on His 
 Church as a divine faculty, did not say a word about 
 infallible patriarchs (consequently not the Patriarch of 
 Eome) it follows therefore, that all the prerogatives of 
 these dignitaries are of Ecclesiastical, not of divine 
 right. O 
 
 Note 2. — It is the expression of the infallibility of the 
 Church. FATHER X. 
 
 Note 1. — I have nothing to add to what I have said 
 before, because M. K. is not able to understand the 
 Church as a living organism. 
 
 PATHEE X. 
 
 Note 2. — The antiquity of this doctrine has been 
 proved many times, latterly by Hettinger (Fundament- 
 al Theology) where the proofs in support are collected. 
 FATHER X. 
 
 Note 3. — Countless people (unzahlige) have seen in 
 the passages which relate to our question, evident 
 proofs of the doctrinal authority of St. Peter and his 
 successors — therefore also (mithin) of his divine right. 
 Is it possible to maintain the quite subjective opinion, 
 that these proofs of His divine right are not supplied 
 
— 74 — 
 
 5tli. That Christ in speaking to Saint Peter, did 
 not utter a single word about infallibility. The well- 
 known passages in St. Matthew, St. Luke and St. John, 
 cannot be understood to mean the infallibility of St. 
 Peter; still less that of his successors at Eome (why 
 not then his successors at Antioch, this oldest Bishop- 
 ric ?) 
 
 Gth. That the Bishop of Rome, according to ecclesi- 
 astical law, was the first Bishop of Christendom and 
 that he represented its unity. {*) 
 
 If this Bishop should choose to return to the dogmas 
 of the early undivided Church, (I speak solely of 
 dogmas) he would be recognized by all of us as Frimus 
 inter pares. The Slave world would have been able to 
 release him from the straits to which he is reduced, 
 just as the German world did of yore. They know this 
 well enough in Rome. ('). 
 
 by these passages? Against such a "sic volo, sic 
 jubeo," arguments are of no avail. Such an attitude 
 puts mutual understanding out of the question. 
 FATHER X. 
 No, on such a basis an understanding certainly is 
 impossible. But even here, my respected adversary, 
 whose good faith I do not dream of questioning, tries 
 to confound things altogether different namely divine 
 right and ecclesiastical right, and prerogatives of the 
 Primacy, of precedence, with infallibility. 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 
 Note 4. — It was not in Rome that the unity of the 
 Church was abolished. 
 
 FATHER X. 
 It is at Rome however, that it has been made impos- 
 sible, in that the tyranny of a single individual has 
 been substituted for it. 
 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 Note 1. Is M. K. dreaming of a Roman Empire of 
 the Russian nation? 
 
 FATHER X. 
 No, indeed we are not thinking of such a thing, if it 
 
— 75 — 
 
 Tth. That this perfectly legitimate (richtige) "pri- 
 matial " power has little by little, in the West, been 
 transformed, in an absolutely unjust manner, into 
 infallibility. 
 
 As the last five points have been treated and eluci- 
 dated by great scholars, ('') I shall pass them over, but 
 I wish to add a word about the first two (which consti- 
 tute the very subject oi our controversy.) According 
 to infallibilistic theologians, the Saviour gave to His 
 Church the gift of infallibility, or rather, as the 
 Church and the Pope are one, they can affirm of the 
 Pope what they affirm of the Church and transfer the 
 gift of infallibility to the former. This is the line 
 along which the idea of Infallibility developed (=). 
 
 The Petitio principii stares one in the face. The 
 thing to be proved, namely the identity of the Pope 
 and the Church, is assumed as proved, yet it never can 
 be proved. (The foundation of this reasoning, of this 
 petitio principii, is found in the text of the Vatican 
 decree.) But they go much further, as we shall see; 
 they reduce the Church to Zero. 
 
 The infallibility which we find in the Gospel, is that 
 of the Church. (*) The Saviour promised to be forever 
 
 is a question of dreams, we should have dreamt of 
 something far grander, but I do not think I am very 
 far wrong in believing that the Court of Rome does 
 not look at this question from quite the same point of 
 view as my honorable opponent. 
 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 
 ]\^ote 2. — Are these great men perchance " Old Cath- 
 olics ? " FATHER X. 
 
 They and many others besides whose competence 
 my adversary would find it very difficult to deny. 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 
 Jj^ote 3. — Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia. 
 
 FATHER X. 
 At Antioch ? A. KIREEFF. 
 
 No/e 4 — As also that of its teacher (Lehrer.) 
 
 FATHER X. 
 
— 76 — 
 
 with His Church, consequently this Church can never 
 be subject to error, and it is infallible. It is also holy. 
 
 These are the two gifts which the Saviour bestowed 
 upon it. (') Hence its obsolute authority in matters of 
 faith. " Ask the Church," he said, " and if he disobey 
 the Church, let him be to you as a publican or heath- 
 en.") When one compares the little that is said about 
 St. Peter in the New Testament, with that which has 
 just recently been said about him by the Vaticanu7n, 
 one is surprised at the difference between the two. 
 There is a difference not only of quantity, but also of 
 quality, between the commencement and the end of 
 the history of the Catholic Church. 
 
 That the primitive organization of the Church was 
 synodical that it was ruled by Councils, is well enough 
 known. (') The New Testament says nothing whatever 
 of any sort or exclusive hierarchical power. The 
 Churches mutually supported and taught each other. 
 The administrators of the Apostolical Churches most 
 certainly possessed greater authority than those of 
 other Churches (') in consequence of their founders 
 
 Wote 1. — M. Kireeff advances certain positions which 
 he would have difficulty in proving. 
 A. KHIEEFF. 
 
