I. Antecedent History: The first adducible proof that Picas IX. intended to call an ecumenical coun cil appeared Dec. 6,1864, at a session of the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites. He then 1. Prelimi- directed them, and soon extended this nary Can- order to include all the cardinals resi vass and dent in Rome, to present their views
Committees. on that project, in the form of written opinions; and early in Mar., 1865, a committee of cardinals was appointed to examine these opinions. The majority of the cardinals agreed that a council was necessary, though there was not entire concord as to the matters to be treated. After that, the convening of a council was no longer an open question. So during April and May, and by advice of the college of cardinals, the prefect of the
Propaganda, Cardinal Caterini, addressed to thirty six bishops of various nations a formal request sub
arctissima secreti lege, to set forth in explicit terms the matters which seemed to them most worthy of consideration before the council, with regard to their diocesan interests. Picas IX, had himself outlined the list of these confidential advisers; he also made the first public announcement of the prospective council, on June 26, 1867, in his address to such princes of the church as had assembled in Rome for the jubilee festival. The preparation of the council devolved upon an extraordinary congregation of the college of cardinals, briefly known as the
"Central Committee." Its members included Car dinals Patrizi, Reisach, Panebianco, Bizarro, Ca terini, and, later, Barnabo, Bilio, Capalli, de Luca.
Their preliminary labors in 1865 were occupied with enlisting distinguished theologians and canonists as expert advisers of the council. These invitations were guided by the propositions advanced by the nuncios and by the various bishops. Only the ultramontane trend received such marked preference herein, at the outset, that when the resultant selections became known, they were sharply con tested. Besides the central committee there were accessory committees appointed: (1) on dogmatics,
(2) on church discipline, (3) on religious orders,
(4) on oriental churches and missions, (5) on eccle siastical polity, and (6) on ceremonies. The labors of these committees were subject to the central committee's revision. There were ninety-six ad visers actively engaged. The question as to who should be invited to the council at large occasioned prolonged inquiries and incidental scruples. Ob jection was raised against inviting the Roman Cath olic princes. The bull Aterni patris, subscribed by
Picas IX. and the cardinals present in Rome, was
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA vatioan canVatican Council published on June 29, 1868; and convened the council to meet at Rome on Dec. 8, 1869. As the council was to be ecumenical, the bishops of the churches of oriental rites were also invited; and in a subsequent bull, all Protestants and others outside the Roman Catholic pale were summoned, on occasion of the council, to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. Howbeit, the Orientals declined the summons, without exception, and on the Protestant side the invitation was disregarded. The papal invitation found some accordant response. within the Anglican church; yet here, too, there was counterbalancing opposition. Thus the Curia's hope of inducing the schismatic orient and the world of Protestant heresy to some recognition of the Curia's contemplated measures came to naught..The reception accorded to the impending council in Roman Catholic circles was not everywhere alike and underwent great fluctuations. Little could be deduced from the terms of convocation
|
148 |
In Germany, the commotion started when Döllinger's articles on the council and the Civiltà appeared (in Augsburger allgemeine Zeitung, Mar. 10-15, 1869), which kindled men's minds in every quarter. Associations were then formed for repelling Ultramontanist efforts. Rhenish laymen assembled at Coblenz, and forwarded an address to the bishop of Treves, wherein exception was taken to the views espoused in the article of the Civiltà, and the demand was put forth that the impending council leave no doubt on the point that the church had parted company with the wish of reinstating the theocratic civil forms of the Middle Ages; that the training of the clergy should not run counter to the whole trend of the times; that a more comprehensive, vital, and systematic plan of associating the laity in Christian and social affairs be inaugurated in the parish congregations; and, lastly, that the Index librorum prohibitorum should be repealed. On the other hand, the general convention of Roman Catholic associations in Germany adopted a resolution at Düsseldorf, Sept. 8, in which the utmost confidence was expressed toward the council. When the German episcopate met in council at Fulda, on Sept. 1, 1869, this body issued a common pastoral letter, which was intended to exercise a quieting effect: the council, so it ran, could announce no new doctrine not contained in Holy Scripture and apostolic tradition; whereas the suspicion that freedom of deliberation might be prejudiced at the session was as unfounded as the supposition that the pope was the instrument of a faction or party was insulting. But besides this letter, which was intended for full publicity, quite another message, couched in a different tone, was addressed to the pope by resolution of the same body. For the news that the impending council was to be approached from various quarters in behalf of a proposition covering the pope's infallibility was shown to have evoked great excitement, and this, too, among men of proved loyalty to the Church. It was urged, moreover, that the like apprehensions were shared by the writers themselves. Which document, subscribed by fourteen bishops (only a few held aloof), met with a very unfavorable reception at the hands of Pius IX. In France there broke forth a vehement conflict. The work of Bishop Maret, dean of the Roman Catholic faculty of Paris, against infallibility (Du concile gènèral et de la paix religieuse, 2 vols., Paris, 1869), and the writings of Bishop Dupanloup of Orlèans, leavened by the same spirit, attracted manifold replies, including those from Archbishop Manning of Westminster and Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin. Count Montalembert arrayed himself with the opposers. In Austria-Hungary, ------------------- as contrasted with Germany, and not without significance touching the mental status of the clergy in those countries, there prevailed a general unconcern. In Italy, Count Ricciardi exerted himself toward opposing the Vatican Council with an "ecumenical council of freethinkers," which actually convened at Naples, in Dec., 1869, but was a feeble affair. Hence, even before the council assembled, the most momentous of the topics afterward presented for its definitive resolutions was already the theme of radical controversy; while the prospects for a smooth acceptance of the projected dogma kept shrinking month by month.
