VATICANO CONCILIO. – The twentieth and last ecumenical council, opened by Pius IX on 8 December 1869 in the Vatican Basilica and interrupted by the occupation of Rome (20 September 1870).
I. PREPARATION
The idea of an ecumenical council was first communicated by Pius IX, in secret form, on 6 Dec. 1864 to the cardinals of the S. Congregation of Rites and shortly thereafter to all those residing in the Curia, asking them, after mature consideration, to express their opinion on the advisability of the initiative. Of the 21 cardinals consulted, 19 replied favorably, also indicating the matters that ought to be treated; the Pope then established (March 1865) a commission of cardinals (Patrizi, Reisach, Panebianco, Bizzarri, Caterini) for the preparations for the Council and, on its advice, created various subcommissions or deputations: for doctrine (Card. Bilio), discipline (Card. Capalti), Religious Orders (Card. Bizzarri), Oriental rites and missions (Card. Barnabò), and politico-ecclesiastical questions (Card. Reisach); he sent confidential letters to more than 40 bishops of the West and East, distinguished for their learning and pastoral zeal, inviting them to indicate the subjects they considered most important, and appointed competent consultors in the various branches of ecclesiastical science, choosing them from the Curia and from the various Catholic countries.The prompt and enthusiastic response of the bishops consulted would have led Pius IX to convene the Council for the centenary of the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul (1867), but the political difficulties of the moment compelled him to postpone it; nevertheless, to the numerous bishops (more than 500) who had gathered in Rome for the occasion, he gave the official announcement in the secret Consistory of 26 June 1867; the following year he promulgated the bull Aeterni Patris (29 June 1868), by which he convoked the ecumenical Council for 8 Dec. 1869. All residential and titular bishops, the general abbots of the monastic Orders, the abbots nullius, and the superior generals of the religious Orders were summoned. The heads of Catholic States were not invited, because practically everywhere the Church was separated from the State;
instead, the patriarchs and dissident bishops of the Oriental Church were invited (letter Arcano divinee providentiae, 8 Sept. 1868); they replied with an indignant silence and an unequivocal refusal, as did the Protestants (exhortation Jam vos omnes, 13 Sept. 1868), who received the proposal as a provocation, with the exception of a few Lutheran pastors and some Anglicans.
The announcement of the Council stirred public opinion; the international Freemasonry, at the proposal of Deputy Ricciardi, decided to hold an anti-council in Naples, which Giuseppe Garibaldi, Victor Hugo, Franchi (v.) joined; the various European States, all dominated by liberalism, showed themselves distrustful; Prince Hohenlohe, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Bavaria, sent a circular to all the Cabinets in order to provoke a collective protest against the feared religious and political decisions that were to be issued by the forthcoming Council. The proposal was not taken seriously, and in practice the bishops of all countries were able freely to travel to Rome, while the Council encountered no opposition from the States, which nevertheless kept watch, through cautious observers, on all the movements of the Roman Court and of the episcopal assembly. In Catholic circles the news of the Council was received with particular satisfaction: distinguished prelates, such as Mgr. Pie of Poitiers, Mgr. Dechamps of Malines, Mgr. Martin of Paderborn, Mgr. Manning of Westminster, Mgr. Ghilardi of Mondovì, and Mgr. Zinelli of Treviso, prepared the faithful for the great event with books and pastoral letters; the press (la Civiltà Cattolica, l'Unità cattolica, l'Univers, and die Stimmen aus Maria Laach) echoed the teaching of the bishops, defending the Council against the attacks of its adversaries.
