Vatican Council

The Vatican Council, the twentieth and up to now [1912] the last ecumenical

council, opened on 8 December, 1869, and adjourned on 20 October, 1870. It

met three hundred years after the Council of Trent.

I. INTRODUCTORY HISTORY

A. Previous to the Official Convocation

On 6 December, 1864, two days before the publication of the Syllabus, Pius IX

announced, at a session of the Congregation of Rites, his intention to call a

general council. He commissioned the cardinals residing at Rome to express in

writing their views as to the opportuneness of the scheme, and also to name the

subjects which, in their opinion, should be laid before the council for discussion.

Of the twenty-one reports sent in, only one, that of Cardinal Pentini, expressed

the opinion that there was no occasion for the holding of an ecumenical council.

The others affirmed the relative necessity of such an assembly, although five did

not consider the time suitable. Nearly all sent lists of questions that seemed to

need conciliar discussion. Early in March, 1865, the pope appointed a

commission of five cardinals to discuss preliminary questions in regard to the

council. This was the important "Congregazione speziale direttrice per gli affari

del futuro concilio generale", generally called the directing preparatory

commission, or the central commission. Four more cardinals were added to the

number of its members, and besides a secretary it was given eight consultors. It

held numerous meetings in the interval between 9 March, 1865, and Dec., 1869.

Its first motion was that bishops of various countries should also be called upon

for suggestions as to matters for discussion, and on 27 March, 1865, the pope

commanded thirty-six bishops of the Latin Rite designated by him to express

their views under pledge of silence. Early in 1866 he also designated several

bishops of the Oriental Rite under the same conditions. It was now necessary to

form commissions for the more thorough discussion of the subjects to be

debated at the council. Accordingly, theologians and canonists, belonging to the

secular and regular clergy, were summoned to Rome from the various countries

to co-operate in the work. As early as 1865 the nuncios were asked to suggest

names of suitable people for these preliminary commissions. The war between

Austria and Italy in 1866 and the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome on

11 Dec. of the same year caused an unwelcome interruption of the preparatory

labours. They also made the original plan, which was to open the council on the

eighteenth centenary festiva of the martyrdom of the two great Apostles, 29 June,

1867, impossible. However, the pope made use of the presence at Rome of

nearly five hundred bishops, who had come to attend the centennial celebration,

to make the first public announcement of the council at a consistory held on 26

June, 1867. The bishops expressed their agreement with joy in an address dated

1 July. After the return of the French army of protection on 30 Oct., 1867, the

continuance of the preparations and the holding of the council itself seemed

again possible. The preparatory commission now debated exhaustively the

question who should be invited to attend the council. That the cardinals and

diocesan bishops should be summoned was self-evident. It was also decided

that the titular bishops had the right to be called, and that of the heads of the

orders an invitation should be given to the abbots nullius, the abbots general of

congregations formed from several monasteries, and lastly, to the generals of the

religious orders. It was considered wiser, on account of the state of affairs at the

time, not to send an actual invitation to Catholic princes, yet it was intended to

grant admission to them or their representatives on demand. In this sense,

therefore, the Bull of Convocation, "Æterni Patris", was promulgated, 29 June,

1868; it appointed 8 Dec., 1869, as the date for the opening of the council. The

objects of the council were to be the correction of modern errors and a

seasonable revision of the legislation of the Church. A special Brief, "Arcano

divinæ providentiæ", of 8 Sept., 1868 invited non-Uniate Orientals to appear. A

third Brief, "Jam vos omnes", of 13 Sept., 1868, notified Protestants also of the

convoking of the council, and exhorted them to use the occasion to reflect on the

return to the one household of faith.

B. Reception of the Promulgation

Although the Bull convoking the council was received with joy by the bulk of the

Catholic masses, it aroused much discontent in many places, especially in

Germany, France, and England. In these countries it was feared that the council

would promulgate an exact determination of the primatial prerogatives of the

papacy and the definition of papal infallibility. The dean of the theological faculty

of Paris, Bishop Maret, wrote in opposition to these doctrines the work "Du

concile générale et de la paix religieuse" (2 vols., Paris 1869). Bishop Dupanloup

of Orléans published the work "Observations sur la controverse soulevée

relativement à la définition de l infaillibilité au prochain concile" (Paris, Nov.,

1869). Maret's work was answered by several French bishops and by Archbishop

Manning. Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin, Belgium, who had written a work in

favour of the definition entitled "L infaillibilité et le concile générale" (Paris, 1869),

became involved in a controversy with Dupanloup. In England a book entitled

"The Condemnation of Pope Honorius" (London, 1868), written by the convert, Le

Page Renouf, aroused animated discussions in newspapers and periodicals.

Renouf's publication was refuted by Father Botalla, S.J., in "Honorius

Reconsidered with Reference to Recent Apologies" (London, 1869). Letters from

French correspondents in the first number for Feb., 1869, of the "Civiltà

Cattolica", which stated that the majority of French Catholics desired the

declaration of infallibility, added fresh fuel to the flames. In particular, it led to the

appearance in the discussion of Ignaz Döllinger, provost of St. Cajetan and

professor of church history at Munich. From now onwards Döllinger was the

leading spirit of the movement in Germany hostile to the council. He disputed

most passionately the Syllabus and the doctrine of papal infallibility in five

anonymous articles that were published in March, 1869, in the "Allgemeine

Zeitung" of Augsburg. A large number of Catholic scholars opposed him

vigorously, especially after he published his articles in book form under the

pseudonym of "Janus", "Der Papst und das Konzil" (Leipzig, 1869). Among

these was Professor Joseph Hergenröther of Würzburg, who issued in reply

"Anti-Janus" (Freiburg, 1870). Still the excitement over the matter grew in such

measure that fourteen of the twenty-two German bishops who met at Fulda early

in Sept., 1869, felt themselves constrained to call the attention of the Holy Father

to it in a special address, stating that on account of the excitement the time was

not opportune for defining papal infallibility. The papal notifications addressed to

the schismatic Orientals and the Protestants did not produce the desired effect.

