THE VATICAN DECISION
If the actual subject of Infallibility had not yet entered the Council
for discussion, it was anxiously or eagerly debated in every mind.
As far back as the beginning of the year (28th January 1870), a
petition[341] under the instigation of Archbishop Manning was sent to
the Commission on Faith, entreating that the doctrine of Infallibility
might be brought before the Council. This petition for a Decree on
Papal Infallibility was based upon the following grounds. It was, they
said, opportune and necessary, because, according to the universal and
constant tradition of the Church, papal decrees of doctrine could not
be reformed; because some who gloried in the name of Catholic were
presuming to teach that deferential submission to papal authority was
sufficient; that one might acquiesce in silence without inward mental
consent, or might at any rate accord a merely provisional assent
until the Church itself endorsed or modified the decree in question.
This independence was, they considered, injurious and subversive of
authority. Prevalent disputes made definition a positive necessity.
If the Vatican Council, thus challenged, neglected to testify to
Catholic Faith, the Catholic world would fall into uncertainty, and the
heretical world would rejoice. Various local synods, moreover, had
already passed resolutions for Papal Infallibility.
[341] _Acta_, p. 923.
Petitions were also issued on the other side. Copies of a circular
had reached them requesting the definition of Papal Infallibility.
Accordingly they are constrained to address the Pope. This is not
a time in which the rights of the Apostolic See are questioned by
Catholics, and it is undesirable to add to the doctrines of the Council
of Trent. The difficulties which the writings of the Fathers, and the
genuine documents and facts of history suggest to many minds, on the
subject of Infallibility, preclude the definition of this doctrine as a
truth divinely revealed, until the difficulties have been removed. They
implore the Pope not to impose such discussions upon them.[342]
[342] _Acta_, p. 944.
This was in January. Nothing was immediately done. But _on the 6th of
March_ a notice was sent to the members individually, informing them
that, in response to the appeal of many Bishops, the Pope had consented
to the introduction of Papal Infallibility into the Council. They were
accordingly requested to send in their written remarks within ten days.
Accordingly written criticisms were sent in to the Commission on Faith.
And it is to this fact that we owe a large portion of our knowledge
of the actual argument employed by Infallibilists by the minority
in the Council. For their criticisms were condensed and printed for
distribution among the members, and copies of this have survived the
Council.[343] This is all the more important since the proceedings
of the Council were nominally secret, and no official report of the
speeches was ever given to the world, and the actual minutes are buried
in the Vatican archives. A Jesuit German writer[344] on the Council
has had access to these, and has given extracts and accounts of them;
but no complete account has ever yet appeared. Meanwhile great value
must attach to the printed criticisms of the doctrine. These, as was
natural, are chiefly the work of the opposition. Some one hundred and
thirty-nine Bishops replied, of whom nearly one hundred were against
the decree. Its advocates contented themselves with general expressions
of approval. The opposition to the proposed definition was begun by the
criticisms of Cardinal Rauscher.
[343] Friedrich, _Documenta_.
[344] Granderath.
Rauscher said that the question was not whether the instructions of
the Pope should be obeyed, but whether they must be received with the
faith due to God. The salvation of souls and the honour of the Council
demand that the greatest caution should be exercised before imposing
this upon the faith of Christian people. He confessed himself, although
prepared to defend what the Council might decree, unable to solve the
difficulties which would arise. To those already persuaded conviction
would not be difficult. But Bishops in Austria and Germany would have
a difficult time. “The subterfuges employed by not a few theologians
in the case of Honorius would only expose the writers to derision.”
To propound such sophistries appears to him unworthy alike of the
episcopal office and of the subject in question, which ought to be
treated in the fear of God. Even prudence would prohibit the use of
such artifices.[345]
[345] Friedrich, _Documenta_.
Bishop Ketteler, Bishop of Maintz, urged that according to the
principle observed by the Fathers and sanctioned by Councils, dogmatic
decrees should only be resorted to under imperative necessity. In many
districts the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was almost or altogether
unknown to the faithful. Were it decreed, many Catholics in this age of
indifference would remain within the Church without believing it, to
the grave detriment of Religion.
Bishop Hefele said that if the error of Gallicanism consisted in
separating the Church from the Pope, the present proposal committed the
converse error of separating the Pope from the Church. We Catholics can
accept neither of these extreme positions. Moreover we have been told
that the subject of Infallibility is the Church; we are now told that
it is the Pope. But it is difficult to see how these two subjects can
be united, unless the one renders the other superfluous, and indeed
excludes it. The theory of Papal Infallibility seemed to him founded
neither in Scripture nor in History. The letter of Leo to Flavian was
not accepted by the fourth Ecumenical Council because it came from an
infallible writer, but because it contained an apostolic doctrine; nor
was it accepted until the doubts of certain Bishops had been removed.
Another Bishop declared that if such Infallibility were dogmatically
defined, the result in his own diocese, where not a trace of Tradition
upon the subject existed, would be grievous losses to the Church. Nor
could he personally profess himself convinced of it.
Melchers, Archbishop of Cologne, was prepared to accept Papal
Infallibility as his personal belief, but was unable to assent to its
erection into a dogma; for he could see no necessity. The authority
of the Holy See was never greater than in modern times. And it is
neither customary nor expedient to impose new dogmatic decrees without
necessity. The subject of Papal Infallibility in particular is a
controverted subject. Many learned and orthodox persons considered its
dogmatic definition impossible, owing to the serious difficulties
presented by history and the writings of the Fathers: the facts showing
that there had never been unanimity or universality of consent on this
matter in Christendom. Nor was it easy to see how a definition could
be composed which would not leave space for numerous uncertainties and
controversies as to its meaning and application to past and future
events. And, among men disposed to accept the opinion, there were many
destitute of that certainty of conviction which is an indispensable
pre-requisite for imposing the doctrine, without grave moral injury,
upon others as essential to be believed under penalty of eternal
damnation. There was no hope of real unanimous consent; for it was
impossible to deny that a large proportion of the Bishops was adverse
to the definition. And hitherto in the Church of God it had never been
the custom, nor is it lawful, to establish new dogmatic definitions
without moral unanimity among the Bishops assembled in Council.
Another Bishop insisted emphatically that no consideration ought to
move men to create an article of faith, except only a clear knowledge
that God has revealed it, and that it is certainly contained in
Scripture or Tradition. For a Bishop to vote this doctrine merely out
of regard for the Holy See would be a mortal sin. There was no constant
Tradition for Infallibility. On the contrary, the opposite opinion
appears in numberless records. St Augustine is particularly clear, and
seems to have had no conception whatever of the doctrine. Bossuet’s
_Exposition_ could not possibly have been approved when the doctrine
prevailed, for he only mentions the primacy.
Another, who protests his abhorrence of all endeavours to detract from
the primacy of the Pope, was yet constrained to plead that nothing
should be said in this Council either concerning the pre-eminence
of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church and General Council, or
concerning his Infallibility.