 J^ote 2. — This organization is unknown to many, 
 doubtless it has been invented, in order to set the Holy 
 Synod of Eussia on its legs. 
 
 FATHEE X. 
 
 It seems to me that the fact of the organization of 
 the Early Church having been Synodical or Conciliary, 
 is amply proved by the history of the Council of the 
 Apostles and the Elders held at Jerusalem, not to 
 mention other grounds. But I imagine that this 
 Council, lending as it does no countenance to infallibil- 
 ism, is not constantly present to the memory of Father 
 X. A. KIEEEPP. 
 
 Note 3. — But of what use then are teachers and 
 authority? Is not the community there? the commun- 
 ity from which the Apostles and Bishops originally 
 
— 77 — 
 
 having been appointed to teach by Christ Himself. 
 %it how has it been possible for this vocation, 
 addressed to bishops in general, to be changed into an 
 infallible teaching faculty, possessed by one only, to 
 the exclusion of all others (even whilst admitting 
 that this one was the most powerful, the foremost, &c„ 
 &c.?) 
 
 I can easily understand why the Liberal (') Catholics 
 should wish to take the sting out of personal infalli- 
 bility. But they are not likely to succeed. We are 
 quite aware that the best Catholic theologians (not 
 however, the most consistent or most logical) try to 
 struggle against the dogma of infallibility, but the 
 opposing (') party will be completely victorious all 
 along the line, in fact, they have already gained the 
 victory. I do not believe that the Romish Church will 
 gain anything by this victory, quite the reverse, for we 
 already see many Catholics yielding to utter indiffer- 
 ence, in order to escape the intolerable burden imposed 
 on them by the decree of 1870. For example, there 
 never were before so many unbaptised children, so 
 many civil marriages (in Latin countries) as there have 
 been since the year 1870. It is true, those who remain 
 faithful to the Holy See, will form an army on which it 
 can absolutely rely, but whether souls will be brought 
 to Christ in this way, is not so certain. In order to 
 avoid the difficulties which personal infallibility has 
 created, Father X. einphasises the pronoun ea, found 
 in the text of the dogmatical constitution, Romanum 
 
 received their authority? It seems to me that M. 
 KireefE expressed himself to this effect in an earlier 
 letter. FATHER X. 
 
 No, that is not the case. 
 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 
 Note, 4. — I must tell General Kireeffi that there are 
 only Catholics and non-Catholics. 
 FATHER X. 
 
 Note 1. — I know nothing of the existence of such a 
 party. FATHER X. 
 
— 78 — 
 
 po)itificem ea infallibilate gaudere qua divinus He- 
 demptor Ecclesiam suatn instructam esse voluit. Be- 
 cause the word ea is there, says the Rev. Father, we 
 must assume (annehmen) that it is exactly this same 
 infallibility, the infallibility namely of the Church, that 
 was given to the Pope, that consequently (?) the Pope and 
 the Church possess one and the same identical gift, 
 and that as the infallibility is identical, it cannot con- 
 tradict itself^there can be no disagreement between 
 infallibility in the person of the Pope and infallibility 
 in the Church. Unfortunately it is not so, not at all 
 so. I have already had occasion to remark, that the 
 Council of 1870, forgot to prove first of all, that the 
 Pope enjoys (gaudet) in general any infallibility at all, 
 and secondly, that the Church and the Pope are only 
 one. Neither the one nor the other is true. My 
 honorable adversary involuntarily plays with words. 
 The word ea cannot be taken in the sense which he 
 gives to it. One might at the utmost take it to mean 
 equal, different persons are spoken of as having the 
 same power, two judges, for example, have the same 
 right, the right to inflict punishment. C) But such 
 refinements in the treatment of this word, are of no 
 value, even if ea had the signification of same and not 
 of equal, &c., it would not affect the question, for this 
 infallibility of the Church whatever it was, has been 
 confiscated for the benefit of the Pope. This is clearly 
 shown by the words " ex sese, non autem ex consensu 
 Ecclesise." Let us allow that two persons (in the 
 present case, the Pope and the Church) possess the 
 same (earn) power, the same force, the same faculty', 
 &c., but that the right, the possibility of using them 
 only belongs to one of these two persons, without 
 regard (sine consensu) to what the other may say or 
 think. Is it not evident, is it not absolutely plain, that 
 this power, this force, &c., would belong exclusively to 
 
 JVote 2. — I have at least the same right to defend my 
 position as General K. has to attack it, for he adduces 
 no grammatical proofs in support of the view he advo- 
 cates. REV. FATHER X. 
 
— 79 — 
 
 the first person (the Pope), and that for the other (the 
 Church) only one course would be open, namely, to 
 submit in every respect? Is not its confiscation evi- 
 dent ? The Rev. Father denies the fact, but he forgets 
 to give reasons for his denial. Like the Vatican Coun- 
 cil, he forgets to prove that the Church and the Pope 
 are only one and the same thing — that they are one. 
 He finally asserts that the " non autem ex consensu JEc- 
 clesice" is only a figure of rhetoric, directed against the 
 Galileans. No, the "sine consensu JEcclesioe," is of 
 much greater importance, has a far deeper meaning. 
 Is it credible that a Council should have been con- 
 vened, simply for the satisfaction of saying hard things 
 of the poor Galileans, long since dead and buried? 
 