The European Governments received from Prince Hohenlohe, president of the

Bavarian ministry, a circular letter drawn up by Döllinger, designed to prejudice

the different Courts against the coming council; but they decided to remain

neutral for the time being. Russia alone forbade its Catholic bishops to attend the

council.

C. Preparatory Details

In the meantime zealous work had been done at Rome in preparation for the

council. Besides the general direction that it exercised, the preparatory

commission had to draw up an exhaustive order of procedure for the debates of

the council. Five special committees, each presided over by a cardinal and

having together eighty-eight consultors, prepared the plan (schemata) to be laid

before the council. These committees were appointed to consider respectively:

dogma;

church discipline;

orders;

Oriental Churches and missions;

ecclesiastico-political questions.

It may justly be doubted whether the preliminary preparations for any council had

ever been made more thoroughly, or more clearly directed to the aim to be

attained. As the day of its opening approached, the following drafts were ready

for discussion:

three great dogmatic drafts, (a) on the Catholic doctrine in opposition to

the errors which frequently spring from Rationalism, (b) on the Church of

Christ and, (c) on Christian marriage;

twenty-eight drafts treating matters of church discipline. They had

reference to bishops, episcopal sees, the different grades of the other

clergy seminaries, the arrangement of philosophical and theological

studies, sermons, the catechism, rituals, impediments to marriage, civil

marriage, mixed marriages, improvement of Christian morals, feast days,

fasts and abstinences, duelling, magnetism, spiritualism, secret

societies, etc.;

eighteen drafts of decrees had reference to the religious orders;

two were on the Oriental Rites and missions; these subjects had also

been considered in the other drafts of decrees.

In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the

bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church

provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to

marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of

the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated,

among other things, the relations between Church and State religious

indifference, secret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. The definition of this

last was demanded by various bishops. Others desired a revision of the index of

forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred

signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed

Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St.

Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church.

II. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL

A. Presiding Officers, Order of Procedure, Number of Members

On 2 Dec., 1869, the pope held a preliminary session in the Sistine Chapel,

which was attended by about five hundred bishops. At this assembly the officials

of the council were announced and the conciliar procedure was made known. The

council received five presidents. The Chief presiding officer was to have been

Cardinal Reisach, but as he died on 22 Dec., Cardinal Filippo de Angelis took his

place, 3 Jan., 1870. The other presiding officers were Cardinals Antonio de Luca,

Andrea Bizarri, Aloisio Bilio, and Annibale Capalti. Bishop Joseph Fessler of

Sankt Pölten, Lower Austria, was secretary to the council, and Monsignor Luigi

Jacobi under-secretary. The Constitution "Multiplices inter" announcing the

conciliar procedure contained ten paragraphs. According to this the sessions of

the council were to be of two kinds: private sessions for discussing the drafts and

motions, under the presidency of a cardinal president, and public sessions,

presided over by the pope himself for the promulgation of the decrees of the

council. The first drafts of decrees debated were to be the dogmatic and

disciplinary ones laid before the assembly by the pope. Proposals offered by

members of the council were to be sent to a congregation of petitions; these

petitions or postulates were to be examined by the committee and then

recommended to the pope for admission or not. If the draft of a decree was found

by the general congregation to need amendments, it was sent with the proposed

amendments to the respective sub-committee or deputatio, either to the one for

dogmas or for discipline, or religious orders, or for Oriental Rites. Each of these

four sub-committees or deputations was to consist of twenty-four persons

selected from the members of the council, and a cardinal president appointed by

the pope. The deputation examined the proposed amendments, altered the draft

as seemed best, and presented to the general congregation a printed report on

its work that was to be orally explained by a member of the deputation. This

procedure was to continue until the draft met with the approval of the majority.

The voting in the congregation was by placet, placet juxta modum (with the

corresponding amendments), and non placet. Secrecy was to be observed in

regard to the proceedings of the council. In the public sessions the voting could

only be by placet or non placet. The Decrees promulgated by the pope were to

bear the title, "Pius Episcopus, servus servorum Dei: sacro approbante Concilio

ad perpetuam rei memoriam". The northern right transept of St. Peter's was

arranged as the hall of sessions. Between 8 Dec., 1869, and 1 Sept., 1870, four

public sessions and eighty-nine general congregations were held here. There

were in the entire world approximately one thousand and fifty prelates entitled to

take part in the council, and of these no less than seven hundred and

seventy-four appeared during the course of the proceedings. In attendance at the

first public session were 47 cardinals, 9 patriarchs, 7 primates, 117 archbishops,

479 bishops, 5 abbots nullius, 9 abbots general, and 25 generals of orders,

making a total of 698. At the third public session votes were cast by 47

cardinals, 9 patriarchs, 8 primates, 107 archbishops, 456 bishops, 1

administrator Apostolic, 20 abbots, and 20 generals of orders, a total of 667.