The impending council did not fail to occupy the attention of civil governments in Europe. On Apr. 9, 1869, the Bavarian cabinet president, Prince Chlodwig of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfiirat, addressed to Bavaria's diplomatic representatives a circular dispatch, drafted by Döllinger, requesting them to inform themselves with reference to the intentions of the governments whereto they were accredited, as touching the council. And they were to put the question, whether it were not expedient to adopt, in advance, a common or identical course of procedure whereby the holy see could be advised of their contemplated bearing in relation to the ecumenical council? However, Hohenlohe's suggestion found but little response; and the answers, at best, were either negative or evasive. The ill-success of his proposal was attributed by Hohenlohe himself, in the main, to the Austrian government and its repellent attitude, since Austria both rejected his proposals and denied the imminence of any danger, save that emotional tension was to be feared in increasing degree, should there be an appearance of restricting the freedom of the Roman Catholic Church. Prussia deemed preventive measures not in season, and simply declared herself to be ready to safeguard the rights of the State, in the event of contingent resolutions that should encroach upon the civil prerogative -or jurisdiction. The position of France in relation to the Curia, since France was the power that was able to determine the further continuance of the States of the Church, was different from that of other governments. But while the attitude of France was an uncertain factor under the influence of the French negotiations with Austria and Italy, still France decided in favor of prolonging the occupation; and even declared, in a note of instruction to the French envoy Banneville at Rome, dated Sept. 19, 1869, for the prospective definition of the doctrine involved when the pope spoke ex cathedra, with express recommendation, however, that the utmost wisdom be applied in drafting the terms thereof. Opposition to the Curia's policy was not to have been expected from England, Spain, and Portugal. So the various governments forbore to exert any pressure upon Rome in the direction advised by Hohenlohe; and except Russia, which forbade Russian prelates the journey to Rome, they laid no obstacles in the way of attending the council.
II. Proceedings of the Council -1. From the Opening until Mar. 8, 1870: The Curia had observed silence in regard to the council's tasks. That
|
149 |
The prelates who had already reached Rome were convened in a preliminary synodical assembly in the Sistine Chapel, Dec. 2, 1869. Pius IX. then delivered an address, the names of the officers were announced, and these officers were sworn in. In the next place, copies of the order of business were distributed, with the heading Multiplices inter, dated Nov. 27, 1869. As presidents were named Cardinals de Reisach, de Lucca, Bizarri, Bilio, and Capalli. By this order of business, which he issued without action by the council in the premises, Pius IX. insured for himself a determining influence over the convention. The most important rulings were as follows: In § 2 the pope claimed it as his exclusive right to define the objects of the council's proceedings. The synodical delegates are permitted, of course, to make motions, yet with extreme limitation, since the pope was to decide whether they should be laid before the council; § 3 obligates the members of the council to silence in regard to the proceedings; §§ 7 and 8 touched upon the synodical delegates' assemblings, the congregations general, and the public sessions. In the congregations general, whose directors were named by the pope, the drafts of decrees laid before the council were to be debated and voted upon, but only in a provisory way. At the public sessions, deliberations were no longer in order, but only the final votes. The result of these was certified by the pope, in personal attendance, and was to be proclaimed as his decision, "the holy council approving." The votes were to be phrased placet or non placet. In the event of no working agreement, the contested proviso, together with the proffered objections thereto, were to be referred to standing committees, and these were to be elected by the council on written ballot. § 9 forbade the attending ecclesiastics to quit the council before its termination, except by permission. For council chamber, and this alike for the congregations general and the public sessions, they made use of the right transept of St. Peter's Church, this being shut off by a lofty wooden partition. From the very first day, however, this area proved unfit on account of its defective acoustics.
The first public session took place Wednesday Dec. 8, 1869, with the opening on a festival. Undue precipitation set the second public session for Thursday Jan. 6, 1870. To what extent the question of infallibility dominated the council quite from the start appeared from the election of the various committees. The chief promoters of the quorum actively in favor of the definition at issue met in private conferences, and then agreed on the plan that no one be elected of whom it were known that he opposed the definition of papal infallibility. In the next place, lists of the proposed candidates were prepared and lithographed. And all these propositions found acceptance with the council. The ratified order of business provoked some contradiction directly after the work of the council began; but all motions pre sented before the pope in favor of changing that fixed routine were set aside. The council's debates began only with the fourth congregation general, Dec. 28, and turned on the "schedule of faith." The discussion assumed an unexpectedly prolonged course, for the topic was criticized in many quarters. The premature appointment of the second public session for Jan. 6 occasioned the leaders of the council no small embarrassment. In fact, such a thing as passing upon the "schedule "in the way of a conciliar decree was then and there impossible. So, too, the hope had to be abandoned of seeing the question of infallibility accepted by the council at this session, as though by acclamation and independent of discussion, since Archbishop Darboy of Paris notified Cardinal de Luca, Dec. 27, that in the event of such abruptness, 100 bishops would straightway leave Rome. Accordingly, the second public session, Jan. 6, 1870, had to be occupied by taking the synodical delegates' formal deposition in support of the Council of Trent. The insignificance of this second session is to be explained by the fact that it nowise marks a critical juncture in the council's history. The proceedings extended till Jan. 10. The project under consideration appears to have found unqualified approval with not one of the thirty-five speakers; but rather there prevailed great dissension respecting the degree of requisite amendment in the case. The result of the proceedings in six congregations general was, on Jan. 10, to refer the issue, along with its proffered objections, to the deputation on faith.
