RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vatican Council
the very first day, however, this area proved unfit on account of its defective acoustics.
The first public session took place Wednesday Dec. 8, 1869, with the opening on a festival. Undue precipitation set the second public session for Thursday Jan. 6, 1870. To what extent the question of infallibility dominated the council quite from the start appeared from the election of the various committees. The chief promoters of the quorum actively in favor of the definition at issue met in private conferences, and then agreed on the plan that no one be elected of whom it were known that he opposed the definition of papal infallibility. In the next place, lists of the proposed candidates were prepared and_ lithographed. And all these propositions found acceptance with the council. The ratified order of business provoked some contradiction directly after the work of the council began; but all motions presented before the pope in favor of changing that fixed routine were set aside. The council’s debates began only with the fourth congregation general, Dec. 28, and turned on the “ schedule of faith.” The discussion assumed an unexpectedly prolonged course, for the topic was criticized in many quarters. The premature appointment of the second public session for Jan. 6 occasioned the leaders of the ouncil no small embarrassment. In fact, such a thing as passing upon the ‘ schedule” in the way of a conciliar decree was then and there impossible. So, too, the hope had to be abandoned of seeing the question of infallibility accepted by the council at this session, as though by acclamation and independent of discussion, since Archbishop Darboy of Paris notified Cardinal de Luca, Dec. 27, that in the event of such abruptness, 100 bishops would straightway leave Rome. Accordingly, the second public session, Jan. 6, 1870, had to be occupied by taking the synodical delegates’ formal deposition in support of the Council of Trent. The insignificance of this second session is to be explained by the fact that it nowise marks a critical juncture in the council’s history. The proceedings extended till Jan. 10. The project under consideration appears to have found unqualified approval with not one of the thirty-five speakers; but rather there prevailed great dissension respecting the degree of requisite amendment in the case. The result of the proceedings in six congregations general was, on Jan. 10, to refer the issue, along with its proffered objections, to the deputation on faith.
In the following weeks (till Feb. 22) the council deliberated in nineteen congregations general (numbered 11-29) concerning schedules of discipline and questions of church life. And though these pro-
Ay ceedings form simply an episode in the To ~ _ history of the council and led to no
onged and F é
Resultless Practical end, still they afford some Debates. imsight into the bishops’ frames of mind. It appears that many of the
synodical delegates entertained a broad conception of the necessity of reforms; while critical utterances were heard to this intent, and in no subdued tone, such as were hardly anticipated by the Curia. During the discussion of the ‘‘ schedule concerning bish-
2. First and Second Sessions,
Vatican Council
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ops, synods, and vicars general,” the objection was raised that the proposition touched only upon the duties of bishops, but not on the necessary reform of the college of cardinals and the Curia. The demand was also made, that the papal office be made accessible to others than Italians. In like manner, it was proposed to internationalize the Roman congregations and to decentralize the ecclesiastical administration. There was, furthermore, criticism of the manner of treating impediments to marriage, dispensations, and taxes. When the matter of provincial synods came up, some remarkable conditions were debated before the Curia. There was even a demand expressed in the direction of national synods, and of regularly recurrent ecumenical councils. After these ‘‘ schedules”? had been discussed by thirty-seven speakers, they were referred, at the sixteenth congregation general, Jan. 25, to the deputation on discipline for revision. From Jan. 25 to Feb. 8, thirty-eight speakers discussed the ‘“‘ schedule concerning the life and character of the clergy,” including such details as the spiritual exercises, the common life of the priests, celibacy, defects in the Breviary, and the propriety of clerical beards. The proposition was referred to the deputation on discipline. From Feb. 10 to 22 (general congregations 24-29), the council was occupied with the schedule “concerning a small catechism,” the pope having expressed his intention of having a small catechism prepared, in order to abate the diversity of instruction regarding the elements of the faith. This catechism was then to be translated into the various national tongues, while the bishops retained the liberty of dispensing catechetical instruction independently thereof. However, while the idea of unifying such instruction had strong indorsement, it also encountered vehement opposition, quite variously prompted. This schedule was also referred to the deputation on discipline.
A noteworthy landmark in the history of the council is supplied by the publication, during the twenty-ninth congregation general, on Feb. 22, of the papal decree dated Feb. 20; which must be designated a new order of business. The most important of its rulings, which comprised fourteen heads, were the following. Strictures on a “‘ schedule ”’ shall henceforth no longer be made orally, but in writing; and this, too, within a period of time to be determined by the presidents when the given schedule is proposed (§ 1). Such strictures are to be accompanied with suggested amendments (§ 3), and shall be tendered before the secretary of the council, who refers them to the competent deputations (§ 4). Coupled with a summary report on the previously tendered strictures, the schedule, as amended by the committee or deputation in charge, goes to the council for oral discussion (§ 5). Speakers digressing from the question in debate shall be called to order by the presidents (§ 10). In case the subject of debate be exhausted, then the presidents, on written motion of ten synodical delegates, may put the question before the congregation general, as to whether the discussion shall still be protracted; and the majority decides (§ 11). Majority vote also decides the matter of adopting a proposition (§ 13).
4. New Rules of Procedure.
The voting is done orally, by placet or non placet, though a conditional placet is also admissible, the given condition being in writing (§ 14). What prompted this change in the order of business was the tedious routine of the council’s proceedings, which in the course of three months had brought not a single schedule to formal conclusion. That this new order of business was adapted to expedite the transaction of business proper is evident; yet the advance was only contingent in that the council might have to pay for the abridgment of its proceedings by disadvantages of another kind. Protests were lodged against the altered order of business under the leadership of Archbishop Darboy of Paris, by fifty bishops on Mar. 1, by twenty-two other bishops, led by Cardinal Schwarzenberg, on Mar. 4, and by fourteen bishops, predominantly ~ German, on Mar. 2. However, these protests accomplished nothing, not even a written acknowledgment. Yet the object of altering the order of business was not simply the better dispatch of the council’s labors; it especially hinged on the point of carrying the definition of infallibility through the channels of parliamentary resolution, after it was seen that the measure could not be adopted by acclamation.
A fortnight after the council opened, there were conferences in progress on the part of a small coterie of those favoring the definition, touching their man-
ner of procedure. Petitions for mo-
oven tion of the definition were subscribed Infallibility PY about 480 bishops. Not until the
news of these arrangements transpired did the opponents of definition actively unite. Their deliberations began Jan. 8, and in five counter-addresses, which were subscribed by 136 bishops, the pope was besought to make no proposition to the council on the subject of infallibility. But the committee on motions resolved to commend to the pope the acceptance of definition. Through these memorials for and against the question of definition, the presence of two parties at the council had become altogether patent. What occasioned great surprise was the relative status of the two alinements, broadly surveyed. The process of “ ultramontanizing ”’ the Roman Catholic Church had advanced quite too far, and the Ultramontane trend of the council was much too pronounced for any doubt as to the issue of a dogmatic decision on the subject of infallibility. The sensation was the strength of the minority, the impressive gravity of whose opposition stood all the more enhanced by the dignity of not a few personalities on the minority side, as by the partizan grouping along lines of nationality. Among the German bishops there were thirteen opposers of the definition, whereas only four of the German bishops advocated the definition; among the Austro-Hungarian bishops the majority were on the opposing side; in the case of the French bishops, one-third of them sided with the opposition. Several of the bishops from the United States opposed it. Among those members who disclosed special zeal in favoring infallibility, Archbishop Manning of Westminster, and Bishop Senestréy of Regensburg stood forth with prominence. Their strength was in the firm assertion of the ne-