 No, they had more serious work than that to do at 
 the Vatican. These words constituted a new point of 
 departure (Wendepunkt) for the whole of Catholic doc- 
 trine (yea, also of life . . . ); and if little is said 
 about this matter to the students of Eomish theology, 
 it is because it is feared and with good ground, that a 
 brain which has not yet made the sacrifizio dell' intel- 
 letto, will not be able to accept such an absurdity. 
 
 The difference between the Catholic Church as it 
 once was and the actual Church of the present, is a 
 difference of principles. The Church used to have the 
 right of deposing a Pope for heresy. (') 
 
 JVote 1. — General Kireeff would do well to study the 
 introduction to the "History of the Councils" by 
 Hefall. REV. FATHER X. 
 
 The right of deposing the Pope for heresy, is a well- 
 established fact; it is a fact which has the confirmation 
 of Popes themselves. The question "si (Papa) in 
 haeresim ineidit deponi possit" used to be settled 
 affirmatively. Thus Pope Innocent III. (an authority 
 at any rate equal to Hefall) a potentate who certainly 
 was profoundly convinced of his own greatness and 
 rights, says in all his letters (Migne T. 217, p. 660, 
 Sermo de consecratione Pontificis), Propter causam 
 vero fornicationis Bcclesia Romana potest dimittere 
 
— 80 — 
 
 Formerly the Church was mistress, now the Pope 
 is the master. Formerly a Council was at the head of 
 the Church, now the Roman Pontiff. Is it possible 
 after all this, to speak of the famous ea of the identity 
 of the rights possessed by the two parties ? It cannot 
 be done — not even in the most moderate, the most 
 minimizing sense. The text of the dogmatical consti- 
 tution is there, strong and immovable as a rock, defiant 
 alike of evasion and compromise. 
 
 My honorable adversary spe9,ks of the conditions 
 under which a Pope may make use of his infallibility. 
 "It is an infallibility inherent in the office of Pope 
 (Amtliche)," he says, it is an endowment ex cathedra. 
 (Was ex cathedra ever spoken of in the early Church?) 
 Father X. apparently attaches considerable importance 
 to these terms, he regards them as guarantees against 
 encroachments, illegalities on the part of bad Popes. 
 As for myself, I do not believe that these so-called guar- 
 antees are worth a farthing, in my view, they guarantee 
 absolutely nothing. 
 
 Eomanum Pontiflcem, fornicationem non dico car- 
 nalem, sed spiritualem, id est propter infidelitatis erro- 
 rem (the Church of Rome may depose the Roman 
 Pontiff for the error of infidelity, an error of faith). 
 He adds, it is true, Ego tamen facilenon crediderim ut 
 Deus permitterit Pontificem Romanum contra fidem 
 errare (I could not easily believe that Grod would 
 permit a Roman Pontiff to err in matters of faith). 
 But that in no wise alters the view of Innocent III. 
 regarding the right of the Church and the possibility 
 that a Pope may err. My opponent, indeed, seems to 
 know more. Pope Innocent says that it would be diffi- 
 cult for him to admit the possibility of error, the Rev. 
 Father X., accordingly, positively and emphatically 
 declares it to be impossible that God should permit it, 
 like M. Fessler, he can answer for it. Pope Innocent 
 seems to me to have been, nevertheless, a very import- 
 ant personage, and what is more, he was infallible 
 (1870). What a pity that he should iiot have thought of 
 it. A. KIREEFF. 
 
— 81 — 
 
 The Pope is not infallible as a private individual, 
 says my opponent, but in his official capacity (Amts- 
 mann), it is only when he speaks ex cathedra and not 
 when he speaks as a private individual that he is infal- 
 lible. M. X. seems even to believe that the Fathers of 
 the Vatican Council inserted this clause in order to 
 prevent the Ultramontanes from giving the Pope too 
 many rights, too much power. If this is really the 
 case, then the liberal members of the Council have 
 been very easily satisfied, and I do not suppose that the 
 Jesuit party, who had the chief control of the debates, 
 raised much opposition to such guarantees. These 
 guarantees, these conditions, these limitations are abso 
 lutely useless, for their application and fulfilment 
 depend on the I'ope himself. They therefore put no 
 difficulties in the way of application and cause no incon- 
 venience. In what way need they restrain him or pre- 
 vent him from proclaiming whatever he wishes ? There 
 is not a word or hint in the text requiring the fulfil- 
 ment of any formalities or removal of any difficulties. 
 It is simply said, when the Pope speaks infallibly {ex 
 cathedra) when he speaks as teacher of the whole 
 Church, that is all. Is that a guarantee ? 
 
 My Reverend opponent imagines a conversation be- 
 tween a good and amiable Pope and a good and 
 amiable Catholic, who has certain doubts, on certain 
 difficult theological points. The discussion, needless 
 to say, ends to the satisfaction of both parties, but let 
 us assume the possibility of a Catholic who is of a crit- 
 ical turn of mind, and less easy to please — the conver- 
 sation would last much longer. The Pope has decided 
 a question of dogma or morals, but not ex cathedra, 
 and his decision does not seem fair to the Catholic in 
 question. He declares that he cannot accept the pri- 
 vate opinion of His Holiness, "that is my right," he 
 says, in the full consciousness of his moral freedom. 
 The Pope continues to urge his opinion. The " Son " 
 persists in his obstinacy. " Am I not the Pope ?" says 
 His Holiness, with a certain sharpness of tone. "Un- 
 doubtedly," honestly replies the Catholic, "I know that, 
 