There was an attendance at the council from the United States of America of all

of the 7 archbishops of that time, 37 of the 47 bishops, and in addition 2 vicars

Apostolic. The oldest member of the council was Archbishop MacHale, of Tuam,

Ireland; the youngest, Bishop (now Cardinal) Gibbons.

B. From the Formal Opening to the Definition of the Constitution on the

Catholic Faith in the Third Public Session

(1) The First Debates

After the formal opening of the council by the pope at the first public session on 8

Dec., 1869, the meetings of the general congregation began on 10 Dec. Their

sessions were generally held between the hours of nine and one. The afternoons

were reserved for the sessions of the deputations or sub-committees. First, the

names of the members of the congregation of petitions were communicated; this

was followed by the elections to the four deputations. The first matter brought up

for debate was the dogmatic draft of Catholic doctrine against the manifold errors

due to Rationalism, "De doctrina catholica contra multiplices errores ex

rationalismo derivatos". The discussion of it was taken up on 28 Dec. in the

fourth general congregation. After a debate lasting seven days, during which

thirty-five members spoke, it was sent by the tenth general congregation held on

10 Jan., 1870, to the deputation on faith for revision. There had been held in the

meantime on 6 Jan. the second public session. This had been previously

determined upon, on 26 Oct., 1869, by the central commission for the making of

the confession of faith by the members of the council. The subjects discussed

from the tenth to the twenty-ninth meeting of the general congregation (on 22

Feb.) were the drafts of four disciplinary decrees, namely, on bishops, on vacant

episcopal sees, on the morals of ecclesiastics, and on the smaller Catechism.

Finally they were all sent for further revision to the deputation on discipline.

(2) The Parties

Such slow progress of the work had probably not been expected. The reason of

the disagreeable delay was to be found in the question of infallibility, which had

called forth much excitement even before the council. Directly after the opening

of the session its influence was evident in the election of the deputations. It

divided the fathers of the council into two, it might almost be said hostile camps;

on all occasions the decisions and modes of action of each of these parties were

determined by its attitude to this question. On account of the violent disputes

which had been carried on everywhere for the past year over the question of papal

infallibility the overwhelming majority considered the conciliar discussion and

decision of the question to be imperatively necessary. On the other hand the

minority, comprising about one-fifth of the total number, feared the worst from the

definition, the apostasy of many wavering Catholics, an increased estrangement

of those separated from the Church, and interference with the affairs of the

Church by the Governments of the different countries. The minority, therefore,

allowed itself to be guided by opportunist considerations. Only a few bishops

appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. Both parties sought to gain the

victory for their opinions. As however the minority was soon obliged to recognize

its powerlessness, it endeavoured by protracting the discussions of the council

at least to delay, or even to prevent, a decision as long as possible. Most of the

German and Austro-Hungarian members of the council were against the

definition, as well as nearly half of the American and about one-third of the

French fathers. About 7 of the Italian bishops, 2 each of the English and Irish

bishops, 3 bishops from British North America, and 1 Swiss bishop, Greith,

belonged to the minority. While only a few Armenian bishops opposed the

definition, most of the Chaldean and Greek Melchites sided with the minority. It

had no opponents among the bishops from Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland,

and Central and South America. The most prominent members of the minority

from the United States were Archbishops Kenrick of St. Louis and Purcell of

Cincinnati, and Bishop Vérot of St. Augustine; these were joined by Archbishop

Connolly of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Prominent members of the majority were

Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore, Bishops Williams of Boston, Wood of

Philadelphia, and Conroy of Albany.

Conspicuous members of the council from other countries were: France: among

the minority, Archbishops Darboy of Paris, Ginoulhiac of Lyons, Bishops

Dupanloup of Orléans, and David of Saint-Brieuc; among the majority,

Archbishop Guibert of Tours, Bishops Pie of Poitiers, Freppel of Angers, Plantier

of Nîmes, Raess of Strasburg. Germany: minority Bishops Hefele of Rottenburg,

Ketteler of Mainz, Dinkel of Augsburg; majority, Bishops Martin of Paderborn,

Senestréy of Ratisbon, Stahl of Würzburg. Austria Hungary: minority,

Archbishops Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague,

Haynald of Kalocsa, and Bishop Strossmayer of Diakovar; majority, Bishops

Gasser of Brixen, Fessler of Sankt Pölten, Riccabona of Trent, Zwerger of

Seckau. Italy: minority, Archbishop Nazari di Calabiana of Milan, Bishops

Moreno of Ivrea, Losanna of Biella; majority, Valerga, Latin Patriarch of

Jerusalem, Bishops Gastaldi of Saluzzo, Gandolfi of Loreto. England: minority,

Bishop Clifford of Clifton; majority, Archbishop Manning of Westminster. Ireland:

minority, Archbishop MacHale of Tuam; majority, Archbishops Cullen of Dublin

and Leahy of Cashel. The East: minority, Jussef, Greek-Melchite Patriarch of

Antioch; majority, Hassun, Patriarch of the Armenians. Switzerland: minority,

Bishop Greith of St-Gall; majority, Bishop Mermillod of Geneva. Important

champions of the definition from the countries which sent no members of the

minority were Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin, Belgium, and Bishop Payà y

Rico of Cuenca, Spain.