Another Bishop protested that this ascription to the Pope of absolute
or unconditional Infallibility, separate, _i.e._ independent of
the consent of the Episcopate--personal, that is to say, uttered
at will--is neither opportune nor lawful: not opportune, for it
will involve souls and religion in innumerable difficulties; not
lawful, because founded on no certain argument either of Scripture,
or Tradition, or Councils; and because it would revolutionise the
constitution which Christ has imposed upon His Church.
Next came a witness from the Irish Catholics. This Bishop said that
although during the last thirty-one years before the Council assembled
the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff had been
taught in the Irish schools, and he himself during fifteen years had
inculcated it upon the young ecclesiastics entrusted to his care; yet
for two hundred years it had always been taught in the schools that the
decrees of the Roman Pontiff were not irreformable, except with the
consent, either expressed or tacit, of the Episcopate. Therefore this
doctrine of personal Infallibility of Roman Pontiffs could not reach
the people and sink into the minds of the faithful laity. Moreover,
a denial of personal Infallibility had been publicly made when the
Irish Bishops were interrogated by the English Government. Nor was any
censure to this day ever uttered against the doctrine which prevailed
in Ireland. The Irish Catechisms had always taught the Infallibility of
the Church, meaning the Bishops or teaching body in agreement with the
Pope.
Sixteen other Bishops joyfully accept the doctrine, and declare it
supported by the entire Dominican Order. Twenty-five others did the
same.
Another Bishop declared that the series of three texts commonly
quoted on behalf of Papal Infallibility (“Thou art Peter.”... “I have
prayed for thee” ... “Feed My sheep”) could not possibly prove that
the authority to teach and the privilege of Infallibility were given
exclusively to St Peter, for another series of texts exists in which
the Apostles collectively with St Peter are made recipients of the
same authority (“Go ye therefore ... teaching them ... I will pray
the Father, and He will send you another Comforter ... Receive ye
the Holy Ghost”). Who will dare to say that the Apostles and their
successors received nothing in these words? Who does not see that all
power was directly bestowed upon them all? Now, since the Bishops are
successors of the Apostles, and receive direct from Christ a definite
share in the government of the Church, it is impossible to allow that
the entire and absolute authority and power to rule and teach, coupled
with the privilege of Infallibility, belong to the Pope alone. Such
power must reside in the Pope together with the Episcopate, as the
successor of Peter and the Apostles. If the Pope possesses a principal
portion of authority, yet it is essentially limited by the rights of
the Episcopate, which are equally Divine. Thus it cannot be absolute.
We hold it for certain, this Bishop continued, that by no argument
from the first five centuries of the Church can the Infallibility
of the Pope be established. The early centuries never recognised
absolute infallible teaching power in the Pope alone; but in the entire
Episcopate, of which he was the head. If nothing is definable which
does not conform to the test of universality from the beginning, how
can Infallibility of the Pope ever become defined?
Another Bishop asserted that nothing more mischievous than this
unfortunate proposition could be conceived; nothing more dangerous
to the authority of the Church and the Holy See. It was not right to
separate either the head from the body nor the body from the head in
the discussion of this doctrine. Infallibility was a prerogative of
the entire body of the Church. The difficulties which the doctrine
of Papal Infallibility create were endless and almost insoluble.
The consequences of a definition would be bad and dangerous. It was
therefore to be hoped that the Pope will, of his own accord, set this
cause of discord aside. Many of the Fathers of the Vatican Council were
persuaded that such an example of humility and self-denial on the part
of the Pope would really increase the authority of the Apostolic See,
and render the name of Pius IX. glorious in the annals of the Church.
Another member of the Council--Bishop Clifford, one of the three
candidates proposed by the Chapter for the Archbishopric of
Westminster, and who therefore, if the will of the Roman Catholics
in England had not been overruled by Pius IX., might have been in
Manning’s place--declared that the definition of this opinion as of
faith would be the greatest hindrance to the conversion of Protestants
and a stone of stumbling to many Catholics. What good it could produce
he was unable to see. It would be especially disastrous in England; for
at the time of the Catholic emancipation from civil disabilities the
Bishops and theologians were publicly questioned by Parliament whether
English Catholics believed that the Pope could impose definitions on
faith and morals apart from the consent, either tacit or express, of
the Church. All the Bishops, among them the predecessor of the present
Archbishop of Dublin, together with the theologians, replied that
Catholics did not maintain this doctrine. This statement was entered
in the Parliamentary Acts. On the strength of these assertions,
Parliament admitted the English Catholics to civil liberty. How will
Protestants believe that Catholics are loyal to their honour and good
faith if they see them acquiring political advantage by professing
that Papal Infallibility is no part of the Catholic religion, and
afterwards, when those advantages are secured, departing from their
public profession and asserting the contrary?
* * * * *
Bishop Purcell, an American Bishop, was of opinion that a definition of
Papal Infallibility would be not only inopportune but also dangerous.
It would, if passed, effectually frustrate conversions in the United
States. Bishops in controversy with Protestants will be unable to
refute them: for Protestants will say, “Hitherto this doctrine was, so
you asserted, an optional opinion in the Church; now you declare it to
be a dogma of the faith. Either therefore your former assertion was
untrue, or the doctrine of the Church has suffered variation. In which
case, what becomes of your objection to Protestant variations?”
Another Bishop, on the contrary, maintained that the definition was
not only opportune, but also necessary, in order to deepen reverence
for highest authority, and to suppress the systematic rebellion which
is very widely spread. He desires that a Canon should be formulated to
anathematise all who hold the opposite view.
Another Bishop declared that he could see no necessity for any
definition. If there were, eighteen centuries would not have elapsed
without one or other of the Councils defining it. Nor could he see
the least utility. They who will not hear the Church certainly
will not hear the Pope. In the present discussion now raging evil
influences daily increase. There were many facts of history better
buried in oblivion, which this discussion proclaims abroad. So much
for the opportuneness of the dogma. What if the doctrine itself be
without secure foundation? Quite recently the Bishop had vowed never
to interpret Holy Scripture except in accordance with the unanimous
consent of the Fathers. Now, previously to the Council, he had always
interpreted the text “I have prayed for thee” in the sense of Papal
Infallibility. But having begun to examine for himself, for the
purposes of the Council, he finds that nearly all the extracts from the
earlier Fathers given in theological manuals in behalf of Infallibility
(as in the works of St Alphonso, Perrone, and others) are either
inaccurate, or derived from forgeries. What the extracts from the early
Fathers prove is primacy. They do not prove Infallibility.
Conciliar definitions, says another Bishop, ought not to be imposed
by superior numerical force, but by intellectual persuasion. In the
Council of Trent so great was the deference accorded to the minority
that a decision was postponed for several years because thirty-seven of
the Fathers declined to concur with the opinion of the majority.
