p. 4 | Re-convening the Vatican Council by L. A. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Aug 4, 1904

Re-convening the Vatican Council

By L. A. S.

INTEREST is revived at the present time in a very important historical event by the announcement, which comes from the Rome correspondent of the New York Freeman’s Journal, of the rumored intention of Pope Pius

IX to call all the bishops of the Catholic world to Rome for the purpose of concluding the sessions of the great Vatican council of 1870. This historic conclave was that at which was proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility, which marked the climax to the “great words” spoken by the “little horn” power of Daniel’s prophecy, because of which, as seen and described by the prophet, the “beast was slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame.” The Vatican council called by Pope Pius IX was never officially concluded. Political events occurring at the time of its session, of a character very disturbing to the interests of the papacy, forced the suspension of the council before the work it had in view was completed; so that, technically, the council is still in existence. And now it is reported that Pius X has in mind to reassemble the ecumenical conclave in Rome for the purpose of finishing the session, begun with so eventful a sitting thirty-four years ago.

This Vatican council is “the first and only plenary council of the Latin church held since the close of the Council of Trent, in 1563.” It was called for the purpose of settling certain questions which were not disposed of by the Council of Trent, especially questions relating to the source and extent of pontifical authority. The Council of Trent concerned itself mainly with an attempt to deal with the causes and results of the Reformation, and was called at the instance of the papal states of Europe, rather against the will of the papal hierarchy. The Vatican council, on the other hand, was initiated solely by the papacy, and was neither demanded nor desired by the Catholic states and people.

Beginning with the breaking up of the old French Catholic church by the French Revolution and the substitution of a largely ultramontane episcopacy in France under the concordat between Pius VII and Napoleon I, the “moderate school” of the papacy went into a decline, while there was a corresponding elevation of the ultramontane faction, led by the Jesuits, who have always “unceasingly striven to centralize and concentrate ecclesiastical authority, to remove constitutional limitations upon its exercise, and to make it prompt, unfaltering, and trenchant in action.” To this end it was planned by this faction of the church to convert the papacy into an absolute monarchy.

With the accession of Pius IX to the papal chair in 1846, a favorable opportunity was presented for the realization of this purpose, Pius being known to entertain the loftiest ideas of the pontifical prerogatives. But the experiment was first tried of feeling the mind of the papal constituency in the matter by the promulgation of decrees emanating from the pontiff alone, without the sanction of any church council. Accordingly in 1854, Pius proclaimed the tenet of the immaculate conception, which met with but slight resistance, and in 1864, that of the Syllabus of Errors, to which there was no opposition at all. An Italian majority subservient to the will of the pope could be counted on, and the help also of a large number of Catholic prelates all over the world appointed by Pius IX during his long pontificate, from the ultramontane school exclusively. Still the ultimate purpose in view was approached cautiously, with many preliminary steps, and it was not until June, 1869, that the bull of convocation for the council was issued, appointing December 8 following, as the day of meeting. On that date the council convened, there being present seven hundred and forty-nine cardinals, bishops, abbots, and generals of orders, which number was increased later to seven hundred and sixty-four, comprising nearly three fourths of the whole Roman Catholic Episcopate.

It was found that a strong minority, amounting to about one hundred and sixty members of the conclave, were opposed to the infallibility dogma, this minority being composed of bishops from those countries which were in the lead in intelligence and education. But the dissenters were not united in their views touching the proper ground to be taken against the proposed decree, and their opposition was weakened accordingly.

The first and second sessions of the council, held December 10 and January 6, respectively, were merely formal so far as the transaction of business was concerned, but at the second session all the members present were required to renew the episcopal oath of feudal submission to the papacy. Previous to the third session, rules were issued by direct command of the pope restricting freedom of discussion on the part of any who might be in opposition to the measures brought before the council for ratification. The third session of the council was held in April.

The real business of the council was the adoption of the constitution on the church, into which the new dogma was to be incorporated. This constitution (usually designated by the title Pastor Aeternus) asserted the following propositions:—

That a primacy over the whole church was divinely conferred upon St. Peter directly and singly, and not mediately through any delegation to him of a primacy held by the church corporately.
That this primacy vests by divine right in the line of Roman pontiffs.
That the pope is the real bishop of every see, all other bishops being merely his deputies; so that to the pope’s authority, both in matters of discipline and government as well as of faith and morals, all Catholics everywhere are bound to submit themselves, individually and collectively.
That it is unlawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council, as though to a higher authority.
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.

This document was voted upon at the fourth session of the council, July 13, 1870, six hundred and seventy-one members being present. Of these four hundred and fifty-one voted in the affirmative, eighty-eight in the negative, sixty-two voted for it conditionally, desiring its modification, and seventy refrained from voting. The opposition included the bishops of many of the most populous Catholic dioceses, so that, considering the bishops as representing the laity of their dioceses, the opposition was much more important than its numerical size in the council would indicate. Five bishops among the opposition represented a constituency of six and one-half millions of Catholics, while sixty-two bishops who voted for the dogma represented less than a million altogether, and many others of the majority party had no flocks at all. Analyzing the vote in this way, it is stated that each vote cast for the dogma represented 142,500 lay people, while each vote cast against it represented 492,500 laymen. Besides this, the number and rank of bishops in the Oriental division of the church who stood with the minority, was such as to make the vote only a Latin one at best. By the canonical theory of councils such a division of opinion rendered the decision of the majority null and void.

Immediately following this vote the bishops of the minority almost without exception abruptly quitted Rome, moved by fears for their personal safety. They had been given to understand that each of them would have two papers tendered to him for his signature at the ensuing session, one being a profession of adherence to the infallibility dogma, the other a resignation from his diocese in case he should refuse adherence. The pope was a temporal sovereign of the territory of Rome, and they had good reason to expect that he would employ direct coercion in the event of their continued resistance. Only two of the opposition bishops were bold enough to remain, and their two negative votes were the only ones appearing in opposition to the votes of five hundred and thirty-five bishops favoring the dogma, at the next conclave, held July 18. The pope thereupon confirmed the decree, and the act was accomplished.

On that very day Napoleon III, of France proclaimed war against Germany, and the German armies were set in motion, whose victories quickly made necessary the recall of the French troops from Rome, the departure of which was immediately followed by the entrance of the Italian troops of Victor Immanuel, and the downfall of the pope’s temporal sovereignty. In just two months’ time from

the last meeting of the council, the troops of the Italian sovereign were in possession of the city. The council was prorogued by Pius on October 20, and is thus technically still in existence.

The matter of a reconvening of the council has, it is said, been recently discussed among Catholic ecclesiastics, who are agreed, says the Rome correspondent before mentioned, that the times are more propitious now than they have been since 1870. We can agree with them that the times are indeed propitious for the rapid making of history.

L. A. S.