(3) Change of Procedure: the Hall of Assembly Reduced in Size

Various memorials were now sent the Holy Father petitioning for new rules of

debate for the sake of a corresponding progress in the proceedings of the

council. Consequently, the conciliar procedure was more exactly defined by the

Decree "Apostolicis litteris", issued on 20 Feb., 1870. According to this Decree,

any member of the council who wished to raise an objection to the draft under

discussion was to send in his proposed amendments in writing, in order that they

might be thoroughly considered by the respective deputation. In the general

congregation the discussion of a draft as a whole was always to precede the

discussion of the individual parts of the draft of a decree. The members of a

deputation received the right to speak in explanation or correction when not on

the list of speakers. Speakers who wandered from the subject were to be called

back to it. If a subject had been sufficiently debated the president, on the motion

of at least ten members of the council, could put the question whether the

council desired to continue the discussion or not, and then close the debate at

the wish of the majority. Although these rules made for an evident improvement,

still the minority was not satisfied with them, especially in so far as they

contemplated a possible shortening of the debates. They expressed their

dissatisfaction in several petitions which, however, had no success. On the other

hand, every effort was made to satisfy another complaint which had reference to

the bad acoustics of the council hail. Between 22 Feb. and 18 March, that is

between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth sessions of the general congregation, the

council hall was reduced about one-third in size for the use of the general

congregations, so that the fathers who were thus brought closer together could

understand the speakers better. The hall was restored to its original size for each

of the public sessions.

(4) Completion of the First Constitution

The interruption thus caused was used by the deputation on Faith to revise the

draft of the Decree "De doctrina catholica" in accordance with the wishes of the

general congregation. On 1 March, Bishop Martin of Paderborn laid before the

deputation the first part of the revision, the work of Father Joseph Kleutgen, S.J.

It consisted of an introduction and four chapters with the corresponding canons.

After an exhaustive discussion in the deputation, it was ready to be distributed to

the fathers of the council on 14 March as the actual "Constitutio de fide

catholica". A report in writing was also added by the deputation. Archbishop

Simor of Gran gave the oral report on 18 March in the thirtieth general

congregation. The debate began on the same day, and was closed after

seventeen sessions on 19 April, in the forty-sixth general congregation. Over

three hundred proposed amendments were brought up and discussed. Although

many objections were made by both sides, yet the new rules of procedure made

possible a relatively smooth course to the debates. The only disturbing incident

was the passionate speech of Bishop Strossmayer of Diakovár on 22 March in

the thirty-first general congregation; it called forth a storm of indignation from the

majority, which finally forced the speaker to leave the tribune. On 24 April, the

first Constitution, "De fide catholica", was unanimously adopted in the third

public session by the 667 fathers present, and was formally confirmed and

promulgated by the pope.

C. The Question of Papal Infallibility

(1) Motions calling for and opposing Definition

The opponents of infallibility constantly assert that the pope convoked the council

of the Vatican solely to have papal infallibility proclaimed. Everything else was

merely an excuse and for the sake of appearances. This assertion contradicts

the actual facts. Not a single one of the numerous drafts drawn up by the

preparatory commission bore on papal infallibility. Only two of the twenty-one

opinions sent in by the Roman cardinals mentioned it. It is true that a large

number of the episcopal memorials recommended the definition, but these were

not taken into consideration in the preparations for the council. It was not until

the contest over papal infallibility outside of the council grew constantly more

violent that various groups of members of the council began to urge conciliar

discussion of the question of infallibility. The first motion for the definition was

made on Christmas, 1869, by Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin. He was

supported by all the other Belgian bishops, who presented a formal opinion of the

University of Louvain, which culminated in a petition for the definition. The actual

petition for the definition was first circulated among the fathers of the council on

New Year's Day, 1870. Several petitions from smaller groups also appeared, and

the petitions soon received altogether five hundred signatures, although quite a

number of the friends of the definition were not among the number of subscribers.

Five opposing memorials circulated by the minority finally obtained 136 names.

Upon this, early in Feb., the congregation for petitions unanimously, with

exception of Cardinal Rauscher, requested the pope to consider the petition for

definition. Pius IX was also in favour of the definition. Therefore on 6 March, the

draft of the Decree on the Church of Christ, which had been distributed among

the fathers on 21 Jan., was given a new twelfth chapter entitled "Romanum

Pontificem in rebus fidei et morum definiendis errare non posse" (The Roman

Pontiff cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals). With this the matter

dropped again in the council.

(2) The Agitation Outside the Council

The petitions concerning infallibility called forth once more outside the council a

large number of pamphlets and innumerable articles in the daily papers and

periodicals. About this time the French Oratorian Gratry and Archbishop

Dechamps of Mechlin opposed each other in controversial pamphlets. A letter

published by Count Montalembert on 27 Feb., 1870, in which he spoke of an idol

which had been erected in the Vatican, attracted much attention. In England,

Newman gave anxious expression of his fears as to the bad results of the

declaration of infallibility in a letter written in March, 1870, to his bishop,

Ullathorne of Birmingham. The most extreme opponent was Professor Döllinger

of Bavaria. In his "Römische Briefe vom Konzil" , published in the "Allgemeine

Zeitung" and issued in book form (Munich, 1870), under the pseudonym of

"Quirinus", he used information sent him from Rome by his pupils, Johann

Friedrich and Lord Acton. In these letters he did everything he could by distorting

and casting doubts upon facts, by scorn and ridicule, to turn the public against

the council. This was especially so in an article of 19 Jan., 1870, in which he

attacked so severely the address on infallibility, which had just become known,

that even Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, an old pupil of Döllinger's and a member of