The Gallicans and French liberals, too, initially welcomed Pius IX’s initiative, in the hope that the Council would modernize the norms of canon law and diminish the power of the Roman Curia; but they immediately changed their minds when la Civiltà Cattolica, on 6 Feb. 1869, reporting correspondence from France, led one to foresee that the Council would be very brief, proposing to approve, in positive form, the doctrinal complex set forth in the Sillabo (v.) and expressing the hope that the infallibility of the pope would be defined « by acclamation ». The article, regarded as a genuine expression of Roman circles, inflamed a fierce controversy between the two tendencies that immediately emerged everywhere. Almost no one denied the Pope the prerogative of infallibility; very few (Manning believed that there were no more than five at the Council) made it dependent on the consent of the Church (the Gallican doctrine, supported by Mgr. Maret, 1869). The controversy therefore unfolded between those who considered its definition opportune (opportunists), so that, once every doubt concerning a universally believed truth had been removed, the prestige of the Church might increase and the Church, now entirely centered in its head, might more forcefully repel the attacks of unbelief (the majority), and those who judged it inopportune (inopportunists), fearing that society would become increasingly detached from the Church and that the conversion of Eastern Christians and Protestants would be made more difficult (the minority).
In France, the opportunists included Mgr. Plantier of Guéranger (v.), supported by the Belgian Mgr. DECHAMPS, ADOLPHE (v.), who then published the well-known pamphlet L'infallibilità et le Concile général (June 1869), broadly approved by the Pope, VEUILLOT, LOUIS (v.), editor of L'Univers. They were vigorously opposed by Mgr. Dupanloup (v.) Montalembert (v.), editor of the Correspondant, who were in turn supported by Mgr. Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, by Mgr. Freppel (v.), Bishop of Angers, and by Fr. Gratry (v.). In Germany, Döllinger (v.) wrote against la Civiltà Cattolica, under the pseudonym Janus, his famous Der Papst und Konzil, consisting of five articles published in the Allgemeine Zeitung of Augsburg, in which he went so far as to define the papacy as « a tumor that disfigures the Church ». No bishop joined him, although several considered the definition of infallibility inopportune given the circumstances of the moment; indeed, they expressed this opinion in the collective letter drawn up at the meeting in Fulda. The most outspoken and decisive were Mgr. Scherr of Munich, Mgr.
Ketteler (v.) of Mainz, and Mgr. HEFELE, KARL JOSEPH VON (v.) of Rottemburg, to whom were joined various bishops of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: Card. Rauscher of Vienna, Card. Schwarzenberg of Prague, Mgr. Haynald of Calocza, and Mgr. Strossmayer of Diakovar. By contrast, Mgr. Senestrey of Regensburg, Mgr. Martin of Paderborn, and Mgr. Gasser of Bressanone decisively took sides in favor of infallibility.
II. INAUGURATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE COUNCIL
On the appointed date (8 Dec. 1869), Pio IX solemnly opened the Council, delivering a moving address in the presence of more than 700 bishops and 20,000 pilgrims. The episcopate truly represented the entire Catholic world: 200 Italians, 70 Frenchmen, 40 Austro-Hungarians, 36 Spaniards, 19 Irishmen, 18 Germans, 12 Englishmen, and 19 from other European countries. The East had sent approximately 30 bishops, the United States 40, Canada 9, Latin America 30, and the missionary regions approximately 100.The procedure of the Council had been established by the apostolic constitution Multiplices inter. Five deputations, each consisting of 24 bishops (chosen by secret ballot by the Fathers of the Council), and each presided over by a cardinal, prepared, using the material developed by the theologians, the schemata and subjects to be submitted for the Council’s deliberation. The schemata were then distributed to the Fathers some time before the discussion, so that they could propose suitable amendments and modifications. The schemata thus corrected were returned to the deputations, which, after revising them in accordance with the proposals put forward, redistributed them to the Fathers, who discussed them in the general congregations presided over by five cardinals. When a schema, after more or less profound modifications introduced during the successive conciliar debates, had obtained the approval of the majority, it was brought before the public session, which the Pope attended; after the vote of the Fathers (expressed by placet or non placet), he promulgated the definition. The Council held 86 general congregations and 4 public sessions (8 Dec. 1869 [inauguration], 6 Jan. [profession of faith], 24 Apr. [constitution Dei Filius], 18 July 1870 [constitution Pastor aeternus]).