In the following weeks (till Feb. 22) the council deliberated in nineteen congregations general (numbered 11-29) concerning schedules of discipline and questions of church life. And though these proceedings form simply an episode in the history of the council and led to no practical end, still they afford some insight into the bishops' frames of mind. It appears that many of the synodical delegates entertained a broad conception of the necessity of reforms; while critical utterances were heard to this intent, and in no subdued tone, such as were hardly anticipated by the Curia. During the discussion of the "schedule concerning bishops,
|
150 |
A noteworthy landmark in the history of the council is supplied by the publication, during the twenty-ninth congregation general, on Feb. 22, of the papal decree dated Feb. 20; which must be designated a new order of business. The most important of its rulings, which comprised fourteen heads, were the following. Strictures on a "schedule" shall henceforth no longer be made orally, but in writing; and this, too, within a period of time to be determined by the presidents when the given schedule is proposed (§ 1). Such strictures are to be accompanied with suggested amendments (§ 3), and shall be tendered before the secretary of the council, who refers them to the competent deputations (§ 4). Coupled with a summary report on the previously tendered strictures, the schedule, as amended by the committee or deputation in charge, goes to the council for oral discussion (§ 5). Speakers digressing from the question in debate shall be called to order by the presidents (§ 10). In case the subject of debate be exhausted, then the presidents, on written motion of ten synodical delegates, may put the question before the congregation general, as to whether the discussion shall still be protracted; anti the majority decides (§ 11). Majority vote also decides the matter of adopting a proposition (§ 13). The voting is done orally, by placet or non placet, though a conditional placet is also admissible, the given condition being in writing (§ 14). What prompted this change in the order of business was the tedious routine of the council's proceedings, which in the course of three months had brought not a single schedule to formal conclusion. That this new order of business was adapted to expedite the transaction of business proper is evident; yet the advance was only contingent in that the council might have to pay for the abridgment of its proceedings by disadvantages of another kind. Protests were lodged against the altered order of business under the leadership of Archbishop Darboy of Paris, by fifty bishops on Mar. 1, by twenty-two other bishops, led by Cardinal Schwarzenberg, on Mar. 4, and by fourteen bishops, predominantly German, on Mar. 2. However, these protests accomplished nothing, not even a written acknowledgment. Yet the object of altering the order of business was not simply the better dispatch of the council's labors; it especially hinged on the point of carrying the definition of infallibility through the channels of parliamentary resolution, after it was seen that the measure could not be adopted by acclamation.
A fortnight after the council opened, there were conferences in progress on the part of a small coterie of those favoring the definition, touching their manner of procedure. Petitions for motion of the definition were subscribed by about 480 bishops. Not until the news of these arrangements transpired did the opponents of definition actively unite. Their deliberations began Jan. 8, and in five counter-addresses, which were subscribed by 136 bishops, the pope was besought to make no proposition to the council on the subject of infallibility. But the committee on motions resolved to commend to the pope the acceptance of definition. Through these memorials for and against the question of definition, the presence of two parties at the council had become altogether patent. What occasioned great surprise was the relative status of the two alinements, broadly surveyed. The process of "ultramontanizing" the Roman Catholic Church had advanced quite too far, and the Ultramontane trend of the council was much too pronounced for any doubt as to the issue of a dogmatic decision on the subject of infallibility. The sensation was the strength of the minority, the impressive gravity of whose opposition stood all the more enhanced by the dignity of not a few personalities on the minority side, as by the partizan grouping along lines of nationality. Among the German bishops there were thirteen opposers of the definition, whereas only four of the German bishops advocated the definition; among the Austro-Hungarian bishops the majority were on the opposing side; in the case of the French bishops, one-third of them sided with the opposition. Several of the bishops from the United States opposed it. Among those members who disclosed special zeal in favoring infallibility, Archbishop Manning of Westminster, and Bishop Senestrey of Regensburg stood forth with prominence. Their strength was in the firm assertion of the necessity
|
151 |
It was a serious obstacle to the minority, that the pope took aggressive and open stand against that minority's formulated position. Howbeit, the decision of the contest depended upon the question whether or not the minority possessed the inherent strength and sufficient confidence in its cause to assert and carry its will. It was precisely this internal compactness which the minority lacked. All that held their imposing array together was the sheer denial of the question of defining the infallibility of the pope on grounds of expediency, not the disavowal of the doctrine itself, though many of the minority had espoused this extraneous position. Accordingly, the minor ity's platform was one of negation simply. But the sphere of its action was thereby seriously restricted, and it lacked the momentum that produces positive results. It could collectively utilize merely a sectional extract of all that cogent material which scientific scholarship was elaborating in support of the conflict against the doctrine itself. The opposition must needs collapse forthwith when situations occurred wherein considerations of expediency and questions of tact and fitness lost their value, or even contradicted its very existence. Lastly, the minority was handicapped by the lack of a commanding leader.
The drafting and circulation of the memorials with reference to the matter of infallibility was accompanied by extensive discussions in a periodical way, proceeding from members of both parties at the council. Much attention was aroused in France by the controversy on the Honorius question (see Honorius I.) between Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry, French acamedician and sometime oratorian, and Archbishop Dechamps, and by the pamphlet Ce qui se passe au concile, against which the council deemed it necessary to protest, the more because the article showed expert knowledge of the situation. Still stronger was the agitation in Germany, where the scientific training of the clergy was too advanced for a surrender to the new dogma without resistance. On Jan. 19 Döllinger published his signed article on infallibility in the Augsburger allgemeine Zeitung, and this evoked wide comment.