Another Bishop affirmed that in his view a definition of Infallibility
would be the suicide of the Church. Quite recently, certain Anglicans,
who six months ago came over to Catholic unity, returned at once to
Anglicanism, on reading the Archbishop of Westminster’s imprudent
Pastoral.
Bishop Kenrick made a very lengthy and elaborate protest. He appealed
to Augustine’s defence of Cyprian’s opposition to Pope Stephen.
Augustine manifestly was ignorant of pontifical Infallibility,
otherwise he could not possibly have argued as he did. The oft-quoted
phrase, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” signified nothing more when
originally uttered by the Bishops at Chalcedon than that Leo’s
doctrine agreed with their own convictions. In the Sixth Council
at Constantinople, the Archbishop of Constantinople, in reference
to the Letters of Pope Agatho, asked for copies to compare with
the traditional testimonies of that Patriarchate; after which he
would give his reply. Accordingly the Archbishop compared the papal
letters; and, finding that their contents harmonised with the Eastern
teaching, accepted them. Moreover, supreme papal authority does not
include Infallibility. Kenrick considered great differences to exist
between the dogma of Immaculate Conception and that of pontifical
Infallibility. The latter invades the rights of the Episcopate, and
imposes upon the faithful the necessity of believing that Roman Bishops
have never erred in matters of faith, a statement which indisputable
facts of history appear to refute; and also of believing that Roman
Bishops will never err in future, which indeed we hope, but are unable
to believe as a certainty of the faith. The rule to be followed is,
that no innovation should be accepted in the Church; that nothing
should be required of the faithful, except that which has been believed
always everywhere and by all.
When the ten days’ interval was passed, and the Council resumed its
work, there was manifested on the part of the authorities a decided
hesitation. This was due not to the protests of the minority, or to
any force in their numbers or their arguments. It was the outcome of
political rather than ecclesiastical causes. For Italy aspired to
become a consolidated kingdom, with its capital at Rome. The entire
mediæval inheritance of the Papacy, the States of the Church, could
not be held by any force at the Pope’s disposal; and might, but for
external protection, be at any moment swept away. That protection was
provided by France. French soldiers guarded the city, kept the Italians
out, and rendered the continuance of the Council possible. The armed
intervention of France was described by the Archbishop of Paris[346]
as a necessary expedient but not a permanent solution. It provided a
temporary security, during which the Vatican Council was held. It is
impossible not to admire the sagacity which seized the occasion. A
little later, and it could not have been done. But security depended on
French goodwill.
[346] Guillermin, _Darboy_, p. 206.
“If any one dreams,” said Antonelli, “that there exists for us any
human help, except the forces of France, he must be blind.”[347]
[347] Bourgeois et Clermont, _Rome et Napoleon_, iii. p. 322 (1907).
But France at this critical moment showed signs of uneasiness. It felt
that its protection was being utilised for the promotion of theories
which it strongly disliked.[348] Count Daru, head of the French
Ministry, sent an emphatic protest to Rome, in which he declared that
the adoption of Ultramontane theories could not but alienate from
Catholicism many whom it would be a duty to win. The Holy See was
making the relation between the Church and the State more difficult and
strained. In particular, the work of the French Ministry was thereby
made exceedingly difficult. They would soon have to discuss in the
Chamber the presence of French troops in papal territory. How can their
presence be justified if the Pope rejects the principles of liberty
which are essential to the very existence of modern Governments? The
writer confesses that he was personally placed in a position most
discouraging to a devoted adherent of the Roman cause. Public opinion
in France was already amazed to find the Council imprisoned within
the limits of a programme which invaded the freedom of the Bishops.
Nothing could be more opposed to the ancient rules of the Church. Never
had the Holy See hitherto restricted, or rather suppressed, the lawful
independence which Councils have always possessed in forming their own
Congregations and choosing their own officials and regulating their own
procedure. The history of these great Assemblies offers no precedent
for the forms imposed to-day; and we have only too much reason to
say that deliberations so arranged and conducted will only result in
resolutions not to the real interest of the Church.[349]
[348] Ollivier, ii. p. 89.
[349] Ollivier, ii. p. 90.
We can well understand that the receipt of such a letter, from such a
source, caused great uneasiness in the Papal Court. No wonder if, at
the critical moment, when everything seemed in their grasp, they yet
hesitated and delayed. The question to be determined at Rome was, What
did this manifesto mean? Was this present attitude serious? a prelude
to actions more serious still?[350] No wonder if Pius temporised, and
diverted the attention of his Council for the moment to other themes.
So the subject of faith was reintroduced. However, on 11th April, a
telegram was received in Rome: “Daru resigned. Ollivier succeeds him.
Council free.” That is to say, of course, free from a papal point of
view.
[350] _Ibid._ ii. p. 245.
The fact was, that although Napoleon III. had no desire to promote
the extension of papal power, yet in the weakness of the monarchy and
increasingly republican tendencies of France, he could not afford to
offend the Ultramontanes. He was therefore compelled by a cruel irony
to protect the Pope, and enable him to reach the summit of absolute
power. Withdrawal from Rome while its Episcopate was assembled
would be a declaration of hostility to Catholicism upon which France
dared not venture.[351] Accordingly, the political obstruction being
now removed, the Presiding Legate informed the Council that many
Bishops had petitioned the Pope to forego the consideration of all
other subjects, and to proceed at once to the discussion of Papal
Infallibility; and to these petitions the Pope had assented.
[351] Ollivier, i. p. 391.
To realise the situation fully it is now necessary to fix attention
on a select and powerful body at work behind the Council--the famous
Commission of Suggestions. This was a select Committee of twenty-five,
including Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, all appointed by the
Pope; their momentous function being to receive and criticise all
suggestions of subjects upon which the Council might deliberate.
Nothing could enter the Council at all until endorsed by this
Commission.
It was pointed out by Infallibilists that the members of the Commission
of Suggestions represented all portions of the Catholic world: to which
the minority replied that whatever the geographical distribution, all
opinions were excluded except one. This was not exactly accurate.
But within the chosen twenty-five were such advanced Ultramontanes
as Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin; Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore;
Manning, Archbishop of Westminster; Dechamp, Archbishop of Mechlin;
Conrad Martin, Bishop of Paderborn; Valerga of Jerusalem; Cardinals de
Angelis and Bonnechose; to say nothing of Antonelli.
An important member of the Commission of Suggestions was Guibert,
Archbishop of Tours. When consulted by Pius IX. on the desirability of
a Council, he had confined himself in his reply to practical affairs.
There is a studious and, says his biographer,[352] deliberate silence
on the theme of Pontifical Infallibility. The theory was his personal
belief. He thought that, were it otherwise, the Church would be
inadequately furnished for arresting heresies, since General Councils
are intermittent and occasional. “But whether it is opportune to make
a dogma of this truth--that,” he wrote in 1870, “is by no means clear
to me.” At the same time he added that he would not have the least
repugnance to subscribe to such a decree. Accordingly Guibert, who was
thoroughly understood in Rome and highly valued, was nominated member
of the Commission of Suggestions.
