Distor)/. — The time when the interdict was first in- troduced into the Church is not generally known ; but it is usually traced to the early discipline of public penance, " by which penitents were for a time debarred from the privilege of presence at the celebration of the Eucharist." Instances of it are met with in verj' early times (see c. 8, Can. v, qu. vi [ Cone. Agath. anno 506],
IXTEREST
620
INTERIM
ami 10, 11, Can. xvii, qu. iv [Panit. Rom.'], etc. Comp. also Gonzalez Tellez, cap. 5, X. De consuet. i, 4, no. 19). But it wa3 not until the Middle Ages, the days of super- stition, when the mind was in a condition difficult for us of modern ideas fully to realize or to understand, that this ecclesiastical punishment came into general use as a weapon of the Church against all ecclesiastical and civil inroads. In 1125 Ivo of Chartres calls it yet {EpUt. 91) "remedium insolitum, ob suam nimirum novitatem ;" and at the Synod of Limoges in 1301, the following resolution was passed at tlie second session : " Nisi de pace acquieverint, ligate omnem terram Le- movicensera publica excomraunicatione : eo videlicet modo, ut nemo, nisi clericus, aut pauper raendicans, aut peregrinus adveniens, aut infans a bimatu et infra in toto Lemovicino sepeliatur, nee in alium episcopatum ad sepeliendum portetur. Divinum officium per omnes ecclesias latenter agatur, et baptismus petentibus tribu- atur. Circa horam tertiam signa sonent in ecclesiis omnibus, et omnes proni in faciem preees pro tribulatio- ne et pace fundant. Pcenitentia et viaticum in exitu mortis tribuatur. Altaria per omnes ecclesias, sicut in Parasceve, nudentur; et cruces ct ornamenta abscon- dantur, quia signum iuctus et tristitiaa omnibus est. Ad missas tantum, quas unusquisque sacerdotum januis ec- clesiarum obseratis fecerit, altaria induantur, et iterum post missas nudentur. Nemo in ipsa excomraunicatione uxorem ducat. Nemo alteri osculum det, nemo clerico- rum aut laicorum, vel habitantium vel transeuntium, in toto Lemovicino carnem comedat, neque alios cibos, quam illos, quibus in Quadragesima vesci licitum est. Nemo clericorum aut laicorum tondeatur, neque radatiu-, quousque districti principes, capita populorum, per om- nia sancto obediant concilio" (Jlansi, Coll. Conciliorum, xix, 541 ; Du Fresne, s. v. Interdictum).
The most remarkable of the interdicts since the 11th century were those laid upon Scotland in 1180 by Alex- ander III; on Poland by Gregory YII, on occasion of tlie murder of Stanislaus at the altar in 1073 ; by Inno- cent III on France, under Philippe Augustus, in 1200; and on England under John in 1209. See Neander, Ch. y/w^iii, 454; Milmnn, Latin Chrisfiunitij (see Index); Riddle, IJistor;/ of the Papaci/, ii, 83 sq., et al; Janus, Pope and Council, p. 289; Herzog, Rml-EncyUop. vi, 705 sq. ; Chambers, Cuclopcsdiu, v, G05. (J. H. W.)
Interest. See Usuuy.
Interim, the name of certain fonnularies or confes- sions of faith obtmded upon the Reformers by the em- peror Charles Y. Tiiey were so called because they were only to take place in the interim, till a general coun- cil slidulil decide all the points in question between the Pniicstants and Catholics. There were three of such for- mularies.
I. TiiK IxTERiM OF Ratisbon (Rer/enshurg). Nu- merous conferences had been held by both parties, i. e. the Romanists and the Protestants, after the formation of the "League of Smalkald" (1531), to bring about a rec- onciliation. As a liberal Ifoman Catholic writer of our own days ( Jaiuis, Pope and Council, p. 309) says, " It was long before men (in Germany and generally "on this side of the Alps) grasped the idea of the breach oVchurch communion becoming permanent. The general feeling was still so far Church-like that a reallv free council, in- dependent of papal control, was confidently looked to for at once purifying and uniting the Church, thougli, of course, views differed as to the conditions of reunion, according to personal position and national sentiment." A conference was finally ajipointed and held at Worms, uuder the leadership of .Alolancthon and Kckius. accord- ing to appointment, by Charles V, and afterwards re- moved to Ratisbon, where the diet met (1541). Here Ptlug and (iropper figured i)rominently by the side of Eckius on the Roman Catholic side, and Riiccr and Pis- torius l)y the side of :\Ielancthon. The Roman Catho- lics now conceded that the communion of both kinds could be administered to all ; tliat the (piestion of sacer- dotal celibacy was of no vital importance, etc. ; but the
Protestants were nevertheless afraid of some hidden plan, and only an apparent reconciliation was effected : it re- ally settled no ipiestion at all, satisfied neither party, and finally, as Luther had predicted before the convocation, led only afterwards to much misunderstanding and mu- tual recrimination. " ' Let them go on,' said Luther, referring to the schemes of those who thought that the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants might be made up by such conferences, 'we shall not envy the success of their labors; they will be the first Avho could ever convert the devil and reconcile him to Christ. . . . The sceptre of the Lord admits of no bend- ing and joining, but must remain straight and un- changed, the rule of faith and practice.' " Charles V, de- termined to secure the ratification of the points of agree- ment entered into at Ratisbon by a national council, forbade the Protestants to argue, in the mean time, on the controverted points, or to dispose in any way of the property of the churches. They protested, however, and went on, regardless of the interim.