The Politics of Infallibility at Vatican I (Part 3)

Last updated on: June 21, 2008 at 11:01 am by Policraticus

The Politics of Infallibility at Vatican I (Part 3) 2008-06-21T11:01:11-05:00 Policraticus

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part 1

Part 2

The Council Commences

Thomas Canon Pope provides the most generous estimate of the number of prelates invited to participate at the council with 1044.[1] The total number of prelates who attended the Council was 793, by far the largest and most ecumenical council in previous Christian history.[2] It was determined beforehand by the Directing Commission that all bishops with Episcopal sees and all Cardinals of the Church were entitled to sit at the Council. In addition to these, titular bishops who were either vicars apostolic or overseeing foreign missions were admitted. Abbots who were ordinaries of a diocese with certain episcopal jurisdiction were admitted, as were those who were presidents of monastic communities. Finally, the Superior Generals of religious orders were permitted to attend the Council.[3] The admission of titular bishops and religious would later become a point of contention from some Minority bishops who were displeased with the size of this particular voting bloc.

The first gathering of the bishops was at a Pre-synodal Congregation held in the Sistine Chapel on December 2, 1869. It was a strict meeting addressing the formalities of the Council. The Presidents of the Council were announced who would preside over all General Congregations in Pius’ name and authority. The “parliamentary handbook of the council”, Multiplices inter, was promulgated, setting the rule of procedure.[4] Of all the consulters, Bishop Karl Hefele of Rottenburg, was charged with drafting a votum on the procedure in conducting business at the Council. Previously in March, his text was adopted by the Directing Commission, and Hefele, who figured among the Minority bishops, became the engineer of the Council’s conduction.[5] The pope solely retained the prerogative of proposing questions beyond the prepared schemata, but the bishops were given the right to submit suggestions for consideration to a Congregatio de postulates, which would review and recommend to the Pope any subject that ought be brought to the Council floor. The final decision as to whether the subject would be opened to the Council Fathers rested with Pius himself.

The Council formally opened on December 8, 1869, but the first General Congregation was on December 10 presided over by the four Council Presidents. There Cardinal de Luca read the names selected by Pius for the Congregatio de postulatis to the 679 present. Of the twenty-six chosen for the congregation, twelve were cardinals, including Rauscher of Vienna (Minority) and Bonnechose of Rouen (Majority), twelve were archbishops and bishops, including Guibert of Tours (Majority), Martin Spalding of Baltimore (Majority), Manning, and Dechamps, and also Greek-Melkite Patriarch Jussef of Antioch (Majority) and the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem (Minority). Also established were two boards, one of Judges of Excuses and the other of Judges of Complaints and Controversies. The first order of business for the bishops was the election of bishops for four deputations to review and redraft proposed schemata. The most important of these was the Deputatio de Fide which would no doubt deal with “the question” should it arise during future proceedings. Even though each bishop was to vote by secret ballot at the next General Congregation, the election nonetheless served as the occasion for the first concrete opportunity for the ideologues to respectively unite.

Manning organized an international group of bishops in support of the definition of papal infallibility, which included Senestréy, Dechamps, Martin of Paderborn and Bouillerie of Carcassonne, and held meetings at the Villa Casserta in order to monitor and counteract the French and German bishops who were known antagonists to the infallibility cause. It was imperative that no anti-infallibilist be elected to the Deputatio de Fide and that the members be from different nations. Although Dechamps was considered the leader of the infallibility campaign, Manning took the initiative of crafting a list of 24 names of Fathers and submitted it to Cardinal de Luca for inspection. The President approved of the list, and Senestréy had it lithographed and distributed to as many bishops as possible.[6]

The Minority bishops, crafted their own list for the election. However, the Minority bishops fundamentally lacked the organization of the Villa Casserta; ideological differences had prevented them organizing before the Council, so they remained a stride behind from the outset.[7] They tended to built upon national blocs of French led by Cardinal Mathieu of Besangon and Archbishop Darboy of Paris, Austro-Germans led by Schwarzenberg and Rauscher, Hungarians led by Primate Simor, and North Americans led by Archbishops Peter Kenrick of St. Louis and Connolly of Halifax. Dupanloup served as the “whip” of the Minority, a counterpart to Manning. Working behind the scenes with the Minority was the man responsible for what unity the opposition could muster,[8] the great English historian John Acton, who kept his former master Döllinger informed of the progress of the opposition. However, despite the competence and dynamism of this camp, their influence could not extend as far as that of the Villa Casserta.

The election of the Deputatio de Fide occurred at the General Congregation of December 14. Manning proved himself quite the effective solicitor, for all twenty-four bishops he had listed were elected, though he did not realize that he had inadvertedly nominated an inopportunist in Simor. Unfortunately for Manning, Pius desired to have representatives from the Minority on the Deputation, and called for Dupanloup by name, and thought he had set the precedent by appointing at least three Minority bishops to the Congregatio de postulatis. Naturally, the Pope was quite disturbed by such cunningness, and even the leading candidate for de Fide, Bishop Pie of Pontiers, disapproved of the entire proceeding. Manning, who earned the nickname “diabolus consilii”,[9] responded by asserting that “heretics come to a Council to be heard and condemned, not to take part in formulating doctrine.”[10] Thus, it was becoming evident that it was not the Pope or Curia of which the Minority had to beware, but Manning and his sway over the bishops still riding the fence.