[352] Follenay, _Vie de Cardinal Guibert_, ii. p. 421.
Guibert himself gave the following interesting account[353] of their
deliberations at the critical hour when the subject of Infallibility
was brought before them. The Congregation met in a chamber of the
Vatican under the papal apartments. Cardinal Patrizzi presided.
Guibert, as one of the senior Archbishops, was placed next to the
Cardinals.
[353] _Ibid._ p. 423.
“The time had come for the famous question of Infallibility to
be submitted to the Congregation for proposals. Its decision was
anxiously expected. The Pope himself had given orders that he should
be informed of our decision immediately afterwards.
“Cardinal Patrizzi, after opening the subject, proceeded to
interrogate, according to custom, the prelates of the least
distinguished rank. They had mostly prepared their reply, and before
voting delivered a thesis on the authority of Holy Scripture, the
Fathers, etc. These discourses were pronounced or read in Latin.
When my turn came, not being accustomed to write much, I had no
prepared discourse, and being unused to talk in Latin, should have
had great difficulty in giving exact expression to my thoughts in
that language. I could, indeed, have given my vote in Latin, but I
desired to preface it with some statements by way of explanation.
I therefore begged the presiding Cardinal to allow me to speak in
French, which was a language familiar to all the Congregation,
and which would greatly facilitate my explanations. The Cardinal
willingly consented, and, I may add that many of my colleagues,
being in the same predicament, afterwards followed my example. They
seemed to attach some importance to what I was about to say. I was
far from desiring to oppose the definition for which people yearned.
I was by no means in with the opposition, but I had never manifested
enthusiasm for it as many others did.
“I began with the profession of faith in the Pope’s Infallibility.
I affirmed that this belief had been mine throughout my life. I had
been taught it in childhood, and as a student I was admitted into a
society where this belief was held without reserve. I had taught it
myself as Superior of the Seminary of Ajaccio. In short, I never had
the least doubt about the doctrine, and I was inclined to defend it
in every way. But the question before them now was whether it was
opportune for the Council to discuss its dogmatic definition. If this
question had been raised some years before I should have asked that
no discussion should be held.... I hold that it would not have been
opportune to discuss the subject some years ago. It would have been
even dangerous, for it would have needlessly disturbed the minds
of men, and have exposed to challenge an authority which more than
any other should remain above discussion. But things are different
to-day. The subject has taken possession of the public Press, and
violent passions have been roused by its discussion. Deplorable
divisions have been encouraged. The faithful are everywhere
disturbed. Even Governments are uneasy; and, with various motives,
concern themselves with this important matter. Things have come to
such a pass that it is essential to bring the discussion to an end.
We are no longer free to keep silence. Peace will only be restored
by a definition of that which Catholics have believed to the present
day. We must therefore treat the subject; and, I would add, must
decide in the affirmative. For otherwise, in the face of existing
circumstances, if this subject be not discussed, serious harm will
be done to the faithful. Governments will not have the respect they
should for the Holy See, and the authority of the Pope will be
depreciated.
“While I was delivering my speech,” adds Guibert, in a most
significant conclusion to this account, “I was watching Cardinal
Antonelli, who was seated opposite. And I saw him give indications of
approval each time I emphasised my opinions. My discourse produced a
considerable effect upon my colleagues. It seemed to be new light,
assisting and strengthening those who were irresolute on the proper
course to pursue. Prelates who spoke after me did me the honour to
base themselves upon the reasons I had propounded, and the conclusion
of our meeting was that the subject should be laid before the Council.
“As soon as our deliberations were ended, the Cardinals went to the
Pope and reported to him all the incidents. They said that, thanks
to the Archbishop of Tours, a favourable vote had been obtained. The
Holy Father expressed his keen satisfaction.”[354]
[354] Follenay, _Vie de Cardinal Guibert_, ii. p. 426.
Such was Guibert’s important share in promoting the great result. If
his health gave way in Rome and compelled him to leave before the issue
was determined, he could well be spared, for he had done his work. It
was appropriate that so influential a mover in the Congregation of
Proposals should afterwards be selected for the Archbishopric of Paris,
and the rank of Cardinal.
But to whom should the task be intrusted of introducing the great
subject into the Council itself? There was a personage singularly
fitted for this difficult work. One of the most active spirits in
Rome was Mgr. Pie, Bishop of Poitiers. His antecedents were, from a
curialist standpoint, irreproachable. He was, says his Ultramontane
biographer, “very Roman.” Already he had laboured to propagate the
distinctive Roman doctrines in five provincial Councils in France; had
taught the Infallibilist opinion twenty years; had suggested suitable
theologians of the proper school for preliminary service in Rome.
The Bishop of Poitiers had impressed upon his clergy his theory of
the relation of Mary to the Councils of the Church. The Council of
Jerusalem, he informed them, was “honoured with her presence,” and she
had never been absent from the Council Chambers since. He suggested as
a fruitful subject for spiritual reflection, “Mary and the Councils.”
The Vatican Assembly deserved better than any to be associated with
her name, for was it not opened on the Festival of her Immaculate
Conception? Mgr. Pie had known perfectly well at least a year that
Pontifical Infallibility was bound to come up for discussion in the
Vatican deliberations. While still residing in his own episcopal
city, his Roman correspondents had informed him that the preliminary
Commission in Rome was entirely agreed on the definability and
opportuneness of the doctrine. And he himself had publicly repudiated
the notion that Papal Infallibility depended for its completeness upon
at least the tacit consent of the Episcopate. That the Bishop’s own
silence and that of his colleagues conferred upon Peter’s doctrinal
utterances a value not obtainable from Christ’s promise, and from the
help of the Spirit, was to Mgr. Pie unthinkable. And he administered
a public rebuke to Bishop Maret, the learned advocate of the opposite
view, through the medium of a sermon on the text, “the servant of God
must be teachable.”[355] The superb confidence of Mgr. Pie greatly
impressed the statesman Ollivier,[356] who said that there was nothing
like it on the other side.
[355] _Acta_, p. 1263.
[356] Ollivier, i. p. 411.
Mgr. Maret replied to the sermon, and the preacher issued a
rejoinder.[357] But the strength of the Bishop of Poitiers did not
lie in argument. He had no learning to measure with that of Maret.
He was given to rhetorical and fervid declamation; whereas Maret was
measured, historical, deliberate. Bishop Pie accordingly escaped from
further discussion in a letter to his clergy, in which he registered a
resolution not to allude again to the recent work of a prelate whose
character he admired, but whose errors he lamented. Refutation was, he
maintained, superfluous, since Maret only repeated his mistakes; and in
fact answers to the work were appearing daily. At the same time Bishop
Pie cannot resist asserting that the work of Bishop Maret deserves
all theological censures short of formal heresy. To which he adds a
prediction, fully justified by events, that Maret would abandon his
errors and submit himself to the judgment of the Church.