III. THE DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION « DEI FILIUS »
At the first general congregation (10 Dec. 1869), the Fathers were given the schema of the dogmatic constitution entitled De doctrina catholica contra multiplices errores ex rationalismo derivatos, Franzelin (v.) SCHRADER, KLEMENS (v.). Although praised for its content and erudition, the schema was not well received because of the prolixity of its development, its abstract terminology, and the harshness of its style. Therefore, the president of the dogmatic deputation commissioned Bishops Dechamps, Pie, and Martin to rework the exposition; Martin, to whom the task was entrusted in particular, KLEUTGEN, JOSEPH (v.), who at the end of Feb. 1870 presented a schema widely praised by the Fathers for the clarity of its ideas, the harmony of its parts, and the purity of its style. The discussions, opened in the general congregation of 14 March, led to successive modifications and improvements, culminating in the solemn definition, adopted unanimously on 24 Apr. This is the celebrated constitution De fide catholica, called Dei Filius from its opening words, which struck at the root of the errors of the modern age (pantheism, materialism, rationalism), opposing to them a dense and luminous exposition of Catholic doctrine concerning God, Revelation, faith, and the relationship between reason and faith. After a solemn prologue, the first chapter proclaims the existence of a personal God, the free Creator of all things, absolutely independent of the material and spiritual world created by him (Denz-U, 1781-84). The second chapter affirms that certain religious truths, above all the existence of God, can be known with certainty through the sole powers of human reason. This was an open condemnation not only of atheism, but also of fideism and traditionalism; the same chapter added that, for the other transcendent divine truths, called mysteries (v. MISTERO), Revelation (v.) was necessary, and it reaffirmed the doctrine of the Council of Trent concerning its sources: Scripture and Tradition (Denz-U, 1785-88). The third chapter, while asserting the rational character of faith (against sentimentalism of Protestant tendency), presents it at the same time as a free assent to supernatural truths and a gift of the Grace of God (against Hermesianism: V. HERAES). It further affirms, in harmony with the thought of Cardinal Dechamps, that the Church, guardian of the deposit of faith, bears within herself the signs of her divine origin (Denz-U, 1789-94). The fourth chapter, having clearly distinguished between faith and reason, recalls that an apparent opposition between science and religion can arise only from an error concerning the doctrine proposed by the former or from a false idea about the conclusions of the latter. It adds, Günther (v.), that, concerning properly so-called mysteries, it will always be possible in this life to demonstrate their non-repugnance, without, however, being able to disclose their innermost content (Denz-U, 1795-1800). This doctrinal exposition is followed by 18 dogmatic canons, which condemn, in the form of anathemas, the contrary errors (D.nz-U, 1881-20).IV. THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
On 21 January 1870, the Fathers had been given a Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de Ecclesia Christi in 15 chapters, in which, however, no mention was made of papal infallibility. On 9 February, the majority requested that the subject be included, especially in view of the heated controversies that were being waged on that point both within and outside the Council; it was held that to pass over that doctrine in silence after so many discussions would be to compromise its standing before the whole Church. Hence the saying spread: «quod inopportunum dixerunt, necessarium fecerunt», and the debates on the matter were hastened, with the presentation (6 March) of a schema dealing solely with De Romano Pontifice eiusque infallibili magisterio.The minority, led by the intelligent and combative leaders already mentioned, first protested against the change in the programme, then organized strong resistance (letters to the Pope and to Cardinal Antonelli, the visit of Mons. Dupanloup to Pius IX to induce him to prevent discussion of the new schema, an international committee for the publication of articles and pamphlets against infallibility, and an appeal to Napoleon III and Minister Ollivier), which was broken by the firm will of the majority. The subject was therefore allotted 34 general congregations, in which the minority enjoyed complete freedom to express its opinion. After the infallibilist speakers (especially