On Jan. 21 there had been distributed among the synodical members the schedule entitled Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de ecclesia Christi. This stated, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ (chap. 1); that in this alone can the Christian religion be duly practised (chap. 2); that the Church is the one perfect society (chap. 3); that corporate bodies detached from the Church can not be designated as part or parcel of the Church (chap, 5); that only through the Church; and consequently, in the Church, can salvation be obtained (chaps. 6, 7); that the Church is imperishable and indefectible (chaps. 9, 10); that the Church possesses a peculiar power and authority (potestas, chap. 10); that in this body Christ has instituted the primacy of the bishop of Rome (chap. 11), which involves the possession of temporal sovereignty (chap. 12); in case of disharmony between Church and State, the State is to blame (chap. 13). The civil rulers, too, are bound to the law of God, and the decision as to how this is to be administered appertains to the supreme teaching function of the Church (chap. 14). The closing chapter claims for the Church the province of instructing the young, freedom in the sphere of training the clergy, and exemption of the clergy from military service, unrestricted franchise for the religious orders, etc. Under the head of canons may be read (No. XX.): "If any one says that the supreme rule of conscience in respect to public and social affairs is vested in the law of the body politic, or in the public opinion of men, or that the judgments of the Church do not reach over the said affairs (by which judgments the Church pronounces concerning what is lawful, or illicit and unlawful), or that something is lawful to be done by force of the civil justice which is unlawful by the divine justice or law of the Church, let him be anathema." When, in spite of the injunction to secrecy, this proviso came to be known by the press of all Europe, the civil governments were admonished to be vigilant, and were urged to defend the civil organism, now menaced by the doctrines of a vanished era. On Feb. 10, the Austrian Count Beust notified the Austrian ambassador to advise the cardinal secretary that the publication of any such ruling, prejudicial to due respect for the law of the land, was forbidden in Austria and would be visited with legal penalties. In a dispatch of Feb. 20, communicated to the other powers, Count Daru, French minister of foreign affairs, repelled the schedule's express encroachments upon the civil jurisdiction, and demanded that before the council proceeded to draft resolutions upon questions relating to civil statecraft, the holy see should give the French government opportunity to convey to the council the French conception herein. Antonelli, however, answered coldly, and nothing was ultimately achieved by these protests, since more active measures were not initiated. The change in the French ministry on Apr. 18, by which Ollivier became minister of foreign affairs, obviated all danger of direct coercion upon the council from a French quarter. And the same political considerations which decided Napoleon III. in favor of great reserve, were of controlling weight with Bismarck, while England also maintained her policy of reserve and self-restraint. In the council's proceedings, the grand stroke fell on Mar. 6, when a supplementary article to chap. 11 of the schedule De ecclesia was addressed to the members of the council. This appendix bore the heading, Romanum pontificem in rebus fidei et morum definiendis errare non posse, "The Roman pontiff can not err in defining matters of faith and morals." The time of the Curia's evasive policy was past, and the council faced a clear situation.
|
152 |
2. Third Session, Sunday Apr. 24, 1870: Before the congregations general had resumed their sessions, attempts were made by the majority to accelerate the opening of the proceedings. The minority demanded that this difficult matter be not presented under the order of the day until it was carefully examined by the members of the council. The pope himself was approached, first in an audience, next in a memorial dated Apr. 22, with the outcome that the desired proceedings were not further postponed.
The congregations general from Mar. 18 to Apr. 19 were occupied with deliberations over the revised schedule De doctrine catholica. Within the main committee on this business, a subcommittee of three members had been appointed, who, in turn, delegated the substance of their labor to Bishop Martin of Paderborn, and he utilized the aid and support of Professor Kleutgen. The entire deputation's transactions eventually reached the result that only the first part of the schedule, that under the head De fide catholica, was referred to the congregation general; whereas the second part of the schedule did not come up for action at all. In the general debate beginning on Mar. 18, and inaugurated by the report of Archbishop Simon of Gran, the projected revision met both approval and censure. Among the speeches delivered in course of the special debate, the one by Bishop Strossmayer, on Mar. 22, created a tempest. The designation of Protestantism as a "pest," in the discussion then forward, is believed to have provoked a very vigorous retort by way of Berlin. That strong influences were brought to bear, indeed, against such definition and sentence of Protestantism is evident from the circumstance that the offending passage was altered by the deputation on faith, so as to modify the sense advocated by Strossmayer. So the revised text no longer derived naturalism from Protestantism, etc.; while the term pesos was replaced by impietas. After these alterations, the preliminary part of the schedule gained formal adoption. At the fortyfifth congregation general, on Apr. 12, the entire schedule came up for action, and was adopted by a vote of 575, while eighty-three voted placet juxta . modum; not until Apr. 23 did the minority decide, and this chiefly owing to the efforts of Cardinals Rauscher and Schwarzenberg, in favor of voting placet. At the public third session, which occurred on Apr. 24, with an attendance of 667 ecclesiastics, the Constitutio de fide catholica was unanimously adopted; the ratification of the same was at once "confirmed" by the pope.