[357] _Acta_, p. 1277.
Already in Rome this “advocate of Roman doctrines in their extremest
form”[358] had acted consistently with these antecedents. He had been
long since cordially received by the Pope, and warmly commended for
his diocesan utterances. The special honour had been his of selection
to the important Commission on Faith by almost the highest number of
votes. Already he had preached in Rome, and told his hearers that they
had sown much and reaped little, since two or three false lights had
misguided men and disturbed the vision even of the wise. Nevertheless
he bade them be of good courage. For two or three new definitions of
principle would make their children more powerful for good than they
themselves had ever been.
[358] Ollivier, i. p. 415.
It is true that the diocese of Poitiers was by no means free from
tendencies of the opposite school. The Bishop received from Catholics
of his own flock letters filled with objections against these Roman
doctrines with which for twenty years he had indefatigably laboured to
feed them. Accordingly, for a while, he steered a diplomatic course
between the opposing extremes. When the majority presented a petition,
asking the Pope to introduce forthwith the question of Pontifical
Infallibility into the Council’s discussions, Mgr. Pie was not to be
found among the petitioners. There were reasons for this precaution.
The immediate introduction of the theme would violate the logical
development of thought. For certainly the Church itself should be
considered before the subject of the Pope. While, therefore, the Bishop
of Poitiers was widely remote from sympathy with those who desired the
doctrine’s indefinite postponement and ultimate suppression, he fully
sympathised with the desire to set the doctrine in its logical place.
He thought it would be stronger there than it possibly could be if torn
out of its context, and arbitrarily and disconnectedly introduced.
Hence he did not explicitly associate himself at first with this
urgency movement of the majority. He shared their belief but not their
impatience.
However, tactful and sagacious as ever, and keenly alive to the
direction in which the stream of popularity flowed with increasing
volume, Mgr. Pie was much too prudent to oppose a lengthy reluctance
to the wishes of his intimate partisans. His conversion to the view,
that so urgent a matter required immediate treatment, was shortly
announced. He adopted the vulgar reproach against the minority: “what
they labelled inopportune they have rendered inevitable.” He identified
himself with the irritating assertion that the responsibility for the
definition was due to its opponents. Of that, he said, he had not the
slightest doubt. He was now to influence the Council itself. To whom
could the task of introducing the pontifical claims into the Council
be better intrusted than to him? An Infallibilist who had not signed
the petition for Infallibility would be more calculated to disarm
opposition. The Bishop’s friends in France were enchanted. An episcopal
colleague just returning from Lourdes wrote to him enthusiastically in
terms redolent of the ardent piety of that place: “The Pope has said to
Mary, You are immaculate. And now Mary answers the Pope, And you are
infallible.”
The Bishop of Poitiers set about his speech. He walked with Pius IX.
himself in the gardens of the Vatican. He spent much time in serious
discussion with the Jesuit theologians Schrader and Franzelin. Such
were the influences at work upon his imagination. It was a delicate
task, as his Ultramontane biographer justly observes, to introduce such
a subject before an Assembly so divided. To do it to the satisfaction
of the opposing extremes was of course impossible. The speech of an
hour and five minutes, in which this great theory was launched upon the
Council, received the sharpest criticism of learned Germany, and the
warmest congratulations of the majority and the presiding Cardinals. On
the following day the Pope himself alighted from his carriage to meet
the orator, and expressed the liveliest satisfaction. “_Bene scripsisti
de me_,” said Pius IX.--an allusion, observes the biographer, to the
words which our Lord was reported to have spoken to St Thomas Aquinas,
in commendation of his theological labours. In course of time the
orator was raised to the Cardinalate.
Nothing can better reveal the effect of this announcement on the
minority than the terms in which the Archbishop of Paris denounced it
in a letter to Cardinal Antonelli,[359] the Papal Secretary of State.
[359] Quirinus, p. 854.
“This discussion of Papal Infallibility before all the other
questions which must necessarily precede it, this reversal of the
proper and regular procedure of the Council, this impulsive haste in
a subject of the utmost delicacy, which by its very nature required
deliberation and calm--all this,” said the Archbishop, “was not
only illogical, absurd, incredible, but it plainly betrayed before
the world a resolve to coerce the Council, and was, to describe it
correctly, utterly inconsistent with the freedom of the Bishops. To
persist in this design would be nothing less than a scandal before
the whole world. Those who advocate such excesses are plainly blind
to considerations of prudence. There is such a thing as a justice and
public good faith which cannot be wounded with impunity.
“I say from the depth of inner conviction,” exclaimed the
Archbishop,[360] that if decrees are passed by such methods as these,
occasion will be given for the gravest suspicions as to the validity
and freedom of the Vatican Council.
“That decrees _can_ be passed this way is indisputable,” he added.
“You can do anything by force of numbers against reason and against
right. But there is the sequel to be considered. It is then that
troubles will arise for yourselves and for the Church.”
[360] _Ibid._ p. 856.
Now the writer of this fervid denunciation was conspicuous for
acuteness, tact, reserve, discretion, self-control. What it meant for
such a nature to speak this way may be imagined. Nothing can better
show the intense strain on the feelings of the minority than the fire
and passion in this utterance of one of the coldest of their number.
* * * * *
The Archbishop’s warning produced no practical effect.
A French pamphlet,[361] entitled “The Freedom of the Council and
Infallibility,” said to be the work of the Archbishop of Paris, gives
an extremely powerful description of the situation in Rome, from
the minority standpoint, on the 1st of June. Only fifty copies were
printed, and it was intended exclusively for circulation among the
Cardinals.
[361] Friedrich, _Documenta_.
“Wide-spread complaints exist,” says the writer, “that the Council
is not free. This is momentous, for it affects its ecumenicity. Some
indeed assure us that all is well since the Pope is free. This is
not the Catholic conviction, and will only satisfy one side. It is
useless to bid us observe a respectful silence. The integrity of
history must be secured against party spirit. Moreover we have now
reached the second period of the Council’s activities.
“From the very beginning Papal Infallibility has been the main
affair. To-day it has become the only interest. The time for
concealment is past. The Council has only been assembled for this
end. And now the Pope has postponed all other considerations and
proceeds to throw this doctrine suddenly and irregularly into their
midst. This is an amazing act of sovereign authority, a sort of _coup
d’état_. Nevertheless, it has been throughout the aim, although the
secret aim, of the Assembly at the Vatican. The majority declares the
doctrine to be urgently necessary. But why this urgency? A question
which without peril to the Church has waited eighteen hundred
years might possibly still afford to wait, at least for months.
Precipitation, urgency, are unbecoming in a problem demanding above
all things the calm gravity, deliberateness, freedom, which alone
befit representatives of an eternal Church. The probability of an
interruption of the Council before anything is decreed is a miserable
subterfuge. Is it really believed that the majority is accidental and
could not be counted upon again?