Manning, who appealed to his experience as a convert, and Dechamps, who spoke with the maturity of a seasoned theologian) had presented the reasons in favour of the definition, the theologians of the minority rebutted point by point the arguments put forward and exaggerated the historical difficulties, focusing above all on the case of Pope Honorius. The opposing side responded by weighing the difficulties, examining the texts in question, and discussing the case of Honorius, the reply of Pope Hormisdas, the teaching of s. Thomas and s. Antonino da Firenze, and the significance of the definition of the Council of Florence. The original schema underwent numerous modifications and improvements, up to the general congregation of 13 July, in which the now definitive formula (masterfully expounded by Mons. Gasser) received 451 placet, 88 non placet, and 62 placet iuxta modum. In order to secure a larger majority of votes at the public session, the deputation revised the schema in accordance with the latest suggestions, but firmly rejected the proposal to insert a phrase indicating the Church’s assent as a condition of the Pontiff’s infallibility. Indeed, to the already clear formula «ideoque eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones esse ex se irreformablis» was added «non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae»; with this clause Gallicanism received its deathblow. After the definitive drafting of the schema had been approved in the last general congregation (16 July), it was decided that the public session would be held on 18 July. Fifty-five Fathers of the minority, having made a final, fruitless attempt to obtain from the Pope the suspension of the public session, left Rome after signing a declaration in which they stated that, out of veneration and respect for His Holiness, they preferred to abstain from the public session rather than pronounce the non placet in the Pope’s presence. On the 18th, the solemn proclamation of the dogma took place, at which
all 535 Fathers present (except two, who through a misunderstanding said non placet) unanimously approved the dogmatic constitution, to which Pius IX affixed his infallible sanction.
The constitution Pastor aeternus treats, in four concise and lucid chapters, of the primacy of jurisdiction of s. Peter over the apostolic College (Denz-U, 1821-23), of the perpetual transmission of that same prerogative in the persons of his successors in the Roman See (ibid., 1824-25), of the intimate nature of the papal primacy as a truly episcopal, ordinary, immediate, and universal power (ibid., 1826-31), and of the personal prerogative of infallibility, which the Roman Pontiff enjoys through a special charism when, as universal teacher (ex cattedra), he proposes doctrines or settles questions concerning faith and morals (ibid., 1832-40 [V. INFALLIBILITÀ; PRIMATO DI S. PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE]).
Once the personal infallibility of the pope had been admitted without objection, all the subterfuges for evading obedience to the Church collapsed; a decision of the Roman Pontiff is now, for every member of the faithful, a rule to be followed without discussion.
V. DOPO IL CONCILIO
The conciliar definitions were received with jubilation by all the faithful. The bishops of the minority, too, submitted commendably. The four cardinals (Rauschen, Schwarzenberg, Mathieu, Hohenlohe) who had abstained from the public session drafted an open profession of faith, which they delivered directly to the Pope. Dupanloup, having arrived in his diocese, announced the definition that had taken place in a pastoral letter and sent Pius IX from Bordeaux a sincere act of adherence to the work of the Council. Maret himself openly rejected the errors contained in his book; Gratry, on his deathbed (1871), made a profession of faith in a letter to the archbishop of Paris. Guibert.In Germany, all the bishops demonstrated their loyalty by publishing the decrees of the Council. Only Döllinger stubbornly refused his submission, expressly demanded by the archbishop of Munich and urged in vain by friends and admirers; he nevertheless refused to join the Church of the Old Catholics (v.), REINKE, LAURENTIUS (v.), a professor at Breslau, suspended a divinis for his bitter polemic against the Council. In France there occurred the Loyson (v.), who joined the Old Catholics. Opposition to the decrees of the Council arose in England on the part of Lord Gladstone; in Austria, which denounced the Concordat with the Holy See; in Bavaria, which protected the rebellious priests; and in Switzerland, which expelled MERMILLOD, GASPARD (v.) and Sachat and 84 parish priests of the Jura.