— 82 — 
 
 but that does not signify. The opinion of your Holi- 
 ness is altogether erroneous, I reject it, because it is 
 contrary to Holy Scripture, to tradition, to logic. I 
 repeat it is false and I cannot accept your instruction." 
 "Am T not infallible?" exclaims the Pope angrily. 
 " Dare you refuse to admit it ? do you object to follow 
 my guidance?" "Pardon, Holy Father," answers the 
 Catholic, "matters cannot be settled so easily and 
 quickly. Your statements and commands are not obli- 
 gatory, I shall not listen to you — nay more, / have no 
 right to do so. Your Holiness has no doubt forgotten 
 the guarantees which the Vatican Council granted to 
 us, your subjects, you forget that you are speaking to 
 me only as a private individual and not as Fope." 
 "Ah yes, I forgot," says the Holy Father smiling; 
 " you refer to the celebrated ex cathedra. Well, so be 
 it. Listen to me: In my capacity as teacher of the 
 whole Church, therefore ex cathedra, I repeat all that I 
 have said and command you to accept my opinions 
 without discussion." (i) "Oh," cries the Catholic joy- 
 
 Note 1. — M. K. forgets that the Pope when he speaks 
 as teacher of the Church, does not speak to individuals 
 (einem cinzelnen). 
 
 FATHER X. 
 
 And why not? It would be absurd to dispute the 
 Pope's right to communicate absolute truths to a part 
 of the Church, to the half, the quarter, or to a single 
 individual. How this gift would be multiplied were 
 such the case ? Is not even a single human soul by it- 
 self, worthy of benefitting by the gift of infallibility ? 
 Is it true that it ought not to trouble itself about a 
 thing so small? What about the parable of the hun- 
 dredth stray sheep ? What about common sense ? Are 
 not all taught through the medium of one ? What is 
 true for one, is true for millions. Are there absolutely 
 different truths. And then the epistles? My adver- 
 sary has forgotten a great many things. 
 
 A. KIEEEFF. 
 
— 83 — 
 
 fully, "now everything is changed, what apj)eared 
 false, now appears true and conformable to Scripture, 
 to tradition and to common sense." Such in fact, 
 might be the end of the discussion, but what of the 
 sheep refused to be led in this kindly manner? I know 
 some who would answer and who have answered, "Non, 
 potius mori quam foodari." {^) It seems to me that 
 all Popes would be exposed to the temptation to speak 
 in the way represented in the above discussion, espec- 
 ially a believing Pope, a Pope convinced of his own 
 infallibility. One does not need to be a profound 
 psychologist to understand that this must be the case, 
 whenever the Pope is a man imbued with the idea of 
 duty and the love of truth, when he is convinced of its 
 necessity for the welfare of his neighbor, when he is at 
 heart (if not in intelligence) a true pastor, a father. 
 It is impossible for a man who alviays has it in his 
 poioer to be right, if he is consistent, (') not to take 
 advantage of it if he is convinced of the soundness of 
 his claim, he will act on it optima ficle, without troub- 
 ling himself about logic. 
 
 Is it not evident that the so-called guarantees which 
 are said to be found in the text of the constitution of 
 
 Note 2. — There have always been men who applied 
 this adage to themselves, who have taken their own 
 way. Time has swept them away or will do so. 
 FATHER X. 
 
 Fortunately my adversary has the future tense for 
 his consolation. I shall not try to dissuade him. It 
 seems to me, however, that the past and especially the 
 present, should make him think, is not the proclama- 
 tion of infallibility a measure in extremis? 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 
 Note 1. — General Kireeff does not see that there is 
 no true logic save in the Catholic Church, or if he likes 
 amongst the Socialists. lATHER X. 
 
 This idea of Father X. is very good, extremes meet. 
 I have often seen it. 
 
 A. KIREEFF. 
 
— 84 — 
 
 1870, are altogether illusory and childish, fit to put ofE 
 naive people, whose conscience it is desirable at slight 
 cost to bribe and lull. to sleep. It still remains to be* 
 remarked that this ex cathedra condition is an absolute 
 novelty. Nothing was known of it in the early Church, 
 it was invented later on, when new and extreme 
 measures^were required, when the Catholic world had 
 to be prepared for swallowing the new and extreme 
 dogma of Infallibility. It is afiirmed that the Pope 
 speaks ex cathedra when he speaks to the whole 
 Church. Where is this said? On what is it based? 
 The Popes of the first six centuries nowhere allude to 
 it in their Bulls. Nay, still more. The most import- 
 ant documents (after the Gospels and the Acts) are the 
 Epistles. Do we find there the slightest allusion to 
 any such condition? Quite the contrary. We are re- 
 peatedly and expressly told that this or that Epistle is 
 addressed to this or that particular Church, or to this 
 or that group, nay, even to an individual man. Are the 
 Epistles less important than the Bulls ? Is the doc- 
 trine there taught, less obligatory? Is all this disput- 
 able ? The importance of what the Pope says, does not 
 depend on the number of persons to whom he speaks, 
 but on his subject. If I am not mistaken, this condi- 
 tion, (this so-called guarantee) ex cathedra, was not 
 invented till towards the end of the sixteenth century. 
 I repeat, when the Pope speaks of dogma or of morals, 
 he speaks ex cathedra, as the Vicegerent of God and to 
 the whole Church. One of my compatriots who was 
 drifting into Eoman Catholicism (if he has not already 
 landed there) to whom I showed these arguments, 
 answered after a minute's thought: "Tou might be 
 correct in theory, (') but in practice no difficulty can 
 arise, because the Pope is infallible. If he maintains 
 what he says, (whatever it may be) and if he gives it 
 the ex cathedra sanction of his authority, every one of 
 his ideas must be right." I do not know if my adver- 
 sary who is a greater expert and argues more seriously, 
 
 JVote 2. — The theory is altogether wrong. 
 THE EEV. FATHEE X. 
 