the minority, protested publicly against it. The Governments of the different

countries also took measures on the subject of infallibility. As soon as the

original draft of the decree "De ecclesia" with its canons was published in the

"Allgemeine Zeitung", Count von Beust, Chancellor of Austria, sent a protest

against it to Rome on 10 Feb., 1870, which said that the Austrian Government

would forbid and punish the publication of all decrees that were contrary to the

laws of the State. The French minister of foreign affairs, Daru, also sent a

threatening memorandum on 20 Feb. He demanded the admission of an envoy to

the council, and notified the other Governments of his steps in Rome. Austria,

Bavaria, England, Spain and Portugal declared their agreement with the

memorandum. The president of the Prussian ministry, Bismarck, would not

change his attitude of reserve, notwithstanding the urgency of von Arnim, the

ambassador at Rome. On 18 April, the leader of the agitation, Count Daru, retired

from his post in the ministry. The president of the French ministry, Ollivier,

assumed charge of foreign affairs; he was determined to leave the council free.

(3) The Debates in the Council

In the meantime the bishops of the minority in the council had constantly sought

to block the matter, and especially to exert influence to this end on Cardinal

Bilio, the president of the deputation on faith. If the members of the majority had

not urged the fulfilment with the same perseverance, papal infallibility would never

have reached debate. Finally, on 29 April, during the forty-seventh general

congregation, the president interrupted the second debate on the smaller

Catechism by the announcement that as soon as possible the fathers should

receive for examination the draft of a Constitution, "De Romano Pontifice" which

would contain the dogma of the primacy and of the infallibility of the pope. For

this purpose the deputation on faith had altered the eleventh and twelfth chapters

of the old draft of the Constitution "De ecclesia". On 9 May it was distributed

among the fathers in printed form as the "Constitutio prima de ecclesia",

consisting of 4 chapters and 3 canons. For a full month (13 May 13 June) the

general debate over the draft as a whole was carried on in fourteen general

congregations, and sixty-four, mostly very long, speeches were delivered. The

following special debates over the separate chapters and canons lasted more

than a month. Not less than a hundred speakers took part in the discussions,

which were carried on from 6 June to 13 July, in 22 congregations. Most of the

speeches were on the fourth chapter, which treated papal infallibility. The most

prominent speakers of the minority were: French; Darboy, Ginoulhiac, Maret;

German; Hefele, Ketteler, Dinkel; Austrian; Raucher, Schwarzenberg,

Strossmayer; United States of America and Canada; Vérot and Connolly.

Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, who lost his opportunity to speak by the closing

of the general debate, published in pamphlet form his "Concio in concilio

habenda, at non habita". On the other hand the conciliar speech published under

the name of Bishop Strossmayer is a forgery perpetrated by an apostate

Augustinian monk from Mexico, José Agostino de Escudero, who was then in

Italy (cf. Granderath- Kirch III, 189). The majority were chiefly represented by the

French members of the council; Pie and Freppel; the Belgian member,

Dechamps; the English member, Manning; the Irish, Cullen; the Italian members,

Gastaldi and Valerga; the Spanish member, Paya y Rico; the Austrian, Gasser;

the German members, Martin and Senestrey; the American member, Spalding.

Several members of the minority as Kenrick, Bauseher, Hefele, Schwarzenberg,

and Ketteler, discussed the question of infallibility in pamphlets that they

individually issued, to which naturally the majority were not slow to reply. The

most important of these answers was the "Animadversiones of the conciliar

theologian, W. Wilmers, S.J., in which the writings of the last four of the

antagonists just mentioned were, in succession, thoroughly confuted. Scarcely

in any parliament have important matters ever been subjected to as much

discussion as was the question of papal infallibility in the Vatican Council in the

course of two months all the reasons pro and con had been again and again

discussed, and only what had been already often said could now be repeated.

Consequently in the eighty-second general congregation held on 4 July, most of

those who still had the right to speak, not only of the majority, but also of the

minority, renounced the privilege, and the cardinal president was able, amid

general applause, to close the debates.

(4) Final Voting and Definition

The time of the eighty-third, eighty-fourth, and eighty-fifth general congregations

was almost entirely occupied with the reports of the deputation on faith

concerning the last two chapters. The report of Prince Bishop Gasser on the

fourth chapter was a very notable one. In the eighty-fifth general congregation

held on 13 July a general vote was taken on the entire draft. There were present

601 fathers. Of these 451 voted placet, 62 placet juxta modum (conditional

affirmative), 88 non placet. Of the North American bishops only 7 voted non

placet; these were Kenrick, Vérot, Domenec, Fitzgerald, MacQuaid,

MacCloskey, and Mrac. Bishop Fitzgerald still voted non placet in the fourth

public session, while on this occasion Bishop Domenec voted placet. The other

five did not attend this session. In the eighty-sixth general congregation the

fathers condemned, on the motion of the president, two anonymous pamphlets

which calumniated the council in the coarsest manner. One, entitled "Ce qui se

passe au Concile", culminated in the assertion that there was no freedom of

discussion at the council. The other, "La dernière heure du Concile", repeated all

the accusations that the enemies of the council had raised against it, and

exhorted the bishops of the minority to stand firm and courageously vote non

placet in the public session. On account of the war which threatened to break out

between Germany and France, a number of fathers of both opinions had returned

home. Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of

the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council.

They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its

definition as inopportune. On Monday, 18 July, 1870, one day before the

outbreak of the Franco-German War, 435 fathers of the council assembled at St.