It took the greater part of December to elect bishops to the other three deputations, but papal infallibility was never discussed by the Council itself. The definition was not on the official agenda of the Council as determined by the subsidiary committees. These committees had decided that while the doctrine of papal infallibility was indeed definable, it was not expedient for the Holy See to propose it before the Council; Pius was committed to leaving the matter to the bishops. Hence the Fathers busied themselves with ulterior matters of faith and discipline. The discussion and debates did not begin until December 28 and 30 at the fouth and fifth General Congregations. On the floor was the schema of a dogmatic constitution on faith and the errors of rationalism, which would take until April 24, 1870 to be solemnly defined.[11] However, both major camps continued their extra-conciliar activities through the NewYear with immense fervor.

On December 23, Dechamps, Manning, Senestréy and six other bishops met at Villa Casserta to prepare a petition to bring the issue of papal infallibility to the Council agenda for consideration. The petition was issued on December 30, and circulated among the Council Fathers throughout the entire month of January. By the turn of February, the petition had accumulated 380 signatures. Other petitions for the same cause had gathered roughly 100 more. The Minority, organized by Haywald and Dupanloup, also circulated a petition, which could muster only 140 signatures. At the end of January, all the petitions were submitted to Pius. But even the pope refused to violate the Council procedures, and referred them all to the Congregatio de postulatis.

It had became apparent that papal infallibility was favored by the bishops of predominately Catholic countries that enjoyed no significant rivalry from another organized religion. The oppositions and hesitations to the doctrine tended to stem from bishops whose countries had large or predominate Protestant or Orthodox standing. Thus, the Belgian, Polish, Swiss, Spanish, Latin American, Italian and Irish were generally of infallibilist persuasion. On the other hand, the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians were generally of the opposition. The anomalies were the French and the Eastern Rite bishops, the former divided into three parties, and the latter equally divided on the issue.[12] The Americans, who were originally counted on by the opposition, were deeply divided by the New Year. Under the leadership of Spalding, who originally was an inopportunist, seven American bishops sent in their own petition for the cause of the definition.

Meanwhile in Germany, Döllinger began a periodical campaign by publishing a series of Letters from Rome under the pseudonym “Quirinus.” They were based upon nothing more than the radically filtered accounts of the Council’s proceedings given by Acton and certain national embassies in contact with leading Minority bishops, and were extremely hostile toward the Council. Immediately, those in Rome attributed the diatribe to Acton and Döllinger, and many of Acton’s more moderate informants began to steer clear from him out of distrust.[13] However, Acton’s resolve was far from shaken, and he began to place his hope entirely in Strossmayer and Darboy. Around Rome, it was whispered, “The opposition is a sword, and its point is Strossmayer’s lips, and its hilt is the hand of Acton.”[14] Unfortunately, Acton had alienated himself from too many bishops, and the ensuing months saw a decrease in his effectiveness, and subsequently, a weakening of the opposition.
—–
[1] The Council of the Vatican and the Events of the Time (Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1872), 24.
[2] Luis M. Bermejo, Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, Inc., 1992), 132. Cf. Aubert, 100.
[3] Butler, 92.
[4] James Hennesey, The First Council of the Vatican: The American Experience (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963) 32-33
[5] In brief, Hefele determined that drafts of a proposed definition or reform from the subsidiary commissions would be sent to each bishop at the Council before a fixed day for the opening discussion on that particular matter. The discussions would take place at General Congregations at which any bishop who wished to address the Council Fathers could take the floor. However, his name must be submitted to the Council Presidents beforehand. There would be no time limit to speeches, and any proposed changes to the draft in question would be studied by one of four committees of bishops (Faith, Discipline, Religious Orders, Easter Rite churches) democratically elected by the Fathers. A revised draft would then be distributed to the Fathers, and amendments could be proposed. Finally, after the respective committee studied all suggested amendments, a final draft would be definitely voted on at a Public Session. Cf. Butler, 157-159.
[6] Hennesey, 44.
[7] Margaret O’Gara, Triumph in Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I, and the French Minority Bishops (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988) 22. The two most prominent French of the Minority, Darboy and Dupanloup, were sharply divided over politics and were hardly cordial even during the Council.
[8] Owen Chadwick, Acton and History (Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 1998), 84.
[9] David Newsome, The Convert Cardinals: John Henry Newman and Henry Edward Manning (London: John Murray, 1993) 274. It is purported that Manning relished in this title.
[10] Quoted in Butler, 174.
[11] This decree, Dei Filius, was the first of only two Dogmatic Constitutions put forth by the First Vatican Council.
[12] An interesting note regarding the French opposition bishops is that they all attended seminaries that showed distinctive Gallican tendencies. O’Gara, 18.
[13] Chadwick, 84.
[14] Quoted in Ibid., 83.

Previous Post

June 21, 2008

A Free Market for Water

Next Post

June 21, 2008 Vox Nova At The Movies: Mongol

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What kind of animal swallowed Jonah?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A lion A great fish A camel A serpent