— 85 — 
 
 would have recourse to a petitio prinoipii so flagrant as 
 ,this. As I have already said, I am not discussing the 
 basis of the new dogma, I only wish to prove its abso- 
 lutely personal character and the nullity of the pseudo- 
 guarantees, with which it has been surrounded — my 
 aim is to overthrow the arguments of the "liberal" 
 Catholics. 
 
 Father X. tells me he cannot understand why I 
 refuse to distinguish the personality of the Pope from 
 his official position (his function). For the simple 
 reason (as stated above) that it depends on this person 
 to assume his State uniform ex cathedra whenever he 
 chooses and at no cost whatever to himself. The com- 
 parison which my antagonist draws between the Infal- 
 lible Pope and a judge, is to me altogether incompre- 
 hensible. He says, a judge may express his private 
 opinion on this or that case, that will, more or less, 
 help to guide the litigating parties, but his opinion is 
 only obligatory, only becomes law, when he pronounces 
 it as judge, in his official capacity. In a matter which 
 has not yet been settled, but which may be related 
 (Zusammenhang) to some dogma, the Pope can give 
 me an official rectification (Berichtigung), that would 
 be an exceedingly important indication for myself, but 
 nothing more. So long as the decision is not official, I 
 do not become a heretic by refusing to accept it. Why 
 cannot General K. draw a distinction between the 
 person and office of the Pope, a distinction which is 
 rightly recognised in all other spheres ? I can answer, 
 just because the Pope is a complete exception, inso- 
 much as a quality is attributed to him, which is shared 
 by no other, viz., infallibility. Can Father X. not see 
 that a judge is a slave to the law f He may consider it 
 stupid, false, iniquitous, nevertheless it remains his 
 sovereign, it is above him, he cannot alter it. It is not 
 so with the Pope. (') He is placed above the law. 1^) 
 
 Note 1.— The Pope as well as the judge, is bound (by 
 whom ? A. K.) to follow a certain line of conduct. 
 THE REV. FATHEE X. 
 Note 2.— This is false. THE EEV. FATHER X. 
 
— 86 — 
 
 Whatever suits or pleases him, he regards as just and 
 whatever he considers just, is law (or at any rate may at 
 once be made law). There is liocodeto bind a Pope. 
 To this some reply, no Pope would wish to act arbi- 
 trarily, he will consult his conscience, his understand- 
 ing, &c. &c Exactly so, but that in no wise aflEects my 
 assertion. I do not in the least mean that he would 
 knoioingly do wrong, consciously talk nonsense, on the 
 contrary, I admit that be will desire the good and the 
 true, but it remains none the less a fact, that it depends 
 on him to decide what is true and good, that he is abso- 
 lutely autonomous in this choosing, and that it rests 
 with him to transform whatever he believes as true, or 
 true, into a dogma, whether it be the grandest of truths 
 or the most foolish of whims. We are concerned not with 
 what he is going to do, but with what he has it in his 
 power to do. Will and imagination meet and combine 
 in his om,nipotence tohether he think much or little, or 
 not at all, or what he intends to say or decree. There 
 is no guarantee that can preserve Catholicity from fall- 
 ing into error — error too, adopted, as I readily grant, 
 optima fido. 
 
 Let us consider this grave question, which is the 
 keystone of the whole of the present system of papist 
 doctrine, a moment longer, let us look at it from the 
 psychological standpoint. A judge finds an imperative 
 category, not in his own thoughts, in himself, but 
 elsewhere, (') in the will of another person, who has 
 prescribed this law, he may not be able to share the 
 ideas, the will of the legislator, on the contrary, as far 
 as lies in his power he m.ay try to modify them, to get 
 him to accept his own ideas, of the truth of which he is 
 certain, he may combat the ideas contained in the code 
 of whose errors ond falsity he is convinced, he may be 
 absolutely certain of these things, but when he has to 
 judge or act, he must needs apply the code, no matter 
 how defective it seem to him, for he has neither the 
 
 Note 1 — Just like the Pope. 
 
 THE EEV. FATHER X. 
 
— 87 — 
 
 means nor the power of doing anything else; it is his 
 business to carry out the articles of the code, not Jiis 
 own ideas. What does the Pope do ? With him there 
 is neither struggle, nor dualism, nor division of will, as 
 in the case of the judge. The position which the Eev. 
 Father X. pictures, is impossible in the case of the 
 Pope, when he is convinced of thetruth of an idea, he 
 ca7i experience none of the difficulties tohieh harass and 
 trouble the mind of the judge, and which cause him to 
 hesitate. Now is it possible for there to be in the Pope 
 a struggle between his own ideas and those of others f 
 Is he not judge as well as lawgiver ? The judge may say, 
 the law is iniquitous, foolish, immoral, biit I cannot help 
 it, I must apply it, for I am not its master. What 
 passes in the mind of the Pope ? If he believes that 
 the existing law is false or defective, he alters it, that 
 is all. Who or what can prevent him ? Can it be the 
 thought that his convictions, his way of looking at the 
 matters, are false, defective or foolish. It is psycho- 
 logically impossible. What appears true to myself, is 
 true for me, my error is never an error for myself, for 
 if I find that my opinion is erroneous, I simply adopt 
 another, its opposite. I may at the very same moment, 
 possibly be mistaken, but I do not believe it, and can- 
 not believe it, a man always believes himself to have 
 the truth, if he suspects or even imagines that he 
 sees them to be erroneous, he modifies them without 
 a struggle, without difficulty, always remaining "mas- 
 ter of the situation." As soon as he has seen good to 
 alter his opinion, it is the new opinion that is the truth 
 — infallibly correct too, as well as obligatory on the 
 whole of Catholicism, he proceeds to proclaim it as 
 such, that too, without the slightest difficulty, without 
 the trouble of a Council. What can prevent the Pope 
 from making such a proclamation ? Absolutely nothing ; 
 he neither should nor can remain silent, as soon as he 
 perceives a new truth. In politics, considerations of 
 expediency may compel a man to keep silence, but not 
 in religion, for who would allow that divine truth 
 should ever be hidden from humanity, on the plea of 
 