3. Fourth Session, Monday July 18, 1870:Worthy of note here are the attempts of some bishops of the minority to enlighten, along literary lines, their fellow synodical delegates in regard to the momentous difficulties opposing their definition. But owing to censorship of the press, these writers were obliged to produce their articles away from Rome. Cardinal Rauscher thus wrote Observationes qucedam de infallibititatis ecclesix subjecto; from Bishop Hefele there appeared Cause Honorii papce; Cardinal Schwarzenberg prompted the tract composed by his counselor (Prof. S. Mayer, of Prague): De summi pontificis infallibilitate; while Bishop
, ~s u~,,s r t tt ~s t 1" II fi `~4h"'> d `~ L., w n, t t, ~I,^dtKetteler distributed his Qucestio, which on arriving in Rome was seized by the post-office, and liberated only after vigorous effort. The impression produced by these writings was not inconsiderable in its way; although it had no decisive effect upon the council.
So far back as at the congregation general of Apr. 29, the proposal of a "schedule dealing with the bishop of Rome" was formally announced. Among
1. The the majority this step was hailed with Program. j°y° though seventy-one members
lodged' vigorous but vain protest on the ground that the doctrine of infallibility was treated irrespective of prior determination of the doctrine of the church on that subject. The statements which the members were to tender by Mar. 25 concerning the schedule De ecclesia had already largely been turned in; and on Apr. 27 proceedings were begun in regard to the draft of the new schedule, which proceedings were completed on May 8. The new schedule, together with the report of the deputation on faith, was referred to the synodical delegates on May 9. The title of this ran: Constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi; and the document comprised four chapters, besides introduction: (1) " On the institution in the blessed Peter of the apostolic primacy "; (2)" On the perpetuity of Peter's primacy in the bishops of Rome "; (3)" On the force and reason of the Roman bishop's primacy "; (4) " On the Roman bishop's infallibility." There were three collateral canons. This new schedule was based on chap. 11 of the former schema de ecclesia Christi, and the supplementary chapter of Mar. 6.
On May 13, the general debate' began at the fiftieth congregation general, being inaugurated by the report of Bishop Pius of Poitiers. This debate
occupied fourteen congregations gener 2. Debate al, andoccasioned sixty-four speeches. on Infalli-
bility. On general theoretical grounds in favorof formulating a dogma, it is held not only to be necessary that such doctrine be contained in the divine revelation, but that the weal of the Church requires its definition; accordingly the question of opportuneness or seasonable expediency persistently came forward in the debate. Bishops on the minority side denied the expediency outright, while the majority attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the dogma, and, above all, to justify the same by reference to conditions at the time. That whole countries yearned for the institution of the definition was asserted widely, and its expediency was postulated largely on the defection from.the non-Catholic churches of such men as Cardinal Manning in England, Archbishop Schmpann of Utrecht, Holland, Archbishop Maddalena of Corfu, of the schismatic Greeks. But neither side could work conviction on the opposing side; the debate might have lasted months longer without effect. So, on June 3, a motion was adopted for closing the debate, though forty enrolled speakers were thus deprived of the floor, s fact which evoked a futile protest presented by eighty-one synodical delegates. The special debate, beginning on June 6, turned on the introduction, while discussion over the first and second chapters, ut sup., was soon dispatched, and
|
153 |
these portions were adopted with but alight alterations. Greater difficulties came to light over the third chapter, wherein the nature and the meaning of the primacy were defined. In this case the statement that the pope enjoys "the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church" provoked the demand for some supplementary statement as to limitations. There were also differences of opinion regarding the propositions embraced in the measure projected declaring the pope to be the supreme judge in the sense that an appeal to an ecumenical council from his ultimatum was thereby precluded; because the recognition of this clause involved a direct rider to the issue of infallibility. Finally, some scruples were aroused on the point that the pope's power of jurisdiction was designated as ePiscopalis, ordinaries et immediata. Subsequently, when the deputation on faith turned in its report, on July 5, over the proffered forms of amendment, still further sharp disputes occurred over the third canon, which had been modified and revised in a manner not provided by the original motion. Chap. 3, together with the appertaining canon, was formally adopted on June 11.
It was with blunted force that the council took up on June 15 the special debate on chap. 4. The S. Close of address of the Dominican, Cardinal the Contest. Gmdi, archbishop of Bologna, attracted peculiar attention. The speaker did not contest the pope's infallibility, save that he attributed this purely to the decisions of the pope, not to his person. He also asserted that the pope is bound by the antecedently tendered counsel of the bishops, who testify to the tradition of the Church. Cardinal Guidi was directly summoned to the Vatican, where Pies received him austerely, and quashed the appeal to the tradition of the Church with his now famous retort: "I am tradition." Early in July the conviction permeated the council that what could be said for and against the proposition had already been said. The tale of speakers foregoing their turn to debate increased from day to day, so that on July 4 the synodical debate could be cloned; by this time fifty-seven had spoken on the pending topic, chap. 4, and sixtyone had refrained from debating. The great contest now rapidly reached its end; chap. 4 was adopted on July 13, whereupon the entire schedule was brought to vote. The result caused great surprise, not because the schedule was adopted, since this was foregone, but for the reasons that of the 601 ecclesiastics in attendance, only 451 voted placet (i.e., yes), whereas 88 voted non placet, and 62 in the form plaeet juxta modern (i.e., yen, with a qualification). Eighty who were in Rome or in the neighborhood did not vote at all.
