THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
that in quarters of chief control there was a determined purpose to have proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility. No success attended the attempts at smoothing the agitation over; but rather an opposition took shape whose extent and vigor had been hardly anticipated. A mighty intellectual and social agitation was then pervading Roman Catholic Europe; and for many months the religious question occupied the central position of public interests.
In Germany, the commotion started when D6llinger’s articles on the council and the Civilta appeared (in Augsburger allgemeine Zeitung, Mar. 10-15,
1869), which kindled men’s minds in 3. Opinions every quarter. Associations were then in Religious formed for repelling Ultramontanist
Quarters. efforts. Rhenish laymen assembled at
Coblenz, and forwarded an address to the bishop of Treves, wherein exception was taken to the views espoused in the article of the Civilta, and the demand was put forth that the impending council leave no doubt on the point that the church had parted company with the wish of reinstating the theocratic civil forms of the Middle Ages; that the training of the clergy should not run counter to the whole trend of the times; that a more comprehensive, vital, and systematic plan of associating the laity in Christian and social affairs be inaugurated in the parish congregations; and, lastly, that the Index librorum prohibitorum should be repealed. On the other hand, the general convention of Roman Catholic associations in Germany adopted a resolution at Diisseldorf, Sept. 8, in which the utmost confidence was expressed toward the council. When the German episcopate met in council at Fulda, on Sept. 1, 1869, this body issued a common pastoral letter, which was intended to exercise a quieting effect: the council, so it ran, could announce no new doctrine not contained in Holy Scripture and apostolic tradition; whereas the suspicion that freedom of deliberation might be prejudiced at the session was as unfounded as the supposition that the pope was the instrument of a faction or party was insulting. But besides this letter, which was intended for full publicity, quite another message, couched in a different tone, was addressed to the pope by resolution of the same body. For the news that the impending council was to be approached from various quarters in behalf of a proposition covering the pope’s infallibility was shown to have evoked great excitement, and this, too, among men of proved loyalty to the Church. It was urged, moreover, that the like apprehensions were shared by the writers themselves. Which document, subscribed by fourteen bishops (only a few held aloof), met with a very unfavorable reception at the hands of Pius 1X. In France there broke forth a vehement conflict. The work of Bishop Maret, dean of the Roman Catholic faculty of Paris, against infallibility (Du concile général et de la paix religieuse, 2 vols., Paris, 1869), and the writings of Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans, leavened by the same spirit, attracted manifold replies, including those from Archbishop Manning of Westminster and Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin. Count Montalembert arrayed himself with the opposers. In Austria-
Hungary, as contrasted with Germany, and not without significance touching the mental status of the clergy in those countries, there prevailed a general unconcern. In Italy, Count Ricciardi exerted himself toward opposing the Vatican Council with an ‘‘ecumenical council of freethinkers,” which actually convened at Naples, in Dec., 1869, but was a feeble affair. Hence, even before the council assembled, the most momentous of the topics afterward presented for its definitive resolutions was already the theme of radical controversy; while the prospects for a smooth acceptance of the projected dogma kept shrinking month by month. The impending council did not fail to occupy the attention of civil governments in Europe. On Apr. 9, 1869, the Bavarian cabinet president, Prince Chlodwig of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfiirst, addressed to Bavaria’s diplomatic representatives a circular dispatch, drafted by Déllinger, requesting them to inform themselves with reference to 4. Attitude the intentions of the governments of the whereto they were accredited, as touch- European ing the council. And they were to put States. the question, whether it were not expedient to adopt, in advance, a common or identical course of procedure whereby the holy see could be advised of their contemplated bearing in relation to the ecumenical council? However, Hohenlohe’s suggestion found but little response; and the answers, at best, were either negative or evasive. The ill-success of his proposal was attributed by Hohenlohe himself, in the main, to the Austrian government and its repellent attitude, since Austria both rejected his proposals and denied the imminence of any danger, save that emotional tension was to be feared in increasing degree, should there be an appearance of restricting the freedom of the Roman Catholic Church. Prussia deemed preventive measures not in season, and simply declared herself to be ready to safeguard the rights of the State, in the event of contingent resolutions that should encroach upon the civil prerogative or jurisdiction. The position of France in relation to the Curia, since France was the power that was able to determine the further continuance of the States of the Church, was different from that of other governments. But while the attitude of France was an uncertain factor under the influence of the French negotiations with Austria and Italy, still France decided in favor of prolonging the occupation; and even declared, in a note of instruction to the French envoy Banneville at Rome, dated Sept. 19, 1869, for the prospective definition of the doctrine involved when the pope spoke ex cathedra, with express recommendation, however, that the utmost wisdom be applied in drafting the terms thereof. Opposition to the Curia’s policy was not to have been expected from England, Spain, and Portugal. So the various governments forbore to exert any pressure upon Rome in the direction advised by Hohenlohe; and except Russia, which forbade Russian prelates the journey to Rome, they laid no obstacles in the way of attending the council. II. Proceedings of the Council. —1. From the Opening until Mar. 6, 1870: The Curia had observed silence in regard to the council’s tasks. That
the promulgation of infallibility had been long in preparation in that quarter and that the attainment of this goal was the chief object of the entire council, have been demonstrated by Friedrich (see bibliography). This is a point especially to be noted, since Granderath, in his opposing work, affirms the contrary with great certitude, and since a correct understanding of the course of the convention depends on the detail that the Vatican Council be conceived as the product of ultramontanist growth in the nineteenth century. From the beginning of the council, the question of infallibility stood central in point of general interest, and acted in a segregative way, as touching party tactics. That the majority was resolved to vote in the affirmative is above reasonable doubt; although there was some uncertainty as to whether the opposition would prove aggressive, and to what extent, if considerable. In fact, it was stronger than had been expected, and prevented the council sessions from running that expeditious course which had been so confidently predicted by the Civiltd’s article.
The prelates who had already reached Rome were convened in a preliminary synodical assembly in the Sistine Chapel, Dec. 2, 1869. Pius IX. then delivered an address, the names of the officers were announced, and these officers were swornin. In the next place, copies of the order of business were distributed, with the heading Multiplices inter, dated Nov. 27,1869. As presidents were named Cardinals de Reisach, de Lucea, Bizarri, Bilio, and Capalli. By this order of business, which he issued without action by the council in the premises, Pius IX. insured for himself a determining influence over the convention. The most important rulings were as follows: In § 2 the pope claimed it as his exclusive right to define the objects of the council’s proceedings. The synodical delegates are permitted, of course, to make motions, yet with extreme limitation, since the pope was to decide whether they should be laid before the council; § 3 obligates the members of the council to silence in regard to the proceedings; §§ 7 and 8 touched upon the synodical delegates’ assemblings, the congregations general, and the public sessions. In the congregations general, whose directors were named by the pope, the drafts of decrees laid before the council were to be debated and voted upon, but only in a provisory way. At the public sessions, deliberations were no longer in order, but only the final votes. The result of these was certified by the pope, in personal attendance, and was to be proclaimed as his decision, ‘the holy council approving.” The votes were to be phrased placet or non placet. In the event of no working agreement, the contested proviso, together with the proffered objections thereto, were to be referred to standing committees, and these were to be elected by the council on written ballot. § 9 forbade the attending ecclesiastics to quit the council before its termination, except by permission. For council chamber, and this alike for the congregations general and the public sessions, they made use of the right transept of St. Peter’s Church, this being shut off by a lofty wooden partition. From
1. Rules of Procedure.