— 88 — 
 
 its being useless or perhaps even injurious ? What 
 mad sacrilege. Divine truth may often be incompre- 
 hensible to man, it may transcend his understanding, 
 this is unquestionable, but it can never be false and 
 useless, still less injurious. The Eev. Father refers to 
 a question which remained for a long time unsettled, 
 viz., that of the state of souls after death, but v^-hat 
 does that prove ? There are many similar ones. The 
 Pope may also be in doubt, but as soon as ever a 
 thought comes to him, on no matter what question, 
 which he believes to be truth, he proclaims it and it 
 becomes a dogma, both: for himself and for the entire 
 Catholic world. He ought to proclaim it. (') The 
 Pope would be a sinner if he did not proclaim truth, if 
 he deprived humanity of it. 
 
 I have often heard it said, "Since 1870 the Pope 
 has been infallible without the consent of the Church; 
 that is a considerable time, and yet he has not 
 yet proclaimed a single new dogma." To begin 
 with, this is not altogether correct. No doubt the 
 theory of the necessity of the temporal power has not 
 yet taken the form of a dogma, but the Popes Pius 
 IX and Leo XIII have many times advanced ideas 
 which lead one to believe that it is not very far off. 
 Baronius would supply some very good material in 
 support of this position, he declares those to be 
 heretics, who deprive Rome of the temporal sword. (") 
 
 But this is not the point. "What we have to consider 
 is not the fact of the proclamation of a dogma, but the 
 possibility, the right of proclaiming one. The terrible 
 thing is, this dogmatism of Damocles, which at any 
 
 Note 1. — It is impossible to reply to all these ideas, 
 these inferences in a few words; they are the outcome 
 of an altogether wrong view of the Church, of its 
 origin, of its manner of belief, of its teaching, &c., kc. 
 FATHEE X. 
 Note 2. — Catholics do not require Baronius to 
 inform them that the Church has also temporal power. 
 REV. FATHER X. . 
 
— 89 — 
 
 moment (as in 1870) may legally overthrow that which 
 remains of truth in Roman Theology. This it is, 
 which, makes the acceptance of the new dogma, a moral 
 impossibility. Simple and childlike souls, it is true, 
 may console themselves with the thought that the 
 Holy Father will never abuse his power (=) but childlike 
 souls are beeoming more and more rare. 
 
 And now one word more about the Dissidents, those 
 who have separated themselves from the Holy See. 
 The Eev. Father X. speaks disdainfully of the so-called 
 Old Catholics: why "so-called" they are such by right. 
 He says that I ought not to mention them, and why 
 not? This would be an easy point to discuss, if my 
 adversary wished it. The facts, the history of Old- 
 Catholicism are easily studied, everything took place 
 coram populo, openly, and the greater number of 
 those who brought this movement about are still living, 
 with the exception of the celebrated Doellinger. I 
 have the honor of knowing them, and my relations 
 with these distinguished men, constitute the happiest 
 memories of my life, and it is just because I know 
 them, that I venture to believe that M. X., does not know 
 them. (') That is the reason why he can speak so 
 lightly of them. 
 
 The Eev. Father X. says that Doellinger contradicts 
 himself. I think he would find it difficult to maintain 
 this position — at any rate, with regard to the question 
 which decided the fate of Old Catholicism, viz.. Infalli- 
 bility. I have heard Doellinger affirm, that during the 
 
 Note 3. — Because the Church is guided by the Holy 
 Spirit. Those who do not believe in His guidance, 
 may believe themselves men who have attained their 
 full development. 
 
 THE REV. FATHER X. 
 
 Note 1. — Unfortunately I know these men only too 
 well, not merely in their writings, but because I have 
 come in contact with them (in Austria), that is why I 
 can form a better judgment of them than General 
 Kireeff. THE REV. FATHER X. 
 
— 90 — 
 
 whole of tlie time that he was professol: of theology, he 
 had in his lectures never ceased to combat the infalli- 
 bilistic theories. He rejected the dogma of 1870, just 
 because he did not wish to contradict himself. For the 
 forty-seven years of his professorship he taught his 
 pupils the very opposite — that too with the assent of 
 the highest authorities. And even if Doellinger had 
 contradicted himself, the Eev Father X. ought not, as 
 it seems to me, to reproach him too severely. Does he 
 not remember certain contradictions in the history of 
 the Catholic Church? Has he forgotten the Retracta- 
 tiones of St. Augustine (relating for example, to his 
 way of expounding the famous words of Christ to St. 
 Peter) ? Has he forgotten the still more notable ex- 
 ample of a Pope, who in order to exculpate himself for 
 his dogmatical contradictions, recalled the example of 
 St. Augustine and St. Peter who had been guilty of 
 similar contradictions. (=) 
 
