With the accession of Pius IX. to the papal chair in 1846 a favourable opportunity for carrying out this programme presented itself, for, weak in character and wholly unversed in theological learning, while strongly holding the very highest views of his own prerogatives and eagerly receptive of everything which tended to exalt them further, he was exactly the instrument suited for its execution. Two experiments, to test at once how far he was prepared to go, and how far Latin Christendom was prepared to submit in the matter of decrees on faith and morals issuing from himself singly, with no previous conciliar examination or decision, were tried in 1854 by the promulgation of the tenet of the Immaculate Conception and in 1864 by that of the Syllabus of Errors. The former of these met with little resistance, the latter with none, and it was therefore judged safe to proceed with the bolder and more far-reaching scheme which they but foreshadowed. Its success appeared to be almost a foregone conclusion; for, not only could a compact and docile Italian majority be as surely reckoned on as it was at Trent, but the far larger number of Roman Catholic bishops all over the world had been virtually appointed by Pius IX. during his long pontificate, and that exclusively from the Ultramontane school. Nevertheless there was still a minority important enough to make some caution desirable in the earlier stages of the preliminaries, and the proposal to hold an oecumenical council was first laid privately before the congregation of rites by the pope himself in December 1864, contemporaneously with the issue of the Syllabus, and immediately afterwards before all the cardinals then at Rome, who were desired to give their opinions as to the opportuneness of convoking the council at all and as to the subjects it should discuss if convoked. Nineteen cardinals approved the proposal; two opposed it; and one remained neutral. In March 1865 a congregation of direction was formed to take further steps towards the desired end, and private communications were made to various bishops and to the nuncios at the different courts, who were asked to send competent theologians to take part in the preliminary congregations. Some communications were also made privately in 1866 to bishops of the Oriental rite. The first directly public intimation of the approaching council was made in June 1867, through a circular letter of Cardinal Caterini to the 500 bishops present in Rome at the 18th centenary festival of the martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul, inviting their reply to a schedule of inquiries. In September 1868 an invitation to attend was despatched to the Oriental bishops not in communion with Rome, and also to “Protestants and non-Catholics.” But, as it was intended that no Oriental prelate should be admitted to a seat in the council till he had first made profession of the Roman Catholic system in its entirety, and as Protestants were merely to be referred to “experienced men”
to convince them of their errors, the insincere invitation met with no acceptance whatever. The bull of convocation was promulged on 29th June 1869, appointing 8th December 1869 as the day of meeting. A few days before this latter date, 27th November, Pius IX. issued the brief Multiplices inter, prescribing the mode of conciliar procedure and effectually fettering the council from the outset, so that it had never even the shadow of freedom which ostensibly was allowed to the Tridentine synod. This brief consists of a preamble and ten chapters, containing, amongst much else, the following provisions. Any member desiring to bring forward a proposal had to deliver it privately in writing to a special committee named by the pope (of which there were six for various departments), and it should contain nothing foreign to the traditions of the Roman Church. Unless the committee passed it, no further action could be taken upon it. Strict secrecy as to the proceedings of the council, and even as to the opinions of particular members, was to be observed towards all outsiders. All new decrees and canons were to be discussed in preliminary congregations before the public sessions, drafts being supplied some days previously, and those who desired to speak to the questions were obliged to give notice at least a day beforehand. Priority of speech was secured for these; if others desired to speak afterwards they had to obtain the permission of the presidents, all of whom were cardinals of the court party. If little or no debate arose, the draft decrees were to be officially formulated; if there were division of opinion, the question should be referred to the sub-committee (deputatio) corresponding to each congregation’s subject of discussion, which should decide the matter if no further difficulty were raised. All the officers of the council were named directly by the pope, and in no case elected by the council itself, which was thus deprived of several conciliar rights held previously to be inherent and indefeasible, and which had been exercised even at Trent.
The assemblage of the council was looked on with little favour by a large part of the Roman Catholic world, and in particular two German documents attested the alarm it aroused. In April 1869 Prince Hohenlohe, Bavarian foreign minister, sent a circular letter to the European courts, warning them of the political dangers likely to ensue; and most of the German bishops, assembled at Fulda in September of that year, sent an address to the pope, anxiously deprecating the definition of papal infallibility which had been recommended in the Civiltà Cattolica of 6th February 1869, to be made by the summary process of acclamation. This proposal drew forth two able books in opposition to the dogma,—one which appeared anonymously (Janus) in Germany, and Du Concile Général et de la Paix Religieuse, by Maret, bishop of Sura and dean of theology at the Sorbonne, published in France; but they did not delay the measures being taken for its declaration.
