Michael Joseph at Evangelical Catholicism has posted a detailed account of the rather chaotic process by which the First Vatican Council arrived at its decision concerning papal infallibility. Many thanks to Michael for making his excellent research available! The article is in six parts:
- Part One – Preliminary Measures
- Part Two – Preliminary Politics
- Part Three – The Council Commences
- Part Four – A Turn of Events
- Part Five – The Infallibility Debates
- Part Six – The Final Acts
I look forward to reading the entire paper … but sometimes I like to cheat and read conclusions first. If you’re like me, here’s Michael’s conclusion:
What becomes apparent from such a survey of the infallibility controversy of the First Vatican Council is the impact of the Minority upon the final adopted decree, Pastor aeternus. From the onset, those bishops that fought vehemently for the definition of papal infallibility were concerned with a theoretical, dogmatic pronouncement that focused upon the precise locus of infallibility within the Church. Such is the case with Manning, whose arguments stemmed from a juridical and ideological mindset rather than from a practical or historical consciousness. However, the greatest of Minority speakers pointed to the historical difficulties surrounding the definition, and forced the Council Fathers to adapt the schema to fit within the concrete, historical actions of the Church. While many of the Minority left the Council in what they perceived to be defeat, they truly succeeded in forcing the Council to consider historical facts in its formulation of doctrine, naturally distilling the forceful doctrine of the Ultramontanes. Even Newman realized this Providential effect: “Pius has been overruled—I believe he wished a much more stringent dogma than he has got. Let us have faith and patience.” Faith and patience would indeed be necessary for those bishops haunted by the Council; the Church would not again official take up the matter of papal authority until the Second Vatican Council, ninety-two years later.
Cathedra Unitatis 
I’m like you, CU–I like to read the conclusion first. 🙂 Especially when my 12-year-old is clamoring for the computer.
That Newman quote is very interesting. I think it shows, beautifully, that the Holy Spirit is the One in charge of the Church. The Ultramontanes did not get their way–because their way was not God’s way. Thus we eneded up with a much more modest definition of papal infallibility than the hardliners wanted.
The dogma, as defined by the Council, is essentially a negative protection: It does not guarantee that the pope will speak the truth (under the stringent conditions governing an infallible pronouncement). It guarantees only that he will be specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that he will not utter error. If he means to utter heresy (highly unlikely!), the Holy Spirit will keep him from uttering anything at all. (Again, this applies only to those papal pronouncements made under the precisely delimited conditions for infallibility. It does not apply every time the pope burps or says “boo.”)
God bless,
Diane
I posted the following comment on “Pontifications” in August 2005; it may be useful here as well:
It’s late here, and I must soon go to bed, but I should allude (at least) here to the letters that Newman wrote in August/September 1870 to a Mrs. Anna Whitty, and especially that of 9 September 1870. Mrs. Whitty was a Catholic whom the Vatican I definition repulsed, turning her against the papacy in general. Newman wrote:
“I detest many things historically connected with the Popes as much as you can, but what I feel is this, that a Universal Church cannot, by the laws of human society, be held together without a head. When did a simple republic last? The Greek republics were small — so were the Italian. Rome was at first a single city — but even then, in difficult times, was obliged to have a dictator, and when it became an empire, had a permanent Ruler. If then it was in the designs of Providence to establish a spiritual Kingdom or universal Empire, it was in His designs to have a pope, unless all was to be carried on by miracle.
And so again, if doctrine was to be perpetuated. If one and the same faith, one and the same sacraments, the same worship, were to be the characteristics of Christianity in all lands, this could not be without a central authority. Law implies a territory which is subject to it — and how can law be preserved and enforced without an Executive Government.
And in matter of fact what has kept the religion together with the same faith, worship and observances, is the Roman See — and wherever Christians have left Rome they have fallen under the power of the State and had as many sorts of worship and rules of faith as there are States, and if they have not been ruled by the State, then they have not been ruled at all, and have had no consistency and no permanence, but have been like bubbles on the face of society, rising and breaking.
But, in the next place, where you have power you will have the abuse of power — and the more absolute, the stronger, the more sacred the power, the greater and more certain will be its abuse. ‘The treasure,’ we know, ‘is in earthly vessels.’ While men are men, spiritual power will have terrible abuses. It is the price we pay for its benefits.
As to this particular doctrine (Papal infallibility), I am not at all sure it will increase the Pope’s power — it may restrict it. Hitherto he has done what he would, because its limits were not defined — now he must act by rule. I can’t prophesy how it will be. Again, if terrible times are coming, this increase of his spiritual authority may be absolutely necessary to keep things together. This does not justify the way in which it has been carried at Rome — but God overrules evil for good. A heavy retribution still may await the perpetrators the act.”
I am not at all sure [the definition of paapl infallibility] will increase the Pope’s power — it may restrict it.
Very interesting! I would argue that it has done precisely that. Or, at least, it has contributed toward a general trend toward a more hands-off papal style. (Nothing’s mono-causal, of course.)
Please help me out, CU. Does Vatican I’s teaching on infallibility only mean that the Pope cannot bind to untruth — and so destroy — the entire Church when he uses Peter’s authority (although apparently he may destroy part of the Church)? If so, on one level it seems cold comfort! — and on another level perhaps a “no-brainer”, that is, if Christ preserves the Church then of course the pope can’t lead the entire community astray by binding us all to untruth!
If the teaching on infallibility is so very limited — much more limited than the self-claims of Leo and Innocent and Gelasius and certainly Gregory VII would make it appear — then perhaