How the pope became the infallible head of the Church
From Papal Power by Paul Collins
Harper Collins 1997, pp 33-61
Published with the necessary permissions on our website
The beginnings of the modern papal revival
The odd thing is that two hundred years ago, in contrast to the enormous power and influence of the contemporary papacy, things had reached rock bottom in Rome. The pope of the time, Pius VI (1775-1799), was seen as the last of the line and it was expected that he would be swept away with the rest of the detritus of the old regime by the forces of the French Revolution and Napoleon. In fact, in the latter part of the eighteenth century the papacy reached one of several nadirs in its history in terms of its influence and power. The popes of the period were not particularly bad; they were simply mediocre and inadequate. Yet 1800 was the turning pointright through the nineteenth and twentieth centimes the papacy has been rebuilding its power and influence and has gradually centralized more and more authority in Rome. In order to understand the contemporary papacy we must understand what has happened to the Church over the last two hundred years.
The clearest symbol of the weakness of the late-eighteenth-century papacy was the way in which Clement XIV (1769 1774) was forced by Catholic powers, led by the Marquis de Pombal of Portugal, to suppress the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). The elimination of twenty-three thousand Jesuits was an enormous loss to the Church, education, and culture in Europe. However, the Society survived in parts of Germany. Prussia, and Russia, due to the support of local monarchs who appreciated their educational work, as well as in small groups in the United States and England. J. N. D. Kelly says bluntly that Clement XIV's papacy 'saw the prestige of the papacy sink to its lowest level for centuries.'(1)
Four months after Clement's death, the inadequate Pius VI was elected. From 1789 onwards he faced the challenge of the French Revolution. Again, to understand much that happened subsequently it is important to see the scarring experience that the papacy endured during the revolutionary and Napoleonic period. The first direct conflict with the revolutionary government came over the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (12 July 1790).This ordinance of the French National Assembly was meant only to effect the civil aspects of the Church, but it actually went much further. Parish priests were elected by the parish. Bishops were to be elected by citoyens actifs. Dioceses were to conform to the borders of the new state departments. Newly elected bishops were to receive their institutio canonica. or episcopal installation, from their metropolitan archbishop; the pope would merely be notified. The Church was made a part of the state. Freedom of opinion and religious toleration were guaranteed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. An oath of fidelity to the Civil Constitution was imposed on the clergy and this split them. Most of the bishops refused to take it and left the country. Only a minority of the clergy took the oath. Pius VI stalled for time to see what the attitude of Louis XVI (1754-1793) would be. while the king in turn was waiting for the view of the pope! The Bishop of Autun, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who had taken the oath, set out to consecrate an entirely new episcopate. He was soon to give up belief in Catholicism altogether. The majority of priests who took the oath did so with reservations. Those who did completely refuse (the "non-jurors') were expelled from their appointments.
Eventually the pope condemned the Civil Constitution in March 1791. The king was unwilling to break with the papacy and from this point onward he turned away from the revolution. The government soon tired of trying to settle the religious issue, but the clerical oath had become identified with patriotism. Non-jurors were identified with emigres and enemies abroad. The new Legislative Assembly decreed that non-jurors were to be considered under suspicion of revolt against the law and in the 1792 September Massacres, two hundred and twenty-five priests were executed. On 20 September, the National Convention assumed power. The monarchy was abolished and in January 1793 King Louis XVI was executed. The Terror became an instrument of state policy under Maximilien de Robespierre. The Convention pushed for total de-Christianization. By this time the Constitutional priests and bishops were in an invidious position. They were in schism in a state that was becoming increasingly anti-Christian. A new. pagan calendar was established. The Constitutional Church fell apart and a new revolutionary cult was introducedthe cult of Reason. On 8 June 1794, the Feast of the Supreme Being was celebrated in Notre Dame.
With the fall of Robespierre and the Termidorian Reaction of mid-1794, the Terror receded. But the principles of the Revolution had already spread to Italy. The newly emerging French general, Napoleon Bonaparte, had taken Milan in 1796 and then invaded the Papal States. In February 1797 he imposed the Peace of Tolentino on Pius VI. One year later the Roman Republic was established and the pope was deposed from his civil power. War broke out again in Italy and, after a brief stay in Florence, Pius VI was taken over the Alps to France as a prisoner.
When Pius died under arrest in Valence in July 1799 many presumed that the papacy had at last come to an end. But he had left secret instructions for the election of a successor. Ten months later in Venice, Luigi Barnaba Chiaramonte, a Benedictine, was elected with the style Pius VII (1800-1823). The modern age of papal history had begun. But the experience of the revolutionary decade had profound effects on the papacy. The revolutionary ideas of liberty, equality and the overthrow of monarchy were viewed as the antithesis of Christianity by the papal government. When the clerics returned to power in 1815 they were determined that these revolutionary ideas were to have no place in the Papal States, nor in the wider Church. This was to be a disastrous policy.
Pius VII (1800-1823)
Secular assumptions of the end of the papacy were premature. Even before the death of Pius VI, the cardinals had been gathering at Venice under Austrian protection and influence.(3)Through the election of a pliant pope, the Austrians hoped to gain control of all of northern Italy. After a long, deadlocked conclave. Pius VII was elected. He quickly removed himself from Austrian influence, returned to Rome, and appointed the great papal diplomat Ercole Consalvi (1757-1824) as his secretary of state. As such, Consalvi acted as both papal prime minister and foreign minister. While on the journey to Rome, Pius VII heard about Napoleon's victory over the Austrians at Marengo (July 1800). The long struggle with Bonaparte began. At first Pius VII was happy to work with the French state. Negotiations were carried on by Consalvi and a concordat with Napoleon, who by now controlled France, was signed on 15 July 1801. The terms were weighted in favor of France and the government retained the right of nomination of bishops. The appointment of parish priests required government approval. Bishops and priests were to be paid by the state. Catholicism was recognized as the religion of the majority of Frenchmen and freedom for the Church was guaranteed. A whole new bench of bishops was nominated.
But Napoleon's Organic Articles, a series of measures applying the concordat, increased the power of the state over the bishops and excluded papal influence in France. Napoleon saw the Church as a department of the state. In the long term, the Organic Articles had the effect of forcing the French church to turn from the old-style Gallicanism to the ultramontanism of the nineteenth century. The pope attended Napoleon's coronation in December 1804. but relations between them quickly degenerated. Rome and the Papal States were occupied and integrated into the kingdom of Italy, and in July 1809 Pius VII was arrested and imprisoned, first at Savona (1809-1812) and then Fontainebleau (1812-1814). It turned the pope into a 'martyr' for all anti-Napoleonic nations and made him popular even in Protestant England.
After the abdication of Napoleon. Pius VII returned to Rome in March 1814, left the city during the '100 Days' when Napoleon escaped from Elba, and returned finally on 7 June1815, after the French emperor's final defeat at Waterloo. Consalvi, sacked under French pressure in 1806, had been reappointed secretary of state in May 1814. .
The Congress of Vienna (I815) and the restoration of the Papal States
The defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 brought the kings back to power. The peace settlement was negotiated at the Congress of Vienna. But it was a very different Europe to which the kings were restored. The principles articulated by the Revolution and spread by French armies had brought about a new consciousness that was to change the course of European history. The Church, too, would have to come to terms with this. In the one hundred and fifty years from 1815 until Vatican II, there was a long and often bitter struggle within Catholicism between the forces of equality and liberalism on the one hand, and those of reactionary conservatism on the other. In a real sense this struggle still continues. Neither Pius VII nor Consalvi were reactionaries, but they were staunchly anti-liberal. They were faced with immediate problems, including the restoration of the Papal States, and they supported the new world order that emerged from the Congress of Vienna.
In retrospect, the settlement achieved in 1815 was moderate and successful. There was no war involving more than two great powers between 1815 and 1914. The statesmen of 1815 claimed that they wanted to return to conditions prior to 1789. At Vienna they enunciated the principle of legitimacy: the legitimate rights of rulers were to be respected. But the application was not consistent. The petty German principalities were not restored, and only persistent efforts by Consalvi secured the restoration of the Papal States. It was primarily the legitimate rights of the monarchs of Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, and Britain that were really respected. Although the papacy emerged from the revolutionary era with enhanced prestige, both the Austrians and the French had little sympathy for the restoration of the Papal States. It was Consalvi's friendship with British foreign secretary Castlereagh that finally persuaded the powers to restore the papal dominions. Consalvi had visited London in 1814 and had been received at court.
The restored Papal States straddled Italy from the Romagna in the north-west to the north-central Legations, focused on Bologna, down the Marches on the Adriatic coast, across the Apennines to Umbria and the Patrimonium Petri, the area immediately around Rome. These areas had little in common with each other in the nineteenth century, but Consalvi's aim was to ensure the neutrality of the papacy, while maintaining the legitimist status quo by stamping out liberalism and representative democracy. These aims proved irreconcilable. Consalvi imposed strict censorship, especially of the press. Hales correctly comments that 'Consalvi's achievement at Vienna was as remarkable as it would later prove to have been disastrous.(4) His point is that the papacy insisted on keeping the Legations, largely because they were the only economically viable part of the state. During the Napoleonic regime they had been united with Lombardy. their natural economic, geographic, and political setting. During the French occupation laymen had shared in their government and they did not wish to return to the inefficiency of the clerical regime. But Hales's comment can be applied to all of the Papal States; they became a halter around the papal neck and linked the papacy psychologically and politically to the legitimist establishment. Consalvi's victory proved, in the end, 'only to postpone and prolong the death agonies of a temporal order that was moribund.'(5) The problem in the Papal States was the constant conflation of the spiritual and the temporal.(6) This confusion extended to the identification of the fate of the Papal States with the fate of the universal Church. The popes projected their problems with democracy and free speech in the Papal States onto the whole Church and condemned these movements everywhere. While Consalvi recognized the need for some reforms, especially in the Legations, he was opposed by the obscurantist Zelanti cardinals, led by Bartolomeo Pacca,
When he died in 1823, Pius VII had restored the reputation of the papacy and had turned Rome once more into an international and artistic capital. His pontificate saw the restoration of the Society of Jesus in 1814, the re-establishment of the Propaganda Fide in 1817, and the recognition of the Latin-American republics in 1822. The great missionary expansion of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had begun. Through Propaganda Fide (the curial department, now called the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, that supervises the Church's missionary work) Rome was to play a central role in this missionary expansion, determining dioceses, appointing bishops, settling disputes, encouraging the foundation and growth of missionary orders, and bringing those orders more and more under papal control. The great missionary movement that followed European expansion in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries was to be an important part of the process of Roman centralization.
Romanticism and traditionalism
But other ideologies were emerging in 1815. Coterminous with the French Revolution, another movement swept across Europeromanticism. Romanticism is difficult to define. Kenneth Clark explains it simply as '1 feel. Therefore I am.'(7) Romanticism began as a revival of interest in nature and continued as a revolt against the rationalism and symmetry of eighteenth-century classicism. Romanticism also expressed itself in a religious revival, and the classic expression of this is found in the work of Count Francois René de Chateaubriand (17681848). His 1802 book Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity), attempts to negate the eighteenth-century rationalist attack on Christianity by transferring the debate about religion from the realm of reason to that of feeling. He argued that Christianity is true because it is beautiful. A similar current is present in the Protestant thinker Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834).
Two other French religious writers, Louis de Bonald (1754-1840) and Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), gave expression to the anti-democratic aspect of romanticism. Both were philosophical traditionalists. They argued that it. was by adherence to the tradition which was 'handed down' that truth was maintained in a culture. Revolutions were wrong because they interfered with the transmission of truth. Family and state came from God, and there was an indissoluble union between Church and monarchy. De Maistre was a political theorist rather than a theologian. He wanted to destroy the 'satanic' evils of the Revolution and nationalism. His most important work was Du Pape (Concerning the Pope. 1819). The key to his political philosophy is the idea of sovereignty. Subjects are bound to obey the sovereign government, for it must be assumed to be right; it is, in a practical sense, 'infallible.' He held that religious truths are also social truths, arid they exist for the common good. Society cannot exist without religion. For this reason the practical 'infallibility' of government becomes the absolute 'infallibility' of faith. He saw the infallible papacy as the permanent symbol of spiritual authority, and monarchy as the symbol of temporal authority. For de Maistre the Catholic Church was the one safeguard of political stability, and the pope alone had genuine access to the truth. Human reason was of no use, for it was fallible; it was only by adherence to what was 'handed down' that truth was guaranteed. Thus what the pope proclaims as true is true to the exclusion of all other truths.
These reactionary, irrational, and entirely untheological views had enormous influence on the development of nineteenth-century ultramontanism. They permeated Roman attitudes and in a real sense continue to underpin papalism. At the end of twentieth century, the pope remains the last relic of absolute monarchy, presuming that even his personal theological views are somehow true and therefore normative for Catholics. In this view, the pope alone is the source of truth, even if that truth is contradicted by historical fact. The wider world and secular scholarship has little or nothing to offer, for the papacy is the infallible vehicle of truth. Given that papalism does not take history seriously, it is useless to point out that these views are not only untheological but they are entirely without foundation in the tradition of the Church, They are, in the most precise sense of the word, 'novelties.' But their subtle, underpinning influence continues.
The influence of romanticism, de Maistre, and the ultramontane bandwagon needs to be kept in mind as we examine the disastrous history of the Papal States in the nineteenth century, and the gradual replacement of a political hegemony over central Italy by a spiritual and theological hegemony over the whole Church.
Leo XII (1823-1829), Gregory XVI (1831-1846), and Pius IX (1846-1878)
With the death of Pius VII, the tentatively moderate regime in the Papal States was quickly abolished by his successor. Leo XII. The region reverted to an economically stultified police state. Leo XII set a pattern that was to be followed by his successors. During the brief and slightly more open regime of Pius VIII (1829-1830). Catholic Emancipation was passed in the United Kingdom (13 April 1829) and the United States bishops held their first provincial synod. He in turn was succeeded by the Camaldolese monk, Bartolomeo Alberto Cappellari, who was elected as Gregory XVI.
In 1799, Cappellari had published The Triumph of the Holy See and the Church against the Attacks of the Innovators. In this he advocated papal infallibility and the maintenance of the Papal States. The day after he was elected there was a revolt in Bologna that was repressed by the Austrians after the failure of the corrupt papal mercenaries. Gregory refused any democratic reforms and throughout his papacy there was simmering rebellion. He even refused to allow railways in the Papal States! In 1830. liberal revolts broke out in Catholic Belgium against the Protestant Dutch monarchy, and in Catholic Poland against the Orthodox tsar. Gregory condemned both these revolts. He was utterly opposed to liberalism because he saw God, not the people, as the source of sovereignty,(8) Gregory's experience of liberalism and democratic ideas in his own state soured him against all forms of freedom, both in theory and in practice. He was convinced that liberalism was rooted in indifferentism. We have already seen his reaction to Lamennais's ideas about liberalism, and how his encyclical Mirari vos (1832) condemned all forms of liberalism within Catholicism (pp. 20-1).
Yet. while Gregory encouraged reactionary regimes in Europe., in the new world the Church was growing apace. In the United States, Canada, and Australiain contrast to Europe Catholicism began to prosper in free, liberal societies. Gregory had been Prefect of Propaganda before 1831, and as pope he encouraged the missionary movement, whose impetus really got under way during his papacy. He established new dioceses and vicariates, approved new missionary orders of both men and women, reorganized others, condemned the slave trade and even encouraged the training of indigenous clergy and local hierarchies in mission territories. In Rome he also encouraged archaeological research. Despite these positive notes his papacy showed no comprehension of the forces at work in the nineteenth-century world. Gregory strongly reinforced the pattern of the alienation of the Church from modern culture.
When Gregory died in 1846 he was succeeded by the longest papacy in history; the conclave elected Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, who took the style Pius IX.(9) He became pope with the reputation of being a liberal. He had been critical of the papal government and he had shown some sympathy with Italian national aspirations. Citizens of the Papal States were delighted when, as soon as he was elected, he planned for railways and street lighting and declared an amnesty for prisoners. He allowed some freedom of the press and of assembly, and set up a Consulta (consultative assembly) in October 1847. It looked as though he would unite Italy.
However, 1848 was the year of revolutions throughout Europe. In Paris, in February, King Louis Philippe was overthrown. In Frankfurt, the seat of the German Confederation. there were a series of revolts. In Austria, the Chancellor. Clemens von Metternich, fell, and in both Naples and Lombardy revolts broke out. Rome was affected also as revolutionary pressures increased. The pope's prime minister. Count Pellegrino Rossi. was murdered and in November 1848 Pius IX fled to Gaeta. A Roman republic was set up by Giuseppe Mazzini and the new religion of 'God and the People' was introduced. At Gaeta the Pope appointed the lay cardinal Giacomo Antonelli (1806-1886) secretary of state, and it was he who obtained French help for the recapture of Rome.(10) Pius IX re-entered the city in April 1850. The moderately progressive pope had become a reactionary.
Under the control of Antonelli, the Papal States were restored. But this arrangement was to survive for only another decade. The economic., social, and political forces of Italian unification could not be resisted: a new 'feeling of italianita' was spreading.(11) The prime minister of Piedmont, Count Camillo Cavour. was the ruthless pragmatist who turned italianita into the reality of Italy. The defeat of Austria at Solfarino and Margenta in 1859 led to Lombardy, Tuscariy, Parma, Modena, the Legations, and Umbria becoming part of a united Italy under the Piedmontese monarchy. The corrupt Neapolitan kingdom collapsed in 1860. All that was left to the pope was the Patrimonium Petri. This was protected until 1870 by a French force, assisted by volunteers. After the downfall of Napoleon 111. following the Franco-Prussian War, the French garrison was withdrawn and Italian troops occupied Rome on 20 September 1870. In 1871, the Italian government offered the pope the Law of Guarantees, which gave him possession of the Vatican and other Roman buildings arid granted him important immunities. He refused this offer and retired to the Vatican. The Roman question was not settled until 1928.
Religious centralization under Pius IX
If Pius IX's papacy was a political disaster, it was enormously successful ecclesiastically. Transportation made travel easier and pilgrims flocked to Rome. The growing influence of the new ultramontanism enhanced the influence of the papacy in the Church. The Jesuits became increasingly influential. Roman centralization grew, not only bureaucratically, but also through religious orders moving their headquarters to Rome, the establishment of many new orders of pontifical right, and the building of national seminaries in Rome where elite students were trained for the priesthood and imbibed the Romanita. Many of them were subsequently to become bishops.
Propaganda continued its leadership in missionary work under the long-lasting Prefect, Cardinal Alessandro Barnabo. The nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries saw the greatest missionary expansion in the history of Catholicism and Christianity. Propaganda encouraged this and hundreds of new dioceses and vicariates were set up in the British, French, and German colonies, and in Asia and Africa, as well as the United States. Canada, and even Europe itself. Pius IX re-established the English hierarchy in 1850 and the Dutch hierarchy in 1853. Concordats were negotiated with Russia, Spain, Austria, and the Latin American republics.
Beatifications and canonizations were also a characteristic of this papacy. In the same vein, in December 1854, the pope defined (without any formal episcopal consultation) the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This encouraged the revival of Marian devotion specifically and a richer devotional life generally. Much of this was centered in France., either on specific persons, such as Saint Jean Vianney, the Curé of Ars, or specific pilgrimage shrines, the most important of which were La Salette (1846) and Lourdes (1858), and after 1870 this religious revival took on a new lease of life.(12)
The occupation of most of the Papal States in 1859 had an odd doctrinal consequence. The pope perceived this as a new assault on the Church and he felt it was a consequence of modern errors.(13) There had been repeated papal condemnations of modern theories and a strong emphasis on the need for a return to Thomistic philosophy. The political loss finally persuaded Pius IX to issue the Syllabus of Errors and the encyclical that accompanied it. Quanta cura (8 December 1864). The other immediate occasion was the first Catholic Congress at Malines in 1863. Inspired by French and Belgian liberal Catholics, over three thousand people gathered at the congress and unequivocally supported the call for 'a free Church in a free state'
The Syllabus was drawn up by the Barnabite priest (later cardinal) Luigi Bilio. The pope's secretary of state, Antonelli. was opposed to issuing the Syllabus for political reasons. It was a confusing document and did not bear Pius' signature. But it represented the pope's view and was symptomatic of the alienation of Pius IX from the modern world. The essence of the Syllabus is expressed in the last error condemned that: 'The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself with progress, with liberalism, and with modern civilization.'(14) The Syllabus was a grab-bag of propositions condemned in earlier encyclicals and speeches of the pope, and covered topics such as rationalism, pantheism, indifferentism, socialism, secret societies, Bible societies, the rights of the Church, and the pope's civil power.(15) It was an attack on liberal Catholics and liberalism, but it was also an error of judgment in view of the opposition, misunderstanding, arid difficulties that it caused.
The first Vatican Council (1869-1870)
The most important event of the papacy of Pius IX was Vatican I. It. was also the pivotal event in the development of modern papalism. Papal primacy and infallibility were defined at this council. It is essential to understand what happened at this gathering for it drew together and focused the ultramontane ideology of the preceding decades. It also vastly enhanced the prestige and power of the Vatican and set it apart from the rest of the Church. Certainly. Catholics have had to continue to deal with the results of Vatican I. right up until our own time. There is a sense in which the papacy of John Paul II is the natural result of all that was decided in 1870. A number of prescient bishops at Vatican I foresaw the results of the definitions of both infallibility arid primacy. Further, as we shall see. questions are increasingly being asked both about the freedom of those at the Council and about the reception by the Church of its decrees. But, firstly, it is important to examine the dynamics of the Council and how and what decisions were made.
In the nineteenth century there was widespread questioning of basic Christian beliefs. As a result, there was mounting pressure in the Church for the reassertion of the fundamental dogmatic basis of Christianity. The idea of a council as a way of achieving this was first suggested in 1849. Certainly the pope began to talk to some of the cardinals about it from December 1864 onwards. Pius was also influenced by the growing influence of neo-ultramontanisrnperhaps not to the extent suggested by August Bernhard Hasler, but nonetheless this movement became very important and was supported by the pope as proximate preparations for the Council got under way.(16) On 26 June 1867, Pius IX announced his intention to hold a council and he set 8 December 1869 for the opening. In a ham-fisted but well-intentioned move, all Orthodox bishops were invited to return to Roman unity so that they could attend the Council. Anglicans and Protestants were also invited to submit. Such invitations were ignoredfrom our contemporary ecumenical perspective they were insulting gestures.
The term 'new'' or "neo-ultramontanism'' was coined by Wilfred Ward and it accurately characterizes the more extreme nineteenth-century movement, in contrast to the 'traditional ultramontanism' that had been articulated after the Reformation by Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621).(17) It is Bellarmine's theory of the role of the papacy that has become the basis of the accepted teaching. In the sixteenth century, monarchical absolutism emerged with Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Francis I, and Philip II. These monarchs were supported by increasingly efficient bureaucratic structures. In the early-seventeenth century, the theory of the "divine right of kings' was articulated. The notion was that kings were responsible to God alone, that their will was the source of law, and that subjects owed obedience to every morally lawful command.(18) It is significant that this notion of divine right was current at the very time Bellarmine articulated his theory of the absolute papal monarchy. He argued that Christ is the supreme head of the Church. The pope is his vicar, his ministerial head on earth. The pope has absolute power to rule the Church. He succeeds to his rights and prerogatives iure divino (by divine right) and not merely iure ecclesiastico (by ecclesiastical right). Further, Bellarmine held that general councils can err and the pope must give his confirmation to a council's decrees for them to be genuine. He taught that the pope cannot be judged, deposed, or punished by a general council. If he becomes a heretic he simply ceases to be pope and then can be judged and deposed by the Church. The pope is the supreme judge in deciding controversies on faith and morals, and what he formally teaches is ipso facto infallible. The only limit to papal power that Bellarmine allows is in the area of direct interference in the concerns of secular authorities. 'Temporal rulers ... held their authority from God, though in his view it was mediated to them through the consent of the peoples they ruled.'(19) Nevertheless:
No one can diminish or take away the power of the Supreme Pontiff, not the college of cardinals nor a general council, nor the Pope himself, because papal authority comes immediately from God, and is not subject to the control of any created will.(20)
This teaching of Bellarmine has, essentially, been the accepted dogmatic position on papal primacy since the early-seventeenth century.
But in the lead-up to the Council it was the neo-ultramontanes who were best organized. They focused on one aim: the most extreme possible definition of infallibility, passed without debate and by acclamation. The leaders of this movement were Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster: Ignaz von Senestrey. Bishop of Regensberg; Victor Deschamps, Archbishop of Malines; and Conrad Martin- Bishop of Paderbornbut there were many other supporters from France and Italy, and, to a much lesser extent, from non-Hapsburg Germany. Neo-ultramontanism developed among those who saw the French Revolution as the essence of evil, and the pope as the last stronghold of authority and stability. A strong apocalyptic note, derived from de Maistre and traditionalism, ran through this movement.
The neo-ultramontanes wanted to argue that everything the pope said was infallible. They used the popular press and their views lent themselves to the journalistic 'theology' typified by Louis Veuillot's L'Univers. Veuillot had a stranglehold on the mindset of most of the French clergy.(21) Veuillot was encouraged by Pius IX, even to the extent of supporting him against the French bishops.(22) Cuthbert Butler speaks of Veuillot's 'entirely untheological extravagances.' Typical is this extraordinary bon mot:
We all know certainly one thing, that is that no man knows anything except the Man with whom God is forever, the Man who carries the thought of God. We must unswervingly follow his inspired directions.(23)
Such heretical statements were never contradicted by Pius IX nor by the curia.
In England, almost all the bishops were cautious ultra-montanists, but a form of extreme neo-ultramontanism was promoted by Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892), Archbishop of Westminster, and William George Ward (1812-1882) through both The Tablet and The Dublin Review.'(24) Both were converts to Catholicism and Manning had a curious ability to identify his own ideas with those of God. Ward was Manning's theologian and Butler describes him as "prone to adopt positions of extreme intransigence.'(25) Ward's position was simply that the pope's every doctrinal statement was infallibly directed by God:
For him, all the direct doctrinal instructions of all encyclicals, of all letters to individual bishops and allocutions, published by the pope, are ex cathedra pronouncements, and ipso facto infallible. Thus he utterly rejected the idea that infallible pronouncements were few and far between.(26)
The clear influence of de Maistre's traditionalism can be seen in the positions of both Veuillot and Ward.
In Italy, the neo-ultramontanist position was held by the semi-official Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica, especially after the sacking of its founder. Carlo Maria Curci.(27) The position of the Roman curia was, however, more complex. There was some opposition from within it to the definition of infallibility. Antonelli. for instance, was an inopportunist on political grounds. Hasler claims that a considerable number of senior curalists and other important bishops were opposed to the definition of infallibility, and that there was understandable fear in the curia of the results of a council, including the possibility of schism.(28) His figures are probably inflated, but there certainly was quiet opposition among a minority in the curia and the papal household.
The majority of the bishops followed Bellarmine and belonged to the moderate ultramontane party, even if they had not articulated this view as their own. They saw great danger in simply defining the doctrine by acclamation without discussion, as was promoted by the neo-ultramontanes. Even the Roman universities held a moderate ultramontane view. They, like the majority of bishops, accepted infallibility, but they wanted it carefully limited. It was this view that ultimately prevailed, at least in the infallibility debate.
A sizable minority of bishops at Vatican I opposed the definition. There were two groups: those who had theological reservations about infallibility, and those who considered the timing of the definition inopportune. The first group was small. There were a few French Gallicans like Bishop Henri Maret, Dean of Theology at the Sorbonne, Augustin Verot of Savannah, Georgia, and Felix de las Casas, Bishop of Constantine and Hippo in Algeria. A number of others had their own theological objections. The most significant was the learned historian, Bishop Karl Joseph Hefele (18091893) of Rottenburg. In 1855 he had begun a nine-volume Konzilien-geschichte (History of the Councils).(29) Butler thinks that he was one of the few who seriously questioned the doctrine of papal infallibility.(30) It is significant that this question came from the best historian at the Council.
Tbe layman Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, Professor of History at Munich, had great influence on the Council. He began as an ultramontane, but gradually became alienated from papalism because of his opposition to the policies of Pius IX. The call in the Civiltà Cattolica for infallibility by acclamation, and the extremism of people like Manning and Veuillot, worried Dollinger. He wrote a series of articles. published in book form as The Pope and the Council under the pseudonym Janus, attacking the whole institution of the papacy from the Middle Ages onwards, with its political pretensions, curial centralization, and ultramontanism. Döllinger constructed 'an imposing onslaught on the popes, probably the most damaging ever compiled.'(31) His book caused tremendous discussion in Germany.
Most of the rest of the minority bishops believed in a moderate infallibility, but considered it inopportune to define the doctrine at that particular time. They were supported by liberal Catholics everywhere. Many of these bishops were in touch with the broader non-Catholic world and they did not want to create further alienation between the Church and culture. They also believed that it was dangerous for the papacy to be divorced from the context of the Church and the magisterium of the bishops, as a kind of Catholic 'oracle.' These issues troubled, among many others, prelates like Cardinals Freidrich von Schwarzenberg of Prague. Josef Othmar Rauscher of Vienna, Filippo Maria Guidi of Bologna, all of the Hungarian bishops. Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick of St. Louis (who, like many of the US bishops, was concerned about the obstacle infallibility would create for Protestants), and Bishops Felix Dupanloup of Orleans, David Moriarty of Kerry, and the famous pan-Slavic and Croatian nationalist, Bishop Josef Georg Strossmayer of Bosnia, Slavonia, and Sirmium (Djakovo in modern Eastern Slavonia).(32) In view of what has happened subsequently in the Church, the reservations of these bishops were totally justified. The pope has become a Catholic oracle and the doctrine of infallibility has become an enormous obstacle to ecumenism.
In fact, it was Strossmayer who caused the most famous 'scene' of the Council. An ecumenical man whose diocese straddled the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, he objected to Protestants being called the source of all 'the errors of the day' in the Proem (introduction) to the schema De fide Catholica. He said: 'I believe that there exists in Protestantism ... a great crowd of men who love Our Lord Jesus Christ.'' After interruptions by the presidents, Strossmayer complained about the Council's processes and freedom. This led to his being shouted down by a mob of bishops who called him 'Lucifer and 'Luther.' Butler says about two hundred bishops took part in this ugly scene and suggests that most of them came from Catholic countries with no experience of Protestants.(33) However, the reference to Protestantism was dropped from the final schema. This 'scene' is significant insofar as it indicates that freedom of speech at the Council was limited not only by the pope-appointed presidents but, more importantly, by many of the bishops from Latin countries who were totally ignorant of Orthodoxy and Protestantism and broader European culture. These bishops were also cosseted by support from often corrupt Catholic regimes, who used the Church to support their legitimacy.
Vatican I was the largest council ever held: Butler says that by the end of December 1869 there were eight hundred present(34) This number seems inflated; the average attendance was between six and seven hundred. Both Butler and Hales say that there were about two hundred bishops from Italy, representing about thirty million Catholics.(35) Germany and central Europe, in contrast, was under-represented, with about sixty bishops and a Catholic population of seventy million. Döllinger questioned the ecumenicity of the Council because of the preponderance of bishops from Italy and Spain, and there is no doubt that Germany and the Hapsburg territories were under-represented. Again this is a serious criticism that needs to be taken into account in judging the Council's significance. A significant minority group of bishops, numbering about one hundred and forty, opposed infallibility.(36)
The Council began on 8 December 1869. One of the most scandalous events of the Council occurred very early, at the second general congregation of 14 December 1869. Those elected to the De fide (on theology and dogma) deputation were virtually entirely pro-infalliblist. Not a single member of the minority was on it. except Archbishop Johannes Simor of Esztergom, Hungary, who was on the pro-infallibility list by mistake! The task of the deputation De fide was to revise the theological schemata according to the comments of the bishops; the final wording of texts was decided by the deputation:(37) Manning was primarily responsible for the political maneuvers that led to this. The moderate English bishop, William Ullathorne. commented that:
All the cautious people, as opposed to the zelantes [sic], feel that [Archbishop Manning's] rooms are the centre of a determined intrigue, and that if they get their committee it is because they are organised, restlessly active, and have the strongest backing.(38)
Butler admits that this biased election was 'a serious blot on [the Council's] doings.' but he lamely excuses the pope, saying it was against his wishes(39)If that is the case, why did Pius IX not do something about it. such as appointing minority bishops to the deputation? Hasler bluntly accuses the pro-infallibilists of manipulation and in this one has to agree with him.(40) It hindered the Council's freedom and destroyed the possibility of its reaching moral unanimity. Again a shadow is cast over the Council's legitimacy.
In the first months of 1870, there were widespread complaints about procedures: there was no time limit on speeches, many of which were rhetorical exercises in florid Latin, and because of conditions in the aula (hall) many of the speeches could not be heard. There was no clear agenda and many felt there was no real discussion; just set-piece speeches.
The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius
Vatican I produced only two documents: the dogmatic constitutions on the Catholic faith (Dei Filius) and on the Church (Pastor Aeternus).(41) Dei Filius originally came to the Council on 10 December 1869, as a schema on Catholic doctrine against the errors of the day. It was severely criticized by the bishops; Rauscher of Vienna said it was too long and elaborate, too abstract and obscure, and that it did not meet the needs of the times.(42)The pope and the curia were surprised by the vehemence of the rejection and on 10 January it was sent back to the deputation to be rewritten.
Dei Filius was returned on 18 March. One hundred and seven bishops spoke and the constitution was finally passed on 24 April 1870. It is not a particularly impressive document. Pantheism and materialism are condemned and God's creativity is asserted. It says that God can be known by the light of natural reason but faith, inspired by the Holy Spirit. leads to a knowledge of God's revelation. Faith is a free act that finds its fullest expression in membership of the Catholic Church, which itself is a witness to faith. Lest ecumenical ideas creep in here. Dei Filius says bluntly: 'The situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion.(43)The third chapter contains a statement that has had vast repercussions for the contemporary Church. It introduces for the first time the term 'ordinary and universal magisterium. As we have already seen, both Pope John Paul 11 and Cardinal Ratzinger use this term frequently and. at times, seem to interweave it with the notion of an infallible magisterium. The statement in Dei Filius is almost hidden away:
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those tings are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition., and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.(44)
The history of the term is interesting.(45) It first appeared in a papal document in the letter Tuas libenter to Archbishop Gregor von Scherr of Munich in December 1863.(46) Von Scherr had allowed Döllinger to organize a conference of Catholic scholars in Munich and he was rebuked by Pius IX for this. The term 'ordinary magisterium' was first coined by the Jesuit theologian Josef Kleutgen, and he was one of the redactors of Dei Filius. Through him the term passed into the conciliar decree. 'Ordinary magisterium' has been used as a catchall phrase for virtually all papal teaching. The ordinary magisterium is now being conflated by the Vatican with the infallible magisterium. The final chapter of Dei Filius asserts that there can be no disagreement between faith and reason. It says that any appearance of contradiction is 'specious.' for it is the result of the fact that the human reason is mistaken or has embraced unsound views.(47) The Church alone determines:
the truth of enlightened faith ... Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions that are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith., particularly if they have been condemned by the Church.(48)
Hence the source of all truth is faith as defined by the magisterium. In this way Dei Filius establishes an ideology of faith that sets, in advance, the parameters of 'the legitimate conclusions of science.' Thus the papal magisterium attempted to protect its teaching, not only from historical and critical examination, but even from examination by theology itself. This was to become a major issue in the twentieth century.
The Council also considered reforms of ecclesiastical discipline, which were debated between 10 January and 18 March. These 'disciplinary schemata were subjected to the same fire of criticism as the dogmatic schema.(49) In the light of Vatican II, and what has happened subsequently in the Church, some of these discussions were prescient. The first reform schema was De episcopis. It was attacked by Cardinals Schwarzenberg of Prague and Melchers of Cologne, along with Archbishop Darboy of Paris, as being far too theoretical and lacking any real sense of the bishops' status, power, and position in the Church. Both Melchers and Schwarzeiiberg spoke of over-centralization in Rome and of the need to reform the curia. Eastern patriarchs and bishops were also concerned, especially with the strong centralizing tendencies of Propaganda and its prefect Barnabo. The Patriarch of the Chaldeans, Joseph Audu, was "scolded' by the pope for defending Eastern Catholics against the Latin regime and Western canon law. A revised version of De episcopis was never returned to the floor of the Council.
The primacy and infallibility of the pope
Debate on the schema that eventually became Pastor Aeternus began on 13 May 1870. Two versions of the schema had already been circulated and written comments submitted. On 27 April the deputation De fide began recasting the schema in the light of these written comments. The theologians of the deputation produced a report 'of a pronounced ultramontane hue.'(50) They argued that infallibility was part of original revelation and that therefore historical problems were apparent rather than real.(51) Here is the difficulty I highlighted previously: ideology determined what was accepted as historical fact. It was claimed that historical problems had already been sufficiently answered, but the reality is that the historical objections to both infallibility and primacy were not dealt with at Vatican I and remain unanswered to this day.
The debate on this schema on papal primacy and infallibility was the decisive debate of the Council. It lasted until foreclosure on 6 June; sixty-five bishops spoke, thirty-nine in favor, twenty-six againsta significant percentage. The major objections were that infallibility was not part of the apostolic tradition but, as Verot said, 'was an opinion introduced by piety and zeal.'(52) Cardinal Schwarzenberg and Bishop William Clifford of Clifton argued that both primacy and infallibility could not be considered apart from a theology of the Church. The Eastern-rite bishops stressed that the doctrine would place an insurmountable obstacle in the path to reunion with the Orthodox. A number of bishops pointed out that the doctrine would alienate Protestants and prevent conversions, because it would be intolerable to non-Catholics of good will. In a clear reference to Veuillot, Archbishop Darboy of Paris said that the bishops were being forced against their better judgment to define infallibility by demagogues outside the Council. He stressed that he opposed a definition that emphasized a personal and separate papal infallibility, cut off from the context of the Church.
Two of the most telling speeches were delivered by Bishops Hefele and Maret. Hefele argued that the orthodoxy of Leo the Great's Tome, which was an ex cathedra statement, was judged (and approved) by the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. True to his historical training, he also argued that the pro-infallibilists could not posit the doctrine as revealed and then argue that historical facts to the contrary could be dismissed. Here is the clash between ideology and history again. He forcefully referred to the condemnation of Pope Honorius I (625-638) by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680.
Bishop Maret was reproved by the president, Cardinal Bilio, when he argued that if the Council declared the pope to be infallible, the Council was, ipso facto., superior to the pope.(53) This, said Bilio, was intolerable. The Council was merely confirming rights the pope already had! But Maret had pointed to the essential problem: the irreconcilable approaches taken by the two groups of protagonists. Bilio was assuming that the pope was infallible and that all arguments to the contrary were invalid because facts could not be facts in the face of 'doctrinal truth. The Council could not give something to the pope because he already had it. But what about historical evidence to the contrary? Such evidence had to be wrong because it was already established that the pope was infallible. Papalist apologists still use these circular arguments today.