 Note 2. — Pope Vigilius, in order to excuse his dog- 
 matical contradictions cites St. Augustine who re- 
 tracted his own writings and corrected what he had 
 said (scripta propria retractasse, distaque sua correx- 
 isse). As for myself, he says, by the definition con- 
 tained in the present lecture, I cancel what has been 
 done, whether by mj'self or by others, in defence of the 
 three chapters (Quae vere aut a me, aut ab aliis ad 
 defensionem trium capitulorum facta sunt praesentis 
 jujus scripti nostri definitione evasuamus). (Letter to 
 Eutychlos, see Mansi ix., p. 413.) But he is not content 
 with stating the fact; he explains it. "The devil is to 
 blame for all this. Scandala," says he, " quse humani 
 generis inimicus in universo mundo exci tavit, nullus 
 ignorat." (Nobody can be ignorant of the scandals 
 which the enemy of mankind has given rise to in the 
 world.) Adea ut unum quemque propositum suum ad 
 subvertendam Dei ecclesian quo-cumque modo implire 
 satagentem, non tantum suo nomine, sed etiam nostro 
 etque aliorem diversa tum loquendo, tum seribendo 
 componere impulerit, &c. (In such wise, that in trying 
 to overthrow the Church of God by one of his schemes. 
 
— 91 — 
 
 If the Rev. Father wished, he could easily convince 
 himself of an important matter, namely, that the 
 dogmas of the Old Catholics are those of the early 
 Church, and that consequently they are ^perfectly cor- 
 rect, in calling themselves Old Catholics. It would be 
 difficult for Mr. X. to prove that men who accept the 
 doctrine of the first seven Oeouminical Councils and 
 profess the quod semper, quod ubique (bo., do not think 
 as- Catholics ought to think, as Catholics of the first 
 centuries did think. (') No one, at any rate, up to the 
 present, has done so successfully. Father X. may be 
 thinking of certain relations between the Old Catholics 
 and Anglican Liberals (who, it must be owned, form an 
 integral part of the " Established Church "), but they 
 are simply personal friendly relations which have no 
 dogmatical character. 
 
 Father X. ought to remember Pope Liberius, who 
 was in close relationship with the Arians. The Old 
 Catholic Church is old, because of its dogmas, though 
 in a certain sense it is still iu process of formation. 
 
 not content with acting in his own name, he used ours 
 also as well as that of others, and he drove us so far, 
 alike in speech and in writings, &c. 
 
 All this then is the devil's work. (Where then all 
 this time was infallibility ?) But his influence was not 
 lasting. Christ came and dissipated all confusion from 
 the mind of the Pope (infallible?) (omni confusione a 
 mentibus nostris remota). He restored peace to the 
 Church (Ecclesian ad parem revoeavit, &c). You must 
 allow that this is a characteristic avowal, could an 
 infallibilist have spoken thus? Evidently not. The 
 Pope certainly believed neither in the infallibility of 
 St. Augustine, nor in his own. 
 
 JV^ote 1 — According to this, all who ref Lise to accept 
 one of the seven Oecuminical Councils, might also 
 have called themselves Old Catholics, on the pretext 
 that the Council had introduced innovations, which 
 their representatives (the Bishops) had not authorised. 
 EEV. FATHER X. 
 
— 92 — 
 
 Her theologians are inquiring into the relations which 
 they hold to the other Churches. That is not a contra- 
 diction. {') 
 
 It is well known that Doellinger more than once pro- 
 posed to the Infallibilists a public discussion of the 
 new dogma. 7'hey never consented, and yet Doellinger 
 declared himself ready to accept the new dogma, if its 
 legitimacy could be proved to him. No one took up 
 the challenge. (The " Anti- Janus " of Hertenroetter 
 was certainly no reply.) 
 
 I take the liberty of reminding my adversary of his 
 promise to point out to me the best work (written since 
 1870) in defence of infallibilism^jo.ne which will prove 
 the weakness of my arguments and the erroneousness 
 of my Orthodox beliefs. Such a work would be equally 
 valid against the Old Catholics for as regards dogma, 
 we occupy the same ground. I am acquainted with 
 the few works written in Eussian or by Eussian per- 
 verts; but they are conceived in a spirit of hatred and 
 misunderstanding relatively to my Church, evince little 
 learning, and contain, I must say, but little truth. 
 The work which I am asking Father X. to mention to 
 me, would need to prove and that very clearly (the new 
 dogma merits this because of its importance), the fol- 
 lowing theses: 
 
 1. That the Saviour, in exhorting the Apostle Peter 
 to strengthen his brethren in the faith, conferred on 
 
 Jlote 2.— M. Kireeff, what logic. Is this the Old 
 Catholic Church, and yet scarcely founded, and yet 
 still in process of formation. The great teachers of 
 this Church are still studying the other Churches. 
 EEV. FATHEE X. 
 
 Yes, the Old Catholics wish to take part in the great 
 and sacred work of reuniting the Churches, and they 
 are investigating the conditions under which this re- 
 union would be possible, what Eome has spoiled for 
 ten centuries, cannot be made good in a score of years. 
 Yes, certainly, the matter demands investigation. 
 M. KIREEFF. 
 
— 93 — 
 
 him a special privilege and riglit of teaching — a greater 
 capacity and power of teaching than on the other 
 Apostles (Paul, James, John), a fact which would serve 
 as a basis for the infallibility of his teaching. (') 
 
 2. That the Apostle St. Peter was appointed infalli- 
 ble head of the Church, bj' the Saviour, and recognized 
 as such by the Apostles. 
 