“What appears to us most serious in this _coup d’état_ is not so much
the disordering of the Council’s regular work, as the proof thereby
displayed of an arbitrary and absolute will, determined to override
everything in order to secure an end long since designed although
long concealed.
“Certainly those who urge the Holy Father to such extremes take
upon themselves a most tremendous responsibility. Considering the
circumstances (especially the doubts already raised as to the
Council’s freedom), under which they have demanded and secured an
exercise of supreme authority, placing so many venerable Bishops
in the dilemma of a struggle with the Pope or with their own
consciences, we cannot refrain from the enquiry, What future do they
expect will await this assembly of the Vatican?
“The Council has now resumed its labours under new Regulations.
Undoubtedly these will facilitate rapidity. But the aim of a Council
is not rapidity, but truth. If the speed is increased, it is at
the price of the freedom of the Bishops; at the price of real
deliberation; of the dignity and security of the Church. The new
Regulations on Procedure had provoked a protest from one hundred
Bishops of the minority: they feel themselves burdened by intolerable
restrictions. They find themselves completely under the control of
the Presidents, of the Commissions, of the majority. And behind all
these there is the perpetual intervention of the Pope himself. The
Presidents control absolutely the order of the day, the length of the
Sessions, the regularity of meetings, the intervals for the study of
documents. The Council, under such dominion, has no life of its own,
and no power of initiative. It has no liberty. Is there,” asks the
writer, “any deliberative assembly in Europe or America similarly
restricted? And yet the necessity of freedom is more imperative here
than in any assembly in the world, considering the eternal interests
here involved.
“The minority feel themselves still more crippled by the power of
numbers. There exists a majority and a minority; unequal in numerical
strength, but far more equal considering the Churches which they
represent. The composition of this majority raises serious thoughts.
The Council includes, besides diocesan Bishops, whose right alone is
indisputable, Bishops with no diocese; Vicars Apostolic, dependent
on Rome and removable at will; Cardinals who are not Bishops and
some not even priests; superiors of religious Orders.” According to
the author, the proportion whose right of membership was uncertain
amounted to 195. “Moreover the preponderance of Italian influence is
shown in the fact that it is represented by 276 Bishops, while all
the rest of Europe has only 265. A considerable proportion of Bishops
are being maintained by the Pope, which increases the difficulties of
real independence.
“If it be said that decision by majorities is the method of all
deliberative assemblies, the answer is, that this is not true of a
Universal Council of the Church; least of all can it be permissible
with an Assembly so constituted as that of the Vatican. Creation
of dogmas by such a method is impossible. It has never been done
in the Church. And, accordingly, the protest of a hundred Bishops
declares that moral unanimity alone can determine dogmatic questions.
So serious they declare is this matter that unless their protest
against the New Regulations be attended to, and that without delay,
their consciences will be burdened with intolerable difficulties. A
hundred Bishops say this. And they have secured no reply whatever.
The perplexities resulting from this treatment may be well imagined.
Certainly the function of an Episcopal minority in a Council is no
sinecure. Some desired at once to withdraw altogether. Others, and
these the more numerous, were reluctant to take this final step.
Which of the two was the wiser course the future will show.”
The author complains still further of pressure exerted from without; of
ordinary priests encouraged by Roman influences to make declarations
in favour of Infallibility against their Bishops--a sort of novel
Presbyterianism in which the Bishop’s testimony to the faith is
superseded by a section of his clergy. More serious still is the
personal intervention of the Pope. A powerful moral pressure is brought
to bear upon the Bishops by Pius IX. Bellarmine wrote a courageous
letter to Clement VIII., counselling him not to influence the assembled
theologians with the weight of his personal opinions, nor to bestow his
favours and coveted distinctions exclusively upon those who thought
as he did, but to leave all men in these serious discussions to the
unimpeded expression of his own belief. Certainly Pius IX. had met
with other advisers, and Bellarmine has no equivalent in the Vatican
of to-day. Semi-official papers ascribed to the Pope a sentiment of
dignified reserve on the question of his Infallibility. But, as a fact,
every movement in that direction has received papal blessings and
encouragement. An astonishing number of briefs has been issued from the
secretariat of latin letters. Each tract in favour of Infallibility is
commended. Thus the subject before the Council is prejudged, and the
minority bishops themselves indirectly attacked.
The author’s conclusion is that the character of the Council is
seriously compromised, and its freedom more than questionable.
_The general discussion_[362] of Infallibility began on the 13th of
May, and continued to the 3rd of June. No less than sixty-four Bishops
desired to speak upon it. Their names are known, but their speeches,
with few exceptions, are only known in fragments. They all exist of
course in the shorthand reports stored in the Vatican archives, but
they have not yet appeared. This remains for a future historian.
Meanwhile, we know fairly well what Manning said, and we have in full
the speech of the Archbishop of Paris.
[362] _Acta_; Ollivier, ii. p. 279.
The Archbishop of Paris discussed three points: the introduction, the
contents, and the results of this proposed decree. Two facts might show
whether its introduction into the Council was in accordance with the
principles and dignity of such an Assembly.
One fact was, that while Papal Infallibility was obviously the real
object for which the Vatican Council was assembled (as indeed the
creation of a new dogma is the most momentous act a Council can
perform), nevertheless this momentous subject was never mentioned in
the official documents. And this omission was natural. For the Catholic
world had no desire for a settlement of the question; nor was there any
real ground for meddling with what had hitherto always been a subject
of free enquiry among theologians.
The second fact was the introduction of the subject into the Council
completely out of its logical and natural order. It was not logical to
begin the doctrine on the Church with a definition on the Papacy; for
the Infallibility of the Church must clearly be considered prior to
that of the Pope.
So far as to its introduction. As to its subject matter: the substance
of the formula before the Council contained ambiguous expressions, and
was full of difficulty. Under what conditions is this Infallibility
supposed to be exercised? By what external signs can we rest assured
that the Pope is discharging the office of supreme teacher of
Christendom? Is the consent of the Episcopate required or not? If
it is, then men are fighting a shadow, for this is the doctrine
universally received; if it is not required, then they are introducing
an unheard-of and intolerable innovation. But when a formula free from
ambiguities has been discovered, then two conditions must be fulfilled:
First, the formula, when discovered, must be proved by solid arguments
from Scripture, from the Fathers, from the Councils. It must be shown
that no important historic incidents conflict with it, that no papal
act refutes it. The Archbishop referred to the Council of Constance
as an example in which the statement that “every lawfully convoked
Ecumenical Council representing the Church derives its authority
immediately from Christ, and every one, the Pope included, is subject
to it in matters of faith,” was unanimously decreed. The Italian
School, of course, would deny the ecumenical character of this decree.