The best arguments for the definition were put by Archbishop Deschamps of Malines. He stressed that infallibility was not personal and absolute, but that it belonged to the papal office and could be exercised only under the most strict conditions. This was to be borne out in the actual definition. When Archbishop Manning spoke, he said that as the only convert in the Council he was sure that infallibility, far from being an obstacle to conversion, was:
a powerful attraction for those outside the Church. The religious Protestant mind in England desired an escape from the confusion and chaos of the innumerable sects, and the lack of any tribunal able to teach with authority ... the definition will more than anything else promote conversions and the return of [England] to the faith:"(54)
Manning said that infallibility was already a Catholic doctrine and 'all are already obliged to hold it.'(55)
Following this general debate on Pastor Aeternus, the Council turned to the specific question of the primacy; the debate lasted from 6 June to 13 July. Butler correctly recognizes that papal primacy is more of an ecumenical problem than infallibility.(56) In fact., primacy, as defined at Vatican I, has now become a major difficulty for the Catholic Church itself. The basic reason for this was pointed out. by many bishops at the Council: the ecclesiology of the Council was defective and incomplete. ''Here ... is a summary of Catholic doctrine on the Church in which there is no account taken of the hierarchy, episcopate, ministry, ecumenical councils: simply Church and pope.'(57) "Stupefacti sumus (We are astonished), said one bishop. A recast schema on the Church, including an emphasis on the role of bishops, was prepared, but the Council was prorogued before it saw the light of day. This was to have tragic consequences. The pope emerged from the Council in solitary splendor; and with more and more petty centralization of all authority in Rome, the bishops were increasingly seen as mere representatives of head office. The first two chapters of Pastor Aeternus, on Peter and the continuation of the Petrine primacy in the popes, aroused little discussion. It was the third chapter on the definition and extent of the primacy that caused most controversy. The fact of the primacy was accepted by the vast majority. But the problem was that there was no context for it. This highlights the lack of an ecclesiology at Vatican I. The definition of primacy has created the situation of an isolated, all-powerful pope with no corresponding balancing and countervailing forces in the Church.
There is a sense in which primacy was not carefully considered at the Council. The bishops were under enormous pressure, not just from the pope., the curia, and demagogues like Veuillot, but also from the need to deal with the agenda quickly. This came from internal forces in the Council., but also from the outside. These debates about papal power were ironically occurring just as the strategic pressure of the Italian risorgimento was growing on the remnants of the Papal States. The Franco-Prussian War broke out on 18 July 1870, the day the Council ended. The great irony is that within two months of being declared infallible, Pius IX finally lost Rome to a united Italy.
The primacy question quickly focused around two issues: the meaning of the "ordinary and immediate' jurisdiction of the pope, and the role of the episcopate in the Church. The word ''ordinary' here is used in the canonical sense meaning 'not delegated." In other words it means that the power of the office comes with the office itself; one has the power if one has the office. The word 'immediate' means that the pope can act directly in any part of the Church: he does not have to go through another person or body. But where does this leave bishops? Are they simply representatives of the Vatican? Can the pope go over their heads? Bishops also have ordinary jurisdiction in their dioceses, but the pope's immediate power means that he can simply overrule or ignore them.
This sense of absolute power was reinforced when, in what Butler describes as 'a grave error of judgement on the part of the deputation,' a clause strengthening papal power even more was suddenly introduced without debate into the canon at the end of the chapter on primacy.(58) The purpose of the canon was to sum up the chapter. The clause inserted is here given in italics:
If anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this is not only in matters of faith and morals, but also those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he only has the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.(59)
In this purely legal definition the Church is totally handed over to the pope. He exercises the 'absolute fullness' of power without any check other than the law of God and the defined teaching of the Churchand, of course, the pope is the final interpreter of both! This definition leads straight to the view that the pope owns the Church without any countervailing centers of authority to restore the balance of power. In this legalistic ecclesiology the pope equals the Church, and the Church equals the pope.
The debate on the schema on infallibility began on 15 June and ended on 4 July. Key minority speeches came from Cardinals Rauscher and Filippo Maria Guidi of Bologna. Rauscher emphasized the formula of Saint Antoninus (1389-1459), a Dominican theologian at the Council of Florence and later archbishop of that city. 'The successor of St Peter using the counsel and seeking the help of the universal Church, cannot err."(60) Rauscher emphasized that: infallibility cannot be divorced from the indefectibility of the Church. Guidi, who Hasler maintains was a natural son of Pius IX, was also a Dominican.(61)He argued that the pope was not personally and in and of himself infallible, but only within the context of the Church's belief and only to the extent that the pope's teaching reflected that of bishops and theologians. This was another attempt to keep infallibility within the context of the Church and to avoid creating a papal oracle. Both Butler and Hasler report that Guidi was upbraided by Pius IX for his speech, Hasler adding extra spice by saying it was an Oedipal. father-son conflict!(62)
Against this emphasis on episcopal consultation, Cardinal Paul Cullen of Dublin put forward the formula that was eventually used. He said:
When the pope acts as vicar of Christ he acts by his own authority given him by Christ, not the authority of the bishops or the consent of the churches. Christ did not say to Peter, Thou art the rock' provided you consult bishops or theologians.(63)
But the minority still argued for a papal authority placed firmly within the context of the Church. Archbishop Thomas Connolly of Halifax, Canada, put the question bluntly: Is the pope infallible by himself, or does he require the counsel and assistance of the Church? Hasler asserts that Pius IX used Barnabo of Propaganda to threaten missionary bishops, such as Connolly, to get them to switch to the pro-infallibilist side.(64) After eleven midsummer days of exhausting speeches without time limits, the problem had focused around whether papal infallibility was personal, separate, and absolute. The presidents decided to foreclose the debate.
The schema and amendments went back to the deputation De fide. As Butler stresses, the request of the minority was utterly reasonable. They feared that the separate, personal, and absolute notion would divorce the pope from the Church which is exactly what did happen.(65) But the De fide deputation simply would not listen to them. They were determined to exclude the Gallican position, which had been articulated by Maret, that the pope was infallible only when the Church accepted his teaching. A week later, on 11 July the deputation De fide reported back through Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen in the Austrian Tyrol. His exposition on the schema is important for an understanding of the eventual definition. He made it clear that infallibility was personal and that it was independent of the consent of the Church. Two days later there was a trial vote. Out of 601 bishops voting, 451 voted placet. 88 voted non placet., and 62 voted placet iuxta modum. It was now clear that infallibility would be passed and minority bishops began leaving Rome rather than vote against Pastor Aeternus. Only two stayed on to vote non placet on 18 July: Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock. Arkansas, and Luigi Riccio of Cajazzo. in the kingdom of Naples.