 3. That the exclusive right of St. Peter was made 
 over exclusively to his successors, to the exclusion of 
 the other Apostles, nay more, exclusively to those re- 
 siding in Rome and nowhere else (for example, 
 Antioch) . 
 
 4. That this ^ by divine right and not by ecclesias- 
 tical right; and is according to the clearly expressed 
 will of the Saviour. 
 
 5. That the prominent position and the undisputed 
 rights of primacy (amongst equals) belonging to the 
 Pope of Rome, involve (involvunt) and comprise infalli- 
 bility, that therefore the early Primacy and the new 
 infallibility are identical — both quantitatively and 
 Qualitatively. 
 
 6. That the Pope has the right of infallibility defin- 
 ing a dogma without the consent of the Church, and 
 not vice versa, the Church without the consent of the 
 Pope. 
 
 7. That it does not depend on the Pope (that he has 
 not the right) whether he shall transform this or the 
 other of his opinions into dogma, by conferring upon it 
 ex cathedral character according as he believed it to be 
 true and just. That in order to prevent illegalities and 
 errors on the part of the Pope, there exist guarantees 
 clearly laid down in the dogmatical constitution of the 
 18th of July, 1870. It ought further to be pointed out, 
 who is responsible for the carrying out of these guar- 
 antees. 
 
 8. That this has always been believed, everywhere 
 
 Note 1. — This matter has been proved in many 
 works, for example, Hettinger "Letter to Natalis Alex- 
 ander." THE REV. FATHER X. 
 
— 94 - 
 
 and by all (semper et ubique efc ab omnibus creditum 
 est). 
 
 With this, I think we can close our controversy. I 
 do not know whether my adversary has found my 
 answers sufficiently clear and fair. As far as I am 
 concerned, the correspondence has been of great ser- 
 vice, for it has made me acquainted with the basis, and 
 the newest and strongest proofs which infallibilism can 
 adduce in support of a cause which I take the liberty 
 of characterizing as desperate. 
 
 Kindly let the Rev. Father X. know, that I shall look 
 with impatience for the title of work referred to above, 
 and that I beg to thank him for having condescended 
 to enter into controversy with a layman — one too who 
 is self-taught — a controversy moreover, which can 
 scarcely have had very much interest for him. 
 
 A. KIEEEFF. 
 
 CHATEAU DF PAVLOVSK, 
 
 29th December, 1890. 
 
 EPILOGUE. 
 
 My adversary to whom I sent the summaries which I 
 made of his letters, in order that he might verify them 
 himself, has honored me with the following final 
 remark. 
 
 I am sincerely convinced, that even works like those 
 of Heffell, Hettinger, &c., would fail to convince M. 
 KireefE. In order to judge, one must thoroughly 
 investigate the history of the Church, especially that of 
 the Councils (!) One must live in the Church, one 
 must feel with the Church, and this is just what M. 
 
— 95 — 
 
 Kireeff is not in circumstances to do. From his stand- 
 point of Russian Orthodoxy, lie can only regard the 
 Catholic Church with enmity, the only thing he is able 
 to do is to look for proofs in support of his own view, 
 and that impairs the vision. Hence the search in the 
 history of the Church for passages which furnish him 
 support; hence his joy when he believes himself to 
 have discovered something of the kind. That explains 
 the sympathy at first sight inexplicable, which men 
 occupying absolutely different standpoints, feel for 
 each other, for example, Jansenists, Old Catholics, 
 Russians and Protestants of all kinds, as soon as it is a 
 question of opposing the Catholic Church. (') The 
 imposing organism of the Catholic Church enlarges the 
 ideas of its members, it is quite a different matter with 
 members of other Confessions. 
 
 Such are the honest, frank remarks of my adversary, 
 and I thank him for them. He speaks as a learned 
 Romish Ecclesiastic ought to speak, he does not 
 dissemble his ideas, he does not spare his adversary, 
 his profession of faith is drawn up like a declaration of 
 war ! So be it ! It is pleasanter to enter into contro- 
 versy with an opponent of this kind, than with senti- 
 mental people who neither have the spirit nor the 
 courage to say : 
 
 " Yes, we are enemies /" Yes, -unfortunately we are, 
 and we shall remain such, until Rome shall have 
 modified her present dogmatic position. Can it last 
 long? Will thinking humanity long be able to endure 
 the new dogma? Infallibilists, I speak of the intelli- 
 gent ones, are perfectly alive to the peril, they under- 
 stand the difficulty of the position and would fain 
 blunt the sharp point of the new dogma and minimise 
 its import, they understand that if it were imposed 
 upon humanity in its full " splendor," with all its 
 
 Note 1. — This is very easily accounted for by the fact 
 that all have, or have had, to defend themselves, in one 
 or the other respect, against the encroachments of 
 Rome. 
 
96 
 
 logical results, and if it were oen to involve, as it 
 actually does, the entire negatic of moral liberty and 
 human dignity, humanity would turn away from it, as 
 the more discerning and honest Old-Catholics have 
 already done. That is the re '-son why Vaticanists 
 say so little about it, — why they .ihibit it so carefully 
 veiled, why they disguise it a& 
 why per fas et nefas, they do th 
 significance. But their efforts < 
 
 .uch as possible, and 
 utmost to lessen its 
 
 ALEXANl 
 
 vain. 
 
 KIREEFF. 
 
 CHATEAU DE PAVLOVSK, 
 
 25th March, 1893. ' 
 
THE CHIEF DEPOT OF THIS BOOK 
 
 BY THE EDITOli OF THE 
 
 I, 
 
 -IS- 
 
 323 SECOND AVE., NEW YORK.