is the responsible head of all, such according to the Gospel is the constitutional basis of the universal Church. Her stability cannot be made dependent on the impossible unanimity of all believers nor on the doubtful and precarious agreement of the bishops assembled in council, but on the real and living unity of the prince of the Apostles."" One of the reasons alleged by Solovev in support of his contention is the impossibility on the part of the Orthodox Church ever since her separation from the West to convoke a single ecumenical council." The Gospel texts relative to the supremacy of Peter are explained by the same author in the Catholic sense, viz. that Christ placed at the head of the hierarchy a unique central institution absolutely indivisible and independent and to which He confided the fulness of power and of the divine promises." The fundamental thesis of Solovev is as follows: "The universal Church is founded on the truth affirmed by our faith. Since truth is one the true faith must. also be one. And since the unity of faith does not reside really and directly in the whole body of the faithful, it must be sought in the lawful authority residing in one head-authority having the guarantee of divine assistance and thus received with love and confidence by all the faithful."7 The Catholic cause in Russia has had no defende more earnest than Solovev and none who wrote with greater authority. This is apparent throughout his writings on religious questions which comprise four volumes (Edition of St. Petersburg), and also from the diatribes directed against him by the Russian clerical press, especially by the Mo kovskyia Viedomosti and the Viera i Razum of Cracow, which accused him of scandalizing the good faithful Orthodox with his popish tendencies. His works have exerted a powerful influence on the youth of the country and also on the Russian clergy, and thanks to the apostolate of union of which he was the most valiant champion, the theories of the Panslavists who make the greatness of Russia and her hopes for the future dependent on hostility to the West, have been well nigh forgotten, while to many it appears that union with Rome is the only means of restoring to the Russian Church its lost prestige. Naturally the reunion would not be an absorption on the part of Rome of Oriental Christianity; it would not be a latinization 34 La Russie et l' Eglise universelle, Paris, 1889, p. 93. 35 Ibid. p. 95. 30 Ibid. p. 100. "Ibid. p. 120. of the Orient; it would be simply a return to the condition of the Christian world prior to the schism of Photius and Cærularius-the supremacy of the Roman pontiffs harmonized with the proper autonomy of the particular churches. Thus Russia would fulfil her religious mission-the mission of a third Rome, which after centuries of struggle and conflict, would have brought together in fraternal unity the old Rome of the Latin world and the New Rome of Byzantium. The monarchical idea of the Church which was historically realized in Rome, finds expression in the works of many of the modern Russian writers who have come under the influence of Solovev. Chief among these may be mentioned the Prince Sergius Trubetzkoi († 1905), who along with his master occupies a conspicuous place in the history of Russian spiritual philosophy, and the distinguished philosopher and man of letters, B. Rozanov. The latter is in Russia, one of the most popular representatives of non-dogmatic Christianity, i. e. of a religion founded upon the Gospel but which rejects all Christian dogmas as not only useless for the moral life of humanity, but also as a perpetual source of controversy and division. This theological movement had in Russia a special organ, the Novyi Put (the New Life), which at present has ceased to appear, and has been replaced by another periodical called Voprosy Gizni (Questions of Lief), which engages in frequent controversy with the most distinguished theologians of the Orthodox Church." Rozanov more than once turned his attention towards Catholicism, and on account of the originality of his style as well as of his ideas, his writings provoked not a little discussion throughout the empire. In agreement with Solovev he maintains that the weakness of the Orthodox Church lies in its lack of religious unity, whereas the strength of Catholicism is due to the universal supremacy of the Pope: The Pope, he writes, is in truth the universal pastor. Being a Russian and Orthodox I must reject the papacy, but I cannot reject sound logic, and logically the Pope is the foundation stone upon which is constructed the edifice of the Church. The papacy is what maintains unity, and without it we are given up to sterile discussions." Who says church says authority. It may be that in the beginning the life of the Church was love, but now we conceive of the Church as an authority....This authority was concentrated in the hands of Peter upon whom as upon Elisha fell the mantle of the Master. The words of the Gospel Pasce 38Stepano. Oznacenii dogmaticeskaja elementa v Khristianskom ucenii protiv Sovremennago adogmatisma, Kiev, 1907, p. 63-67. Okolo tzerkovnykh stien, St. Petersburg, 1906, vol. i, 117 oves meas, pasce agnos meos were addressed personally and exclusively to Peter, and thus the Savior intended to exclude from His Church all idea of collectivism." The Greek schism was the outcome of envy on the part of Byzantium and in consequence the Russians are taught to look upon Catholics as so many heathens. Philaretus, a patriarch of Moscow, went so far as to rebaptize Catholics and the patriarch of Constantinople in combating the supremacy of the Popes usurped for himself with arrogant inconsistency the title of Judge universal and heir to the prerogatives of God." What makes the deepest impression on Rozanov is the universality of the Catholic Church. He relates that in visiting St. Peter's he remained unmoved in presence of the architectural magnificence and the artistic masterpieces of the great basilica, but when he came to the row of confessionals and read thereon Pro Illyrica Lingua, Pro Germanica Lingua, Pro Hungarica Lingua, Pro Hispanica Lingua, etc., he was deeply moved, and admitted that these simple inscriptions opened to his mind new and vast horizons. "The statuary," he says, "is not the work of the Popes but of the artists. On the other hand, the universality of the languages used in the apostolic ministry reveals the work of the Popes. All Catholics even from the most remote regions come hither to their common father. All know him no matter what be their language, and even though they know not how to read. Peter follows in the footsteps of Christ. Like