What had been approved? The key text of Pastor Aeternus is the actual definition:
We teach and define as divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is. when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.(66)
Because there had been so much debate, the actual definition is reasonably moderate and infallibility has truly only been exercised once since, in the definition of the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII in 1950. In the process the pope consulted all of the world's bishops before the definition. The real problem for the Church after Vatican I has not been infallibility, but primacy and the ordinary magisterium. They have had much more effect, on subsequent Church history.
The definition of papal infallibility led directly to the Old Catholic schism. Small groups in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands rejected the doctrine. No bishop joined them. They united with the Church of Utrecht and eventually formed a loose confederation with the Anglicans. Vatican 1 also led to a strengthening of anti-clericalism that found its most potent expression in the German Kulturkampf.
The most serious failure of the Council was its lack of response to the real needs of the modern period and. despite enormous efforts from scholars, this marginalized the Church from the major intellectual currents for the next ninety years. The paradox is that Vatican I set out to face up to the 'errors of the day' in the most inappropriate way imaginable: by defining papal infallibility and primacy. The Council was blind to the real issues that shaped the modern era: materialism, the myth of progress, the vast increase in world population, environmental destruction in both the Old and New Worlds, migration from Europe on a vast scale, and exploitative colonialism. And the only response of the Council: the proclamation of a unique form of authoritarianism.
1 J. V D. Kelly., The Oxford Dictionary of Popes., Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1986, p.301.
2 Hales. Revolution, pp. 6779. and John McManners. The, French Revolution and the Church., New York: Harper and Row, 1969, pp. 38-79.
3 Hales. Revolution,, pp. 130-8.
4 Ibid., p. 234.
5 Ibid., p. 236.
6 Ibid.. p. 258.
7 Kenneth Clark., Civilisation. London: BBC/John Murray. 1969., p. 274.
8 Hales,. Revolution, p. 280.
9 E. E. Y. Hales, Pio Nona: A Study in European Politics and Religion in the Nineteenth Century: London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. 1954.
10 Frank J. Coppa, Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli and Papal Politics in European Affairs. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990, pp. 57-72.
11 Denis Mack Smith, Italy: ·A Modern History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1969, p. 9.
12 Thomas A. Kselman, Miracles and Prophecies in Nineteenth Century France. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1993, pp. 113-40.
13 Coppa, p. 139.
14 Barry, vol. 3, p. 74. 15 Ibid., pp. 70-4.
16 August Bernhard Hasler. How the Pope Become Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, New York: Doubleday, 1981. pp. 57-103. There are problems with this translation, which is really a summary of the two-volume German original,
17 Wilfred Ward., William George Ward and the Catholic Revival, London: Macmillan. 1893, pp. 84, 11617. For Bellarmine see James Brodrick, Robert Bellarmine: Saint and Scholar., London: Burns & Oates, 1961,
18 Brodrick, p.265.
19 Ibid.., p, 105.
20 Bellarmine quoted in ibid., p. 257.
21 Adrien Dansette, Religious History of Modem France. Edinburgh-London: Nelson. 1961, vol. 1,p. 282.
22 Hales, Pio Nono, pp. 282-3.
23 Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council, 1869-1870. London: Collins/Fontana. 1962 (first published 1930), p. 44. See also Butler's The Life And Times of Bishop Ullathorne: 1506-1889, London: Burns, Gates & Washbourne.. 1926, vol. 2. pp. 40-79.
24 Frederick J. Cwiekowski. The English Bishops and the first Vatican Council. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain. 1971,
25 Butler. Council., p. 57. See also Butler. Ullathorne. vol. 2. pp. 305-8.
26 Butler, Ullathorne, vol. 2, p. 41.
27 Hales, Pio Nono, pp. 283-6.
28 Hasler, pp. 53-5.
29 Butler, Council, p. 110, The nine volumes were published between 1855 and 1890.
31 Ibid., p. 89.
32 Remigium Ritzer and Pirminum Serfin, Hierarchia Catholica Medii et Recentioris Aevi. Pavia: It Messaggero di S. Antonio, 1978, vol. 8. p. 153.
33 Butler, Council., pp. 236-9.
34 Ibid., p. 149.
35 Ibid., p. 139. Hales. Pio Nono, p. 305.
36 Hales, Pio Nono, p. 307. Butler, Council, pp. 400-3.
37 Cwiekowski, p. 120.
38 Ullathome (14 December 1869). in Butler. Council, p. 141. Butler dates this letter 16 December, but is incorrect.
39 Ibid, pp. 145, 146.
40 Hasler., pp. 70-2.
41 Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. London: Sheed and Ward. 1990. vol. 2, pp. 804-16.
42 Butler, Council, p. 158.
43 Tanner, vol. 2, p. 808.
44 Ibid., p. 807.
45 John P. Boyle, 'The Ordinary Magisterium." Heythrop Journal. 20 (1979). pp. 380-98, and 21 (1980), pp."14-29.
46 Ibid., p. 381.
47 Tanner, vol. 2, p. 809.
49 Butler, Council, p. 188.
50 Ibid., p. 304.
52 Quoted in ibid., p. 312.
53 Hasler, p. 173.
54 Quoted in Butler, Council, p. 309.
55 Quoted in ibid., p. 308.
56 Ibid., p. 330.
57 Ibid., p. 332.
58 Ibid., p. 345.
59 Tanner, vol. 2, pp. 814-15. Emphasis added.
60 Quoted in Butler, Council, p. 352
61 Hasler, pp. 89-92.
62 Ibid., p. 91.
63 Quoted in Butler, Council, p. 355.
64 Hasler, pp. 96-9.
65 Butler, Council, pp. 396-9.
66 Tanner, vol. 2. p.. 816.
|Contents page of Papal Power||Support our campaign||Sitemap||Contemporary theologians||Go back to home page|
This website is maintained by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.
The Institute is known for issuing academic reports and statements on relevant issues in the Church. These have included scholars' declarations on the need of collegiality in the exercise of church authority, on the ethics of using contraceptives in marriage and the urgency of re-instating the sacramental diaconate of women.
You are welcome to use our material. However: maintaining this site costs money. We are a Charity and work mainly with volunteers, but we find it difficult to pay our overheads.
Visitors to our website since January 2014.
Pop-up names are online now.
The number is indicative, but incomplete. For full details click on cross icon at bottom right.