“That,” says the Archbishop of Paris, “I do not admit.” Moreover, in
any case it would show the common opinion of the Bishops. All these
questions, urged Darboy, would have to be considered and weighed.
Until the necessary proofs are forthcoming nothing can rightfully be
done. There is no peril in delay. But to impose irrevocably on the
consciences of the faithful a decree with precipitation, and without
absolute certainty, would be the gravest peril that can be conceived.
As to the practical results of such a decree the Archbishop observed
that Papal Infallibility was offered as a means for strengthening
authority and unity in the Church. But it must be remembered that the
ideal of authority in Christendom is not that which our imagination
or our reason represents as most desirable; but that which Christ has
established and our fathers maintained to this day. It is not our
function to reconstruct the Church after our taste, or to alter the
conditions of divine ordaining. Now the Church has never been without
its essential elements. But it has never had a definition of Papal
Infallibility. Such definition cannot therefore be essential. Nor have
men the right to argue that the Church’s unity would be firmer if
authority were stronger. An institution may be ruined by over-pressure.
Excessive concentration may paralyse its functions rather than perfect
them.
Then, again, the remedy for the evils of the world is not to be found
in Papal Infallibility. This doctrine will not draw to the Church the
alienated majority; nor give the Church its rightful place of influence
among the nations. The world is sick and perishing, not for want of
knowing the truth, but for want of love for it. If it reject the truth
now when presented by the collective testimony of the Church, it will
not any the more accept it because affirmed by one infallible voice.
And what is the value of a proclamation if it is not received? of an
anathema where the formulating authority is not acknowledged?
The Archbishop evidently spoke with constraint. His measured,
diplomatic utterances suggest the firmness and caution of one desirous
not unnecessarily to offend yet resolute to speak his mind. He told
the Council that he had delivered his conscience, so far as was
allowed him; that if he were to say all he would outrun the limits of
discretion. He concluded by proposing, first, to postpone the scheme as
having been introduced in a manner unworthy of the Council; secondly,
to reconsider more carefully the nature and limits of Infallibility;
and, finally, to set aside the subject altogether as fraught with
dangerous results to Christendom.
The Congregations were occupied with daily lengthy speeches for and
against the doctrine of Infallibility from 13th May to 3rd June. On
3rd June the Presidents produced a petition signed by many Bishops,
requesting that the debate might be closed. The Council was accordingly
invited to express its opinion, and the large majority decided that the
time for closure was come. Thus again the minority were defeated.
Little more remained to be done. The special discussion followed. But
the matter was approaching its close. The minority grew more spiritless
and anxious for self-protection. The intense heat of the Roman summer
told fearfully on the health of Bishops accustomed to northern climes.
Appeals to the Pope for adjournment until autumn were rejected. The
futility of protracted discussion became convincingly clear to the
minority no less than to the majority.[363] A desperate attempt was
made by some French Bishops (Dupanloup and the Archbishop of Paris)
to induce the Emperor Napoleon to request the Pope, in the name of
humanity and reason, to prorogue the Council until October. But before
the reply could arrive the minority abandoned the struggle.[364]
[363] Ollivier, ii. p. 329.
[364] _Acta_, p. 756.
Many Bishops resigned their turn to speak. A movement for closure
arose, instigated chiefly by Manning: at first resisted, the minority
gradually acquiesced.
Ultimately, amid general approval, the presiding Cardinal declared
the discussion closed. On the 13th of July the proposition of Papal
Infallibility was put to the vote.[365] The President announced that
601 Fathers had voted. Of these 451 were in favour, 88 against, and 62
favourable conditionally.[366]
[365] _Acta_, p. 758.
[366] _Ibid._ p. 760.
The Legates further announced that the conditional votes would be
taken into consideration, and reported upon in the next Congregation.
Ninety-one Bishops also abstained from voting, although in Rome at
the time.[367] When the members re-assembled on Saturday, 16th July,
a report was made on the conditional votes and the amendments; but so
far from anything being done to conciliate the minority, the wording of
the decree was made somewhat more uncompromising than before. To the
definition voted on the 13th, that the decrees of the Roman Pontiff
were irreformable of themselves, it was now added “and not by consent
of the Church,” thus emphasising still more strongly that the dogmatic
authority of the Papacy was independent of the entire Episcopate.[368]
After this stupendous achievement the Presidents informed the Bishops
that, although the Council was not prorogued, a general permission
was granted them to return to their dioceses until 11th November (St
Martin’s Day).[369]
[367] Quirinus, p. 778.
[368] Ollivier, ii. p. 337.
[369] _Acta._
The final Public Session at which the Pope proposed to convert the
formula into dogma of faith was fixed for Monday, 18th July. There
was for the minority certainly no time to lose. They made one last
attempt.[370] On the Saturday evening a deputation of the opposition,
including two Cardinals and the Archbishops of Paris and Milan, went
to the Vatican and sought an audience with the Pope. After waiting
an hour, they were admitted at nine o’clock.[371] The Archbishop
of Paris was their representative. In his own name, and in that
of his associates, he declared his submission to the doctrine of
Infallibility, but requested the insertion of the phrase, “relying on
the testimony of the Churches.” This phrase would have acknowledged
that the witness of the Church and of the Episcopate was essential
to any doctrine which claimed to be part of the Catholic faith.[372]
It would have made the dogma much less difficult to many members of
the Roman Church. It would have relieved the strange and incredible
isolation in which the new formula had placed the Pope--as apart from,
independent of, the universal consciousness of Christendom. It would
have suggested that the Pope represented and voiced the collective
conviction of the Church, on whose testimony he was relying. But this
was not the Ultramontane idea. And there is no occasion for surprise if
Pius IX. rejected it. One more appeal was made to him. Ketteler,[373]
Bishop of Maintz, threw himself on his knees before the Pope, and
with his eyes full of tears implored Pius to make some concession
which would restore peace to the Church and to the Episcopate. It is a
striking scene. Two conceptions of the Church are embodied in these two
men: in Pius, the modern Ultramontane conception of absolute authority
centralised and condensed in one individual; in his suppliant, the
ancient Cyprianic conception of authority residing in the Collective
Episcopate. In the attitude of the two men, the historian may see the
old vainly pleading with the new for permission to exist; lifelong
believers reduced to self-contradiction as the price of permission to
remain. It was this scene which provoked a Roman contemporary[374] to
say:--
[370] Ollivier, ii. p. 341.
[371] Quirinus, p. 800.
[372] Ollivier, ii. p. 341.
[373] _Ibid._ ii. p. 342; Quirinus, p. 801.
[374] Quirinus, p. 802.
“Pius is firm and immovable, smooth and hard as marble, infinitely
self-satisfied, merciless and ignorant, without any understanding of
the mental conditions and needs of mankind, without any notion of the
character of foreign nations, but as credulous as a nun.”
Frustrated in that last appeal, the deputation returned to their party.