The council assembled punctually on the appointed day, 8th December 1869, and owing to the modern facilities of intercommunication it was by far the largest gathering of the kind in history, no fewer than 749 bishops, cardinals, abbots, and generals of orders being present,—a number afterwards increased to 764,—and including nearly three-fourths of the whole Roman Catholic episcopate. Of these it has been estimated that the minority opposed to the infallibility dogma amounted to at least 160, while in the majority were reckoned 53 bishops in partibus, who, as having no real dioceses, and being thus unable to attest the historical belief of their flocks, had properly no right of suffrage upon dogmatic questions in a council, such attestation being the one function dischargeable by bishops assembled in synod when considering articles of belief. To these are to be added about 125 bishops of sees too modern to have any ancient tradition to attest, such as those in North and South America, Australasia, and Oceania, who were thus for conciliar purposes on the same footing of incompetence to speak for any one save themselves. And, besides these two large groups, there was a third, consisting of about 90 missionary bishops entirely under the control of the Propaganda, and thus not free agents, while their sees were in most cases of very recent origin, so that they also could allege only their personal opinion, having no ancient records to attest. By far the larger number in these groups were on the side of the court majority. The Italian bishops, numbering about 170, and the Spanish, 40 in number, were also infallibilists almost to a man, but included scarcely one theologian in their ranks. And no fewer than 300 of this majority were the personal guests of Pius IX., lodged, boarded, and maintained at his cost, and thus openly retained to do his bidding. The minority consisted chiefly of the German and Austrian bishops, a considerable section of Hungarian, French, and North-American prelates, and many of those Orientals of the Latin Church who occupied dioceses other than mere titular and paper ones. But this minority, though composed mainly of natives of the most highly educated and intellectual countries, and containing almost every bishop of note for ability and theological learning, was by no means so compact and united as were the bishops of the majority; and there was not even full agreement amongst its members as to the grounds for opposing the new dogma, many going no further than its inopportuneness, but not entertaining deeper objections to it. Thus, even apart from its numerical inferiority, the opposition was at a disadvantage in face of the curialists, and lost not a few members to them during the progress of the council. Not only were the efforts to obtain freedom from the fetters of the brief Multiplices inter vain, but no member of the opposition could secure a place on any of the commissions or sub-committees, which consisted exclusively of infallibilists.
The matter of most importance in the first congregation, which was held on 10th December 1869, was the publication of a bull, decreeing that, if the pope should die during the council, it should at once be prorogued and take no part in the election of a pontiff, which was to be restricted to the college of cardinals. The session which followed was little more than formal; but two steps towards bringing about the intended result were taken before the next time of assembling. The “theologians” were forbidden to attend any meetings of the bishops, or even to meet among themselves to discuss any conciliar matters, being restricted each to private conference with the particular bishop to whose person he was attached; and various petitions for the definition of the new dogma were drawn up and signed, one being the result of a letter to the bishops of the council, issued by Archbishop Manning and the conductors of the Civiltà Cattolica, and signed by some hundreds, another from the Italian prelates, a third from those of the Franciscan order, and a fourth from the Uniat Armenians, besides several of less note. The opposition issued a counter-memorial with 135 signatures; but, as it is therein admitted that papal decrees ex cathedra on faith and morals are irreversible, even without the consent of the church being known in any way, and that true obedience to every decree of the see of Rome is due by all Christians, no weight could attach to it as a serious plea for rejecting, or even delaying, the definition. The second session (6th January 1870) was also formal only, so far as the direct transaction of business was concerned; but by the adoption of a measure causing all the members present to recite the creed of Pius IV., containing a clause professing obedience to the pope (this clause being omitted by the pope himself), and then to renew the episcopal oath of feudal submission to the Papacy, powerful pressure was brought to bear upon the weaker of the opposition, who were thus reminded how far they had pledged themselves already, and how unreasonable it therefore was to haggle about taking but one step in advance on the self-same road. The time between the second and third sessions was mainly occupied in preparing the drafts (schemata) of constitutions on the faith and on the church, and also with discussions of sundry disciplinary measures (notably as regards clerical immorality) and the preparation of a new catechism; but none of these last were proceeded with. By the pope’s direct command the cardinal-presidents of the congregations issued, on 20th February 1870, rules to check long debates, which drew yet tighter than before the cords that deprived the council of all freedom. Speakers were confined to