Peter's under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken; 433

fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and

Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas, voted non placet. During the

proceedings a thunderstorm broke over the Vatican, and amid thunder and

lightning the pope promulgated the new dogma, like a Moses promulgating the

law on Mount Sinai.

D. The Council from the Fourth Public Session until the Prorogation

At the close of the eighty-fifth general congregation a "Monitum" was read which

announced that the council would be continued without interruption after the

fourth public session. Still, the members received a general permission to leave

Rome for some months. They had only to notify the secretary in writing of their

departure. By 11 Nov., St. Martin's day, all were to be back again. So many of

the fathers made use of this permission that only a few more than 100 remained

at Rome. Naturally these could not take up any new questions. Consequently

the draft of the decree on vacant episcopal sees, which had been amended in the

meantime by the deputation of discipline, was again brought forward, and

debated in three further general congregations. The eighty- ninth, which was also

to be the last, was held on 1 Sept. On 8 Sept. the Piedmontese troops entered

the States of the Church at several points; on Tuesday, 20 Sept., a little before

eight o clock in the morning,, the enemy entered Rome through the Porta Pia.

The pope was a prisoner in the Vatican. He waited a month longer. He then

issued on 20 Oct. the Bull, "Postquam Dei munere", which prorogued the council

indefinitely. This day was the day after a Piedmontese decree had been issued

organizing the Patrimony of Peter as a Roman province. A circular letter issued

by the Italian minister, Visconti Venosta, on 22 Oct., to assure the council of the

freedom of meeting, naturally met with no credence. A very remarkable letter was

sent from London on the same day by Archbishop Spalding to Cardinal Barnabo,

prefect of the Propaganda at Rome. In this letter he made the proposition, which

met the approval of Cardinal Cullen, Archbishop Manning, and Archbishop

Dechamps, to continue the council in the Belgian city of Mechlin, and gave ten

reasons why this city seemed suitable for such sessions. Unfortunately the

general condition of affairs was such that a continuation of the council even at the

most suitable place could not be thought of.

III. ACCEPTANCE OF THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

After the council had made its decision everyone naturally looked with interest to

those members of the minority who had maintained their opposition to the

definition of infallibility up to the last moment. Would they recognize the decision

of the council, or, as the enemies of the council desired would they persist in

their opposition? As a matter of fact, not a single one of them was disloyal to his

sacred duties. As long as the discussions lasted they expressed their views

freely and without molestation, and sought to carry them into effect. After the

decision, without exception, they came over to it, The two bishops who on 18

July had voted non placet advanced to the papal throne at the same session and

acknowledged their acceptance of the truth thus defined. The Bishop of Little

Rock said simply and with true greatness, "Holy Father, now I believe." It is not

possible in this brief space to mention the accession of each member of the

minority. As concerns the members from North America who are of special

interest here, Bishop Vérot of St. Augustine gave his adhesion to the dogma

while still at Rome in a letter addressed on 25 July to the secretary of the

council. Bishop Mrac of Sault-Saint-Marie sent his declaration of adherence at

the latest by Jan., 1872. A year later Bishop Domenec of Pittsburgh did the

same. In 1875 Bishop MacQuaid of Rochester, if not earlier, announced his

adherence to the dogma by its formal and public promulgation. When Archbishop

Kenrick of St. Louis returned to his diocese on 30 Dec., 1870, he made an

address at the reception given him, in which he first gave the reasons that had

decided his position at the council as long, as the question was open to

discussion, and then closed with the declaration that, now the council had

decided, he submitted unconditionally to its decree. He expressed himself

similarly in a letter of 13 Jan., 1871, to the prefect of the Propaganda. When Lord

Acton questioned the archbishop in regard to his submission, the latter replied

by a long letter dated 29 March, 1871, which shows, it may be, a certain

discontent, but which clearly confirmed his belief in the infallibility of the pope. In

the same way the distinguished Frenchmen and Englishmen who, outside of the

council, had expressed opinions antagonistic to the promulgation of infallibility,

ee.g. Gratry, Newman, Montalembert, and finally, as it appears, Acton, also

submitted after the decision had been made. On the other hand, in Germany a

number of Professor Döllinger's adherents apostatised from the Church and

formed the sect of Old Catholics. Döllinger also apostatized, without, however,

connecting himself with any other denomination. In Switzerland the opponents of

the council united in a sect called Christian Catholics. Outside of these, however

the Catholics of the entire world, both clergy and laity, accepted the decision of

the council with great joy and readiness. After the close of the Franco-German

War the German Government made the dogma of infallibility the excuse for what

is called the Kulturkampf. Yet the bishops and priests were ready to bear loss of

property, imprisonment, and exile rather than be disloyal to any part of their

ecclesiastical duties. The Austrian Government took the opportunity offered by

the definition to relieve itself from uncomfortable obligations, and declared that,

as the other contracting party had changed, the Concordat with the Roman See

was annulled. Excepting in a few Swiss cantons, the promulgation of the

decision of the council did not encounter any actual difficulties elsewhere.

IV. THE RESULTS

In comparison with the large scope of the preparations for the council, and with

the great amount of material laid before it for discussion in the numerous drafts

and proposals, the immediate result of its labours must be called small. But the

council was only in its beginnings when the outbreak of war brought it to a

sudden close. It is also true as is known, that reasons within the council

prevented a larger result from its sessions. Thus it was that in the end only two

not very large Constitutions could be promulgated. If, however, the contents of

these two constitutions be examined their great importance is unmistakable. The

contents meet in a striking manner the needs of the times.