In view of the impending decision, the opponents of the definition made a last attempt to influence the result. In his memorial La Derriere Heure du concile, Archbishop Darboy addressed an appeal to the members of synod; but his theses
4. Final aroused such intense emotion among Efforts of the majority and the leaders of the Minority. council, and were to them so irksome, that it was deemed necessary to protest against his pamphlet. On the evening of July 15 a delegation
of six bishops of the minority (Simon, Ginoulhiac, Darboy, Scherr, Ketteler, and Rivet) was received by Pius IX. What they requested fell far short of the desires hitherto expressed by the minority, for they now restricted their petition to the two points that the passage on "plenitude of power," in chap. 3, be stricken out, and that in chap. 4 the statement about papal infallibility be supplemented, so as to read that the pope shall support his position upon the witness of the Church. Ketteler prostrated himself before the pope, and besought him, "O that the father of the Catholic world might grant peace to the Church and the episcopate by some small concessions, and so restore that unity now lost." While Pies made no definite admissions, his demeanor produced new hopes. That these were fallacious appeared by the very next day. For the result was to intensify the sharp, edge of the decree in its final shape by rendering the definitions absolute of themselves, and not. contingent upon the consensus of. the Church, which amended form was adopted by the eighty-sixth congregation general, on July 16, without parliamentary deliberation.
With the appointment of the fourth public session for July 18, when the final vote should occur, the contest over infallibility entered upon its last stage.
The minority was really in a desperate 8. Vote on quandary. Firm party organization infallibil- it neither commanded nor could pro-
ity. cure. Indeed, a compact front was now the less possible, seeing that after proclamation of the dogma the base of reckoning had assumed the shape of an immediate, imminent, and instant fact. For in the present contingency, the exercise of that ordinary right of stoutly adhering to the form of voting was opposed by considerations of pious loyalty toward the person of the pope, who had left no doubt on the point that he attached the, utmost weight to the adoption of the pending dogma. In circumstances of this kind, there was no other becoming exit for the minority than that of absenting themselves from the session, and this policy was commended and facilitated by the Curia itself. For while up to this point the synodical delegates had been forbidden to quit Rome, on July 16 the members of the council were granted a general leave of absence. Whereupon, on July 17, fiftyfive bishops of the minority forwarded a note to the pope, in which they reaffirmed their vote of July 13, and stated that in deference to him they intended to stay away from the session. The danger that any considerable number of bishops would not submit to the forthcoming dogma was accordingly set aside before taking shape at all. At the public session on July 18, 535 ecclesiastics were present, and all voted placet nave Bishop Riceio of Cajazzo and Bishop Fitzgerald of Little'Rock. The pope then announced the definition, and proclaimed the confirmation of the decrees. At the same session, the two opposing bishops tendered their submission.
4. Prorogation of the Council: Three further congregations general assembled after the fourth session; but no important matters engaged the attention of the council, attendance on which dwindled
from about 1,050 to 104. Active interest in behalf|
154 |
III. Decrees of the Council.-1. Drafts and Motions: The committees charged with preparing the measures to be laid before the council elaborated a great number of preliminary drafts of decrees on doctrine and discipline. A first set of these outlined the dogmatic schedules, a second group dealt with discipline, a third with the monastic orders, a fourth with oriental rites and with missions. Not a few bishops availed themselves of their right to propose motions with reference to the subjects to be treated by the council. Yet none of these motions came up for action, although, for that matter, the same was true of most of the drafted measures emanating from the Curia. Still again, of the few propositions which underwent complete advisory action before the assembled convention, only two took the shape of decrees:
2. Substance and Impd*bof the Council's Reso. lutions: The two most momentous decisions of July 18 read as follows (chap. 3, at the close): " Now
1. The De- therefore, if any one say that the Rocrees. man pontiff has only the function and office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Church universal; not merely in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church as diffused throughout the world; or that he has only the chiefer parts, the more potent attributes thereof, yet not, indeed, the entire plenitude of this supreme power; or that such his authority is not ordinary and immediate, whether alike over all and sundry churches, or over all and sundry the pastors and faithful; let him be anathema." Chap. 4 concludes: " The sacred council thus approving, we teach, and so define as a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra; that is, when in the discharge of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, and in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine on faith or morals, to be observed by the entire ecumenical Church; thereby using the divine assistance to him vouchsafed by promise to blessed Peter;
he then brings to bear that potential infallibility wherewith the divine redeemer desired and willed that his Church be instructed in such definition of doctrine on faith or morals; and therefore the like definitions by the Roman pontiff are absolute, or unalterable in themselves, as by intrinsic force, and not by conaension of the Church. Now, therefore, if any were to presume (which may God avert) to contradict our definition; let him be anathema " (Latin text in Mirbt, Quellen, 3d ed., pp. 367-368).
The former of these definitions deals with the relation of the episcopal authority to the papal. Even during the Middle Ages the bishops 2. The Pope had bin obliged to surrender many as Bishop. rights to the papacy, although the Council of Trent (Sessio XXIII., chap. 4; m Schaff, Creeds, ii. 189; Mirbt, Quellen, 3d ed., pp. 246-247) still attributed to them the rule of God's Church. Indeed, the Vatican itself now denies that the proclamation of the Roman bishop's ordinary and immediate power of jurisdiction over the entire Church infringes the episcopal power. Be this as it may, from the proceedings of the council it altogether clearly transpires that all attempts to formulate some direct expression of the independency of the episcopate were quashed and thwarted. Inasmuch as the pope is here accredited with an episcopate the scope of which is universal, thus allowing him to act in every diocese at all times (wherein he assumes the right of the bishop in ordinary), the status of the diocesan bishop is reduced in power; and this the more because in the pope he has not only a collateral bishop, but also one who by his very position as occupant of the primacy, represents the source of all those vested rights which accrue to a bishop in virtue of episcopal function.
