THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
Ketteler distributed his Questio, which on arriving in Rome was seized by the post-office, and liberated only after vigorous effort. The impression produced by these writings was not inconsiderable in its way; although it had no decisive effect upon the council.
So far back as at the congregation general of Apr.
- 29, the proposal of a “ schedule dealing with the
bishop of Rome ” was formally announced. Among the majority this step was hailed with joy, , though seventy-one members lodged ‘vigorous but vain protest on the ground that the doctrine of infallibility was treated irrespective of prior determination of the doctrine of the church on that subject. The statements which the members were to tender by Mar. 25 concerning the schedule De ecclesia had already largely been turned in; and on Apr. 27 proceedings were begun in regard to the draft of the new schedule, which proceedings were completed on May 8. The new schedule, together with the report of the deputation on faith, was referred to the synodical delegates on May 9. The title of this ran: Constitutio dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi; and the document comprised four chapters, besides introduction: (1) “ On the institution in the blessed Peter of the apostolic primacy’; (2) ‘‘ On the perpetuity of Peter’s primacy in the bishops of Rome ”’; (3) ‘‘ On the force and reason of the Roman bishop’s primacy’; (4) ‘f On the Roman bishop’s infallibility.”’ There were three collateral canons. This new schedule was based on chap. 11 of the former schema de ecclesia Christi, and the supplementary chapter of Mar. 6.
On May 13, the general debate began at the fiftieth congregation general, being inaugurated by the report of Bishop Pius of Poitiers. This debate occupied fourteen congregations general, and occasioned sixty-four speeches. On general theoretical grounds in favor of formulating a dogma, it is held not only to be necessary that such doctrine be contained in the divine revelation, but that the weal of the Church requires its definition; accordingly the question of opportuneness or seasonable expediency persistently came forward in the debate. Bishops on the minority side denied the expediency outright, while the majority attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the dogma, and, above all, to justify the same by reference to conditions at the time. That whole countries yearned for the institution of the definition was asserted widely, and its expediency was postulated largely on the defection from the non-Catholic churches of such men as Cardinal Manning in England, Archbishop Schepann of Utrecht, Holland, Archbishop Maddalena of Corfu, of the schismatic Greeks. But neither side could work conviction on the opposing side; the debate might have lasted months longer without effect. So, on June 3, a motion was adopted for closing the debate, though forty enrolled speakers were thus deprived of the floor, a fact which evoked a futile protest presented by eighty-one synodical delegates. The special debate, beginning on June 6, turned on the introduction, while discussion over the first and second chapters, ut sup., was soon dispatched, and
1. The Program.
2. Debate on Infallibility.
these portions were adopted with but slight alterations. Greater difficulties came to light over the third chapter, wherein the nature and the meaning of the primacy were defined. In this case the statement that the pope enjoys “ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church ” provoked the demand for some supplementary statement as to limitations. There were also differences of opinion regarding the propositions embraced in the measure projected declaring the pope to be the supreme judge in the sense that an appeal to an ecumenical council from his ultimatum was thereby precluded; because the recognition of this clause involved a direct rider to the issue of infallibility. Finally, some scruples were aroused on the point that the pope’s power of jurisdiction was designated as episcopalis, ordinaria et immediata. Subsequently, when the deputation on faith turned in its report, on July 5, over the proffered forms of amendment, still further sharp disputes occurred over the third canon, which had been modified and revised in a manner not provided by the original motion. Chap. 3, together with the appertaining canon, was formally adopted on June 11. It was with blunted force that the council took up on June 15 the special debate on chap. 4. The Gtolesone address of the Dominican, Cardinal the Contest Guidi, archbishop of Bologna, attracted “peculiar attention. The speaker did not contest the pope’s infallibility, save that he
attributed this purely to the decisions of the pope, |
not to his person. He also asserted that the pope is bound by the antecedently tendered counsel of the bishops, who testify to the tradition of the Church. Cardinal Guidi was directly summoned to the Vatican, where Pius received him austerely, and quashed the appeal to the tradition of the Church with his now famous retort: “ I am tradition.” Harly in July the conviction permeated the council that what could be said for and against the proposition had already been said. The tale of speakers foregoing their turn to debate increased from day to day, so that on July 4 the synodical debate could be closed; by this time fifty-seven had spoken on the pending topic, chap. 4, and sixtyone had refrained from debating. The great contest now rapidly reached its end; chap. 4 was adopted on July 13, whereupon the entire schedule was brought to vote. The result caused great surprise, not because the schedule was adopted, since this was foregone, but for the reasons that of the 601 ecclesiastics in attendance, only 451 voted placet (i.e., yes), whereas 88 voted non placet, and 62 in the form placet juxta modum (i.e., yes, with a qualification), Eighty who were in Rome or in the neighborhood did not vote at all.
In view of the impending decision, the opponents of the definition made a last attempt to influence the result. In his memorial La Derniére Heure du concile, Archbishop Darboy addressed an appeal to
the members of synod; but his theses
pe ee aroused such intense emotion among - eae ete the majority and the leaders of the
council, and were to them so irksome, that it was deemed necessary to protest against his pamphlet. On the evening of July 15 a delegation