the ManGod he died on the cross, and in Rome where he was crucified, were erected the Lateran and the Vatican. The papacy, like the corollary of a theorem, rests on the three words of Christ: Pasce oves meas.43 Our theologians have failed in their attempt to explain these simple words, and have tried in vain to prove that all the Apostles enjoyed the same authority, that no difference had been established between them, that the bishop of Rome has no more authority than the bishop of Kaluga (a small Russian city). Nevertheless, these same theologians admit that the bishop of Constantinople or of Moscow is above the bishop of Kaluga. Such contradictions and inconsistencies are repugnant to Russian honesty....We ridicule the idea of papal infallibility and of papal supremacy, and yet Christianity has ever and always assumed the form of a pyramidal hierarchical edifice. There is always a supreme head, then intermediate pastors and finally the flock. The bishop of Kaluga is inferior to the bishop of Moscow, and the latter is inferior to the bishop of Constantinople. Peter alone unfurled his standard in the Colosseum, triumphed over the Roman Cæsars, and founded a kingdom which is not of this world." * Many similar passages might be quoted from the works of Rozanov, who, while affirming his loyal adhesion to the anti-papal principles 40 Ibid. p. 119. 41Ibid. p. 121. 42 Ibid. pp. 283-284. 43 Ibid. p. 296. of the Russian Church, clearly demonstrates that the papacy is, and of a necessity must be, the foundation stone of the universal Church. Enough has been said to show clearly the existence of Catholic tendencies in modern Russian thought. Strange to say these tendencies are noticeable even in the manuals of canon law, a branch which heretofore seemed to have for its special and exclusive object to combat the alleged pretensions of Rome. If space permitted it would be easy to prove this assertion by analyzing the course of canon law (Ucebnik Tzerkovnago prava, Saroslav, 1898), of Prof. N. Suvorov, in which it would be interesting to trace the influence exercised by the author's study of the canon law of the Roman Church. It must be allowed that these Catholic tendencies would be more vigorous and fruitful if Catholic theologians and men of science had shown a greater interest in Russia and her religion; if they had avoided that studied contempt in connection with the Orthodox Church, which in the case of some arises from a lack of knowledge as to the true state of things, and in others from a false notion of the Christian apostolate. In fact, we behold to-day in the East a rising generation of belligerent apostles, who seem to think that the best way to bring the various separated sects back to Catholic unity is to heap abuse and insult upon Oriental Christianity. These so-called apostles are more familiar with the vocabulary of vituperation than with the theology of brotherly love. It must not be inferred, however, from the existence of these Catholic tendencies in modern Russian thought that we are looking forward to a speedy conversion of the country to Catholicism Some there are who either through interested motives or through enthusiasm which causes illusion, allow themselves to believe that with a congress, together with a Greek or Slavish mass and a few other liturgical details the differences between the two churches could be settled, and the reduction to unity of the benighted multitudes of the East could immediately he proclaimed Urbi et Orbi. The present writer entertains no such optimistic view. We must confess with regret that the much desired reunion is still far off, and the conditions at present prevailing in Russia and in the East are not such as to make us hope for a speedy pacification of the hostile camps into which Christendom is divided. Rozanov clearly pointed out the many obstacles that stand in the way of the reconciliation on the part of the Russian clergy, of the government and of the people; and in his opinion the conversion of Russia to Catholicism is a work that can be accomplished only through the intervention of divine providence. The clergy with very few exceptions is very hostile to the papacy. The Eastern churches are essentially autonomous and independent, and to them union with Rome means-whatever be objected to the contrary-the loss or at least the crippling of their autonomy. The Russian clergy can never understand that a bishop in order to make legitimate use of his powers, needs to be confirmed in his office by the Pope. They can never be made to understand that in matters pertaining to canon law or in matters of conscience there be any need of having recourse to the Roman Congregations. When there is question of a bureaucratic system the Russian clergy will chose to retain its own rather than change it for one residing in Rome, even though the former be the lay bureaucracy of the Synod. Such observations I have often listened to on the part of learned Russian prelates. Union with Rome can only be effected on a footing of equality; the Pope is the primate of the universal Church but the various churches must be independent in matters pertaining to their own internal administration. A policy like the one formulated in the Council of Florence, placing the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church in subjection to that of Rome would at present be impossible, and so long as by re-union is meant the submission of the Orthodox churches to the Roman Church, as it is at present constituted, all attempts to reconcile the East with the West are bound to remain fruitless. It is a painful admission, but it is better to state the truth, howsoever unwelcome, than to indulge in empty dreams and expectations. Another obstacle which keeps Orthodox Russia in a constant attitude of distrust in presence of the Roman Church, is, according to the Russian ecclesiastical writers, the changeableness of the Vatican policy with regard to the Slavic peoples. For instance, the Bogoslovsky Viestnik and the Tzerkovnyi Viestnik accuse Pius X of following a line of conduct totally different from that of Leo XIII. The latter, they say, loved and venerated the Oriental churches, whereas Pius X holds them in aversion. And the proof of this aversion is found, according to the same periodicals, in the severity of the Congregation of Rites with reference to the Slavic liturgy. The recent decrees limiting its use in Croatia and Dalmatia have occasioned an intense dissatisfaction among the Catholics of these two countries; in fact so great was the feeling of resentment that several bishops, fearing a schism, omitted to publish the decrees in their dioceses. The |