The second definition postulates the inerrancy of the pope's doctrinal decisions, and accordingly claims for them a binding force and lasting validity with reference to every Roman Catho8. Logic of lie Christian. The context of the pas-
Infalli- age defining infallibility implies thatbility. peters successors have no new commission in the way of disclosing a new doctrine, but rather are charged, under the assistance of the Holy Ghost, sacredly to preserve and faithfully to expound the revelation, or deposit of faith, as transmitted through the apostles. There is this further proviso involved, that the decision at issue must have proceeded ex cathedra, that is, in exercise of the pope's function as pastor and teacher of all Christians; it must contain some doctrine on faith or morals; and is defined as a doctrine to be observed by the entire ecumenical Church. But it is to be noted that marks are not given by which it can be certainly discerned, in a concrete instance, whether the inerring decision is present. The postulations in discussion are in only a very limited measure restrictions upon papal authority; for whether a decision belongs to the deposit of faith, falls to the province of faith or of morals, is ex cathedra, and what range of operation it shall enjoy all depend exclusively upon the pope's own construction. Nevertheless, the pope is bound to this extent, that, by the proclamation of his infallibility, all papal doctrinal decisions of past cen-
|
155 |
An important consequence of the erection of the dogma of papal infallibility is a fundamental alteration in the status of ecumenical councils. The de-
4. The mand urged at Constants (1414-18), Pope and that the general council be viewed as Councils. the exponent of the Church, did notwin, the conclusion being that this validity inhered in the council as convening in union . with the pope. The Vatican Council affirmed that ecumenical councils were employed by the Fathers for preparing definitions, but were not the sole medium to this intent. This verdict finds its foundation altogether in the fact that, under the conciliar definition of the new dogma, the quality of infallibility is ascribed to the pope alone. Accordingly, the ecumenical council has come to be superfluous in the matter of defining decrees of the faith; it has
lost its constitutive significance, and has become an advisory organ of the Church, one that in future may be drawn into requisition, but need not be called at all. So it no longer possesses any independent importance; but it has value to give brilliant and striking expression to the ecumenical character of Roman Catholicism, to attest before all nations the superior might of the papacy, or to assume a delegated responsibility for grave practical decisions and assist in bearing the brunt thereof.
3. Adoption of the Resolutions: It was only with reference to the bishops o_ the- council's minority that there could be any question as to whether the recognition of the new dogma would meet with. obstruction. At Rome they had boldly uttered their scruples, had freely criticized the order of business, and had not suffered themselves to be intimidated by the incident that the presidents of committees interrupted their addresses. The most serious menace to the free action of the council, however, arose from abroad through Ultramontaniat agitations. Archbishop Darboy and Archbishop Schwa;zenberg quite sharply complained over the intemperate animosity of the Ultramontanist press against the minority bishops. It lay far from the minority's purpose to wield a radical opposition. Indeed, their very weakness inhered in the fact that they themselves blunted the sharpness of their resistance by halting half-way. Alike from the platform of Holy Scripture, by appeal to the history of the Church, and with logical demonstration, they charged on their opponents with no feeble spirit. Every critical review of the Vatican dogma must avail itself of the minority's writings and speeches on the subject, which are a mine of erudite knowledge. Yet their deductions'are wanting in full carrying-power, because in their fundamental conception of the essence of the Church and of the Roman primacy they were at one with the majority. Hence the contest against the infallibility of the pope could be waged only with halved force. Then the battle was all the more difficult because Ultramontanism, and that enhanced esteem for the pope which rose to the height of a papal cult, had made great progress. Furthermore, when Pius IX., in the year 1854, defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, this already presupposed that he had the inherent right to establish a precept of faith. This being admitted, there arose at once a prejudice in favor o_ the Vatican's transactions thereafter. For assent to the course of action which the pope here initially pursued was admissible only under the condition that he had acted as a trustworthy organ of the inerrantly pronouncing Church in the sphere of faith and the issues thereof. But if this attribute were tacitly conceded to him in a specific instance, it was difficult to contest its immanency with him as a general principle. And, in fact, the greater proportion of the minority bishops shrank from any real quarrel with the doctrine of infallibility; they were willing to let it pass for a scholastic opinion, they objected merely to its dogmatization. So the opposition here at stake was greatly restricted in its practical force or scope of action. Indeed, the Curia correctly discounted the potential resistance. The protesting episcopate
|
156 |
IV. Concluding Remarks: The Council of the Vatican marks the beginning of a new period in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The power of the papacy became enhanced, and the process of centralizing the ecclesiastical administration at Rome has made still further progress. It was a peculiarly happy dispensation for the papacy, that immediately after the council's decrees were passed, the Italian unification movement put an end to the Papal States (q.v.), for thus it came about that Pope Pius IX. could enjoy the privileges of the martyrs, while for his successors the "Roman question" proved an agitation cause of the first rank, and an inexhaustible source of pious demonstrations, while above all the papacy was released from a task notoriously beyond its proper capacity. But now the Roman Catholic Church, as ruled by the infallible pope, has gained in point of solidity, unity, and compactness; the process of thoroughly Romanizing the inner life of the Church was lightened; and the same is true in the application of discipline. In short, the Roman Catholic commonwealth has been fundamentally strengthened. To all this be it added, that hitherto the papacy has wisely avoided stamping its decisions in particular concrete cases as of ex cathedra scope. On the political side purely, the council at first produced no further effect than that Austria, on July 30, 1870, "served notice" on the concordat of 1855 (see Concordats, etc., VI., 2, § 6). Later came the outbreak of the Prussian Kulturkampf, or ministerial conflict over issues between State and Church (see Ultramontanism). Finally, Roman Catholic France has in 1906 accomplished the separation of Church and State (see France, L, §§ 5-6).