A. The dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith defends the fundamental

principles of Christianity against the errors of modern Rationalism, Materialism,

and atheism. In the first chapter it maintains the doctrine of the existence of a

personal God, Who of His own free volition for the revelation of His perfection, has

created all things out of nothing, Who foresees all things, even the future free

actions of reasonable creatures, and Who through His Providence leads all

things to the intended end. The second chapter treats the natural and

supernatural knowledge of God. It then declares that God, the beginning and end

of all things can also be known with certainty by the natural light of reason. It

then treats the actuality and necessity of a supernatural revelation, of the two

sources of Revelation, Scripture and tradition, of the inspiration and interpretation

of the Holy Scriptures. The third chapter treats the supernatural virtue of faith, its

reasonableness supernaturalness, and necessity, the possibility and actuality of

miracles as a confirmation of Divine Revelation; and lastly, the founding of the

Catholic Church by Jesus Christ as the Guardian and Herald of revealed truth.

The fourth chapter contains the doctrine, especially important to-day, on the

connection between faith and reason. The mysteries of faith cannot, indeed, be

fully grasped by natural reason, but revealed truth can never contradict the

positive results of the investigation of reason. Contrariwise, however, every

assertion is false that contradicts the truth of enlightened faith. Faith and true

learning are not in hostile opposition; they rather support each other in many

ways. Yet faith is not the same as a philosophical system of teaching that has

been worked out and then turned over to the human mind to be further developed,

but it has been entrusted as a Divine deposit to the Church for protection and

infallible interpretation. When, therefore, the Church explains the meaning of a

dogma this interpretation is to be maintained in all future time, and it can never

be deviated from under pretence of a more profound investigation. At the close of

the Constitution the opposing heresies are rejected in eighteen canons.

B. The other dogmatic Constitution is of equal, if not greater, importance; it is the

first on the Church of Christ, or, as it is also called in reference to its contents,

on the Pope of Rome. "The introduction to the Constitution says that the primacy

of the Roman pontiff, on which the unity, strength, and stability of the entire

Church rests, has always been, and is especially now, the object of violent

attacks by the enemies of the Church. Therefore the doctrine of its origin,

constant permanence, and nature must be clearly set forth and established,

above all on account of the opposing errors. Thus the first chapter treats of the

establishment of the Apostolic primacy in the popes of Rome. Each chapter

closes with a canon against the opposing dogmatic opinion. The most important

matter of the Constitution is the last two chapters. In the third chapter the

meaning and nature of the primacy are set forth in clear words. The primacy of

the Pope of Rome is no mere precedence of honour. On the contrary, the pope

possesses the primacy of regularly constituted power over all other Churches,

and the true, direct, episcopal power of jurisdiction, in respect to which the clergy

and faithful of every rite and rank are bound to true obedience. The immediate

power of jurisdiction of the individual bishops in their dioceses, therefore, is not

impaired by the primacy, but only strengthened and defended. By virtue of his

primacy the pope has the right to have direct and free relations with the clergy

and laity of the entire Church. No one is permitted to interfere with this

intercourse. It is false and to be rejected to say that the decrees issued by the

pope for the guidance of the Church are not valid unless confirmed by the placet

of the secular power. The pope is also the supreme judge of all the faithful, to

whose decision all matters under examination by the Church can be appealed.

On the other hand, no further appeal, not even to an ecumenical council, can be

made from the supreme decision of the pope. Consequently the canon appended

to the third chapter says: "When, therefore, anyone says that the Pope of Rome

has only the office of supervision or of guidance, and not the complete and

highest power of jurisdiction over the entire Church, not merely in matters of faith

and morals, but also in matters which concern the discipline and administration

of the Church throughout the entire world, or that the pope has only the chief

share, but not the entire fullness of this highest power, or that this his power is

not actual and immediate either over all and individual Churches, or over all and

individual clergy and faithful, let him be anathema."

The fourth chapter, lastly, contains the definition of papal infallibility. First, all the

corresponding decrees of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, 680 (Sixth

Ecumenical), of the Second Council of Lyons, 1274 (Fourteenth Ecumenical) and

of the Council of Florence, 1439 (Seventeenth Ecumenical), are repeated and

confirmed. It is pointed out, further, that at all times the popes, in the

consciousness of their infallibility in matters of faith for the preservation of the

purity of the Apostolic tradition, have acted as the court of last instance and have

been called upon as such. Then follows the important tenet that the successors

of St. Peter have been promised the Holy Ghost, not for the promulgation of new

doctrines, but only for the preservation and interpretation of the Revelation

delivered by the Apostles. The Constitution closes with the following words:

"Faithfully adhering, therefore, to the tradition inherited from the beginning of the

Christian Faith, we, with the approbation of the sacred council, for the glory of

God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of

Christian peoples, teach and define, as a Divinely revealed dogma, that the

Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he, in the exercise of

his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme

Apostolic authority, decides that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be

held by the entire Church, he possesses, in consequence of the Divine aid

promised him in St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Saviour wished to

have His Church furnished for the definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals;

and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in

consequence of the Church's consent, irreformable."