touching upon such clauses only of any amendment as they had given previous notice of meaning to discuss, and were not allowed to take part otherwise in a debate, while the closure could be applied by the presidents at the demand of any ten members. This latter drastic measure drew out a protest from more than one hundred bishops, who urged that it was destructive of conciliar liberty (already much hampered by the noisy attempts of the infallibilists to stifle free discussion), and that the steps being taken disregarded the note of moral unanimity which should mark the decisions of a general council, thereby exposing the council itself to hostile criticism and even rejection. They pointed out several other serious faults in the new rules, but could obtain no modification of them. The constitution on the faith (usually cited now as Dei Filius), however,—a long and far from clearly worded document,— directed chiefly against modern rationalism, and enforced by 18 canons of anathema, was completed; it passed the congregation without difficulty, was signed by all the 667 members present, and was published in the third session, 24th April 1870, with papal confirmation, or rather in the unprecedented form of a proclamation by the pope singly, “the sacred council approving,”—an innovation which was intended to mark it as solely his act, and to settle in this summary manner the long-standing controversy as to the relative superiority of popes and councils. There were few, however, even of the opposition, who cared to contest such a point, and there was nothing of a contentious nature, as regards the two parties in the council, in the constitution itself, so that no debate was raised upon it.
The real struggle was yet to come, namely, over the constitution on the church, into which the new dogma was to be introduced. This constitution (now usually cited as Pastor Aeternus) asserted the following propositions :—(1) that a proper primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church was conferred upon St Peter directly and singly, and not mediately through any delegation to him, as chief minister in the church, of a primacy held by the church corporately; (2) that this Petrine primacy vests by divine institution and right in the line of Roman pontiffs; (3) that the pope’s jurisdiction is immediate in all churches— i.e., he is the universal ordinary, the actual bishop of every see (all other bishops being merely his curates and deputies), and is not a remote or merely appellate authority—so that in questions not of faith and morals alone, but of discipline and government also, all the faithful, of whatever rite or dignity, both pastors and laity, are bound, individually and collectively, to submit themselves thereto; (4) that it is unlawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an oecumenical council, as though to a higher authority; and (5) that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, and defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal church, is infallible, and such definitions are accordingly irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. This document was voted upon in the congregation of 13th July 1870, consisting of 671 members. Of these 451 voted in the affirmative; 88 voted against it; 62 voted placet juxta modum, meaning that they would accept it if it were seriously modified; and 70 did not vote at all. By the canonical theory of councils such a division of opinion as this voided the decision of the majority, and made it null. For, while a bare majority in a council suffices to pass a mere disciplinary canon, being a variable matter, contrariwise, to enact a dogmatic decree requires practical unanimity, since nothing can be imposed as of faith for which the two attesting notes of universal prevalence and historical continuity cannot be adduced. And, as the dissent of any appreciable number of members denotes that they do not know it as the local tradition of their several dioceses, it thereby destroys the claim to these notes. Not only so; but in view of the character in which bishops appear at councils, as representing their laity, it is clear that the size and population of their several dioceses have to be taken into account when estimating the weight attaching to their individual testimony as to the reception of any dogma within their jurisdictions. Tried by this standard, the opposition was very much more important than its muster-roll seems to indicate, for it included the bishops from many of the most populous Roman Catholic dioceses, such as the archbishops of Paris, with 2,000,000 Catholics, Breslau with 1,700,000, Cologne with 1,400,000, Vienna with about the same number, and Cambrai with 1,300,000; whereas 62 bishops of the Papal States, for example, represented no more than 700,000 altogether, apart from the hundred and more titulars, who had no flocks at all. This matter may be summed up thus: every vote cast for the new dogma stood for 142,570 lay folks; but every vote cast against it stood for 492,520. Nor is this all: a council claiming to be oecumenical must speak with the consent of both East and West. But, even if the very large concession be made that the Uniat churches in communion with Rome are in truth the lawful representatives of the ancient Oriental Church, the fact remains that the number and rank of the Orientals in the minority was such as to make the vote at best only a Latin one. The Melchite and Syrian patriarchs of Antioch, the Chaldee patriarch of Babylon, the Melchite archbishop of Tyre, the Maronite archbishops of Tyre and Sidon, of Beyrout, and of Aleppo, with several others, were in one or other of the three groups of dissentients, and thus nullified the Eastern suffrages...