The definition of the dogma of the universal episcopate, as a corollary to the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, has fairly closed the history of the growth and institution of the Vatican dogma. Since then, these doctrines belong to the sphere of revealed truths of the faith, and will never be revoked by the Roman Catholic Church; on the contrary, they will gain increasing appreciation. Nevertheless, it may be said of this dogma that its official reception alone does not afford it the full warrant of becoming respected and effectual for all times to the extent desired by the voting council. The history of dogma furnishes not a few examples of permutation and fluctuation, even downright depreciation, in the value of particular dogmas, though the fact of a virtual neglect of their inner substance does not necessarily result in their formal repeal or alteration.
Bibliography: Use as sources: Cotlectio Lacensis, vol. Vii., Freiburg, 1890; Janus, Der Papst und das Conch, Leipsic, 1889, Eng. transl., The Pope and the Council,
London, 1869; J. Friedrich, Documents ad illuatrandum Concilium Vaticanum, Nördlingen, 1871; idem, Tagebuch wdhrend des vatikanischen Konzila, ib. 1871; E. Friedberg, Sammluny der Aktenstitcke sum eraten vatikanischen Konzil, Tübingen, 1872; C. Martin, Omnium Concilii Vatican% . . . documentorum colledio, Paderborn, 1873; Vatican Council, Decrees of, ed. with Introduction by V. J. McNabb, London, 1907; Pomponio Leto, Otto meal a Roma durante it Concilio Vaticano, Florence, 1873; T. Granderath, Conalitutionea dogmaEico; . . Concalii Yatieani, Freiburg, 1892; Mirbt, Quellen, 3d ad., pp. 858-867; Quirinus, Römische Briefs vom Conch, Munich, 1870. Eng. transl., Letters from Rome on the Council, London, 1870: L. Veuillot, Rome pendant Is concile, 2 vols., Paris, 1872.
For the history and significance of the council consult: J. Friedrich, Geschichte des vaticanischen Konzile, 3 vote.. Bonn, 1877-87 (moat comprehensive); T. Granderath. Geschichte des vatikanischen Konsils, 3 vols.. Freiburg , 1903-06 (employed the complete records of the council: cf. C. Mirbt, in Historische Zeitschrift, ci., 1908, pp. 629-600): F. Bungener, Rome and the Council in the 19th Century. Edinburgh, 1870;, J. Fesaler, Dar vaticanische Concilium, desaen tiuasere Bedeutung and innerer YerlauJ, Vienna. 1871; J. F. von Schulte, Die Macht der römischen Päpste, 2d ed., Prague, 1871; idem, Die Stellung der Concilien, Päpste, and Bischbfe und die papstliche Constitution vom 18. Juli, 1870, ib. 1871; T. Fromman, Geschichte und Kritik des vaticanischen Concils, Gotha, 1872; J. Langen, Das vat4kanische Dogma von dem Universal-Episkopat, 4 parts, Bonn, 1876; H. E. Manning, True Story of the Vatican Council, London, 1877; idem, Vatican Council and its Definitions, ib: 1887; It. Ollivier, L'hgliae et Z'&at au concile du Vatican, 2 vols., Paris, 1879; E. Ceeconi, Hist. du conc4le du Vatican, 4 vols.. Paris. 1887; J. J. I. von Döllinger, Briefs and ErkL&rungen über die vaticanischen Decrete, 1869-87. 2 parts, Munich, 1890, Eng. transl., Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees, 1869 87, Edinburgh, 1891; and his other writings (see the article); J. M. L. Monsabr5, ConJ_rencea de Notre Dame. Concdle et jubil6, Paris, 1890; H. Sauv6, Le Pape et Is concile du Vatican, Laval, 1890; T. Mozley, Letters from Rome on the Occasion of the ecumenical Council, 1889-70, 2 vols., London, 1891; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neueaten Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii., Elberfeld, 1893; J. M. A. Vacant, -Otudea our les constitutions du concile du Vatican, 2 vols., Paris, 1895; Ti. Sell. Die Entwackelung der katholischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, Leipsic, 1898; w. Arthur, The Pope, the Kings, and the People. Hist. . of the Vatican Council, London, 1903; A. Machines, Dies. Los sacrosanctos ecum6nicoa Concilios de Trento y Vaticano, Madrid, 1903; C. S. Isaacson, The Story of the Later Popes, pp. 265-277, London, 1906; F. Nielsen, Hist. of Papacy in 19th Century, ii. 290-374, London, 1906;' G. Bartoli, The Primitive Church and the Primacy of Rome, pp. 266 sqq.; New York (1910); Cambridge Modern History, 92 sqq., 147 sqq., New York, 1910; Nippold, Papacy, chap. s.; the literature under Infallibility, especially the works of Friedrich, Maret, liefele, Döllinger, and Gladstone; also the literature under Ultramontanism; and Pius IX.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |  |