What is given above is essentially the contents of the two Constitutions of the

Vatican Council. Their import may be briefly expressed thus: in opposition to the

Rationalism and Free-thinking of the present day the first Constitution gives

authoritative and clear expression of the fundamental principles of natural and

supernatural understanding of right and true faith, their possibility, necessity,

their sources, and of their relations to each other. Thus it offers to all of honest

intention a guide and a firm foothold, both in solving the great question of life and

in all the investigations of learning. The second Constitution settles finally a

question which had kept the minds of men disturbed from the time of the Great

Schism, and the Council of Constance, and more especially from the appearance

of the four Gallican articles of 1682, the question of the relation between the pope

and the Church. According to the dogmatic decision of the Vatican Council, the

papacy founded by Christ is the crown and centre of the entire constitution of the

Catholic Church. The papacy includes in itself the entire fullness of the power of

administration and teaching bestowed by Christ upon His Church. Thus

ecclesiastical particularism and the theory of national Churches are forever

overthrown. On the other hand, it is extravagant and unjust to say that by the

definition of the primacy of jurisdiction and of the infallibility of the pope the

ecumenical councils have lost their essential importance. The ecumenical

councils have never been absolutely necessary. Even before the Vatican Council

their decrees obtained general currency only through the approval of the pope.

The increasing difficulty of their convocation as time went on is shown by the

interval of three hundred years between the nineteenth and twentieth ecumenical

councils. The definitions of the last council have, therefore, brought about the

alleviation that was desirable and the necessary legal certainty. Apart from this,

however, the hierarchy united with the pope in a general council is, now as

formerly, the most complete representation of the Catholic Church.

Lastly, as regards the drafts and proposition which were left unsettled by the

Vatican Council, a number of these were revived and brought to completion by

Pius IX and his two successors. To mention a few: Pius IX made St. Joseph the

patron saint of the Universal Church on 8 Dec., 1870, the same year as the

council. Moral and religious problems, which it was intended to lay before the

council for discussion, are treated in the encyclicals of Leo XIII on the origin of

the civil power (1881), on freemasonry (1884), on human freedom (1888), on

Christian marriage (1880), etc. Leo XIII also issued in 1900 new regulations

regarding the index of forbidden books. From the beginning of his administration

Pius X seems to have had in view in his legislative labours the completion of the

great tasks left by the Vatican Council. The most striking proofs of this are: the

reform of the Italian diocesan seminaries, the regulation of the philosophical and

theological studies of candidates for the priesthood, the introduction of one

catechism for the Roman church province, the laws concerning the form of ritual

for betrothal and marriage, the revision of the prayers of the Breviary, and, above

all, the codification of the whole of modern canon law.

(1) Archives of the Vatican Council: All official papers relating to the preparations for the Vatican

Council, its proceedings, and the acceptance of its decrees, have been preserved in the Vatican

Palace, in two rooms which were set apart for them. The speeches made at the general

congregations exist in shorthand notes and handwriting; in addition, Pius IX also arranged to have

them printed, The first four folio volumes were issued by the Vatican Press in 1875-8, the fifth and

final volume appeared in 1884. About a dozen copies of each volume are in the archives.

(2) Collections of Official Documents: CECCONI, Storia del Concilio ecumenico Vaticano scritta sui

documenti originali. Antecedenti, I (Rome, 1873), II, in III pts. (Rome, 1879); FRIEDRICH,

Documenta ad illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum (II pts., Nördlingen, i871). FRIEDBERG, Sammlung

der Aktenstücke zum ersten vatikanischen Konzil mit einem Grundriss der Geschichte desselben

(Tübingen, 1872); MARTIN, Omnium Concilii Vaticani quae ad doctrinam et disciplinam pertinent

documentorum collectio (Paderborn, 1873); the most complete collection is Acta et decreta

sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani, ed. SCHNEEMAN AND GRANDERATH (Freiburg, 1892);

this collection is in the Collectio Lacensis vol VII. The decrees of the eouncii have often been

published as at Rome by the Propaganda, at Freiburg. and Ratisbon.

(3) Historical Accounts: (a) Catholic: by the secretary of the council, FESSLER, Das vatikanische

Concilium, dessen äusere Bedeutung und innere Verlauf (Vienna, 1871); MANNING, The True

Story of the Vatican Council (London, 1877); OLLIVIER. L'église et l'état au concile du Vatican (2

vols., Paris, 1879); GRANDERATH AND KIRCH, Geschichte des vatikanischen Konzils von seiner

ersten Ankündigung bis zu seiner Vertagung, nach den authentischen Dokumenten (3 vols.,

Freiburg, 1903 and 1906); FROND, Actes et histoire du concile oecuménique de Rome (8 vols.,

Paris, 1869), numerous illustrations; GRANDERATH in WETZER AND WELTE, Kirchenlexikon, s. v.

Vatican. Concil. (b) Non-Catholic: FRIEDRICH, Tagebuch während des vatikanischen Konzils

geführt (2nd ed., Nördlingen, 1873); IDEM, Geschichte des vatikanischen Konzils (3 vols., Bonn,

1877 87); MOZLEY, Letters from Rome on the Occasion of the Ecumenical Council 1869-1870 (2

vols., London, 1891); MIRBT in Realencyklopädie für protest. Theol., s. v. Vatican. Concil. In

addition, consult the biographies of the most distinguished members of the council. The most

important works and pamphlets that appeared during the council are mentioned in the course of the

article.

(4) Explanations of the Decrees of the Council: GRANDERATH, Constitutiones dogmaticoe s.

oecumen. Concilii Vaticani, explicat (Freiburg. 1892); VACANT, Etudes théologiques sur les

constitutions du concile du Vatican (2 vols., Paris, 1895).

K. KIRCH

Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter

Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV

Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York