A meeting was held very late on the Saturday night.[375] What should
the minority do? The bolder spirits proposed that they should attend
the Public Session, and openly repeat their rejection of the doctrine.
But the bolder spirits were few. Many shrank from such resolute action.
They held it inconsistent with respect for the Pope to pronounce a
public protest in his presence at the final Session when the doctrine
would be proclaimed. They had misgivings as to the number who had the
courage for such a stand. Diminishing numbers added point to this
misgiving. Many Bishops had already left the city, others were going.
Was it prudent to appear in protest shorn of their real numerical
strength? Moreover, there were personal anxieties and fears. What if in
the Public Session their protest was over-ruled? The determination of
the majority to decree the dogma at any cost was now beyond dispute.
Illusion was impossible. The formidable anathema attached to the decree
might in another forty-eight hours apply to themselves. They were very
uneasy in the papal precincts. They would infinitely prefer to take
refuge in the safety of their own cathedral cities, far away from the
entanglements, oppressive atmosphere, moral as well as physical, in
Rome. Consequently caution prevailed. They composed a letter to the
Pope, the last of their many futile protestations, couched in terms
of deference, but registering their continued allegiance to their
ancient principles. And by Sunday evening most of the seventy Bishops,
representatives of some of the most illustrious Sees in Christendom,
had left the city, and hastened away beyond the territorial dominions
of Rome.
[375] Ollivier, ii. p. 343.
The last letter of the defeated minority called the Pope’s attention
to the number of disapproving prelates.[376] To the eighty-eight
who voted in the negative must be added the sixty-two others who
expressed themselves dissatisfied; and, beyond these, another seventy
who absented themselves, although present in Rome, and others still
who had already left the city. The large element of disapproval would
be obvious to the Pope, and also to the world. Since the hour when
they recorded their vote against the doctrine, nothing had happened
to change their opinion: on the contrary, much to strengthen it.
Accordingly they now renew and endorse their declaration. Under these
circumstances they have resolved to absent themselves from the Public
Session of the 18th; their reverence for the Holy See not permitting
them to proceed to an open refusal of a doctrine by which the Pope was
personally affected. They would therefore leave the city and return to
their dioceses with expressions of unaltered faith and obedience.
[376] _Acta_, p. 994.
Among the signatures to this letter are the names of Cardinal
Schwarzenberg; Darboy, Archbishop of Paris; Scherr, Archbishop of
Munich; Kenrick, Archbishop of St Louis; Strossmayer, Bishop of
Sirmium; Bishop Maret, Bishop Clifford of Clifton, Bishop Dupanloup,
Bishop Hefele.[377]
[377] _Ibid._ p. 995.
This final letter of disapproval, which sixty of the Bishops signed,
was of course technically valueless. All speeches, protests, and
letters count for nothing compared with the actual formal decision. If
any protest were to have validity, it must be made precisely where the
minority had not the courage to make it--in the Council at the final
Session; to frustrate the impending decree. Yet, if it is strictly
true that the dogma was passed with practical unanimity of all present,
on the value of that unanimity opinions will legitimately differ.
The conduct of the minority has been not unnaturally severely
criticised. They grew feeble, says Ollivier,[378] the head of the
French ministry, just in proportion as actions ought to have taken
the place of words. Their arguments in their last consultation were
weakness itself. Not to renew their protest in the Public Session
was virtually to cancel the protest already made. It insured for the
decree just that unanimity which its advocates desired, and which its
opponents knew that it did not possess. It was a confession that they
dared not utter Yes or No.[379]
[378] Ollivier, ii. p. 341.
[379] _Ibid._ p. 343.
Before Dupanloup left the city he sent the Pope a letter[380]
suggesting one last expedient for averting the evils which a decree of
Infallibility would involve. Let the Pope personally decline to confirm
the decree. Let him say in the Public Session that he thankfully
recognises the remarkable tribute to the prerogatives of his See,
in the votes of so numerous an assembly of Bishops; nevertheless,
considering the circumstances, and after mature reflection, he believes
it more in accordance with apostolic wisdom and prudence to withhold
his definite approval until a less disturbed and more propitious
time. Dupanloup assured the Pope that this manœuvre would solve the
problem, release men unexpectedly at the last moment from incalculable
misfortunes, astonish the world, and win universal reverence and
admiration. This singular epistle terminated with a promise to preserve
inviolable silence on the advice which he ventured to give.
[380] _Acta_, p. 993.
The night passed. Early on the morning of the eventful 18th of July,
Dupanloup’s reflections were interrupted by a sudden exclamation from
his travelling companion, Archbishop Haynald, who sat at the opposite
corner of the carriage. “Monseigneur,” said Haynald, “we have made a
great mistake.” Dupanloup had no heart for further discussion. He made
a sign that he wished to say his Office. Archbishop Haynald was right.
If, as Dupanloup told the clergy, Bishops united in council with the
Pope “decide questions as witnesses of the faith of their Churches, as
judges by divine right”[381] it would seem to be not only their right,
but their very awful duty and inalienable responsibility to allow
no sentiment of respect for the office of another to silence their
convictions and frustrate their decisions. Thus it is true that the
minority melted away, and that the ultimate proclamation was made with
practical unanimity; but this was due to a regard for sentiment which
was, under the circumstances, wholly out of place. The Bishop who told
his diocese that the definition of such prerogatives demanded other
considerations than sentiment or filial piety, could not consistently
withdraw his testimony to the faith of the Church just in the most
critical moment that ever awaited him.
[381] _Letter to his Clergy_ (1868), p. 11.
Meanwhile in Rome the final declaration was made. In the presence of
his faithful majority, in the midst of one of the fiercest storms ever
known to break across the city, accompanied by thunder and lightning,
while rain poured in through the broken glass of the roof close to the
spot where the Pope was standing, Pius IX. read in the darkness, by the
aid of a candle, the momentous affirmation of his own Infallibility.
Variously explained by friend and foe, the storm and the darkness
are by the one compared to the solemn legislation on Sinai; by the
other to tokens of divine displeasure and approaching desolation. But
whatever constructions were placed upon the circumstance, the dogma
decreed indisputably declared that--
“The Definition affirms that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks
_ex cathedra_--that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor
and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic
Authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be
held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to
him in Blessed Peter--is possessed of that Infallibility with which
the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for
defining doctrine regarding faith and morals. And that, therefore,
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves
and not from the consent of the Church.”[382]
[382] See Manning’s _Pastoral_ (1870): _The Vatican Council and its
Definition_, p. 57.
For a few more meetings the diminished Council lingered on.[383] The
eighty-seventh Congregation was held on 13th August, when the total
of Bishops present was reduced to 136. Two further Sessions were
held on 23rd August and 1st of September, when the numbers dwindled
still further to 127 and 104. But for all real purposes the Council
met no more after the fourth Public Session and the proclamation of
Infallibility.
[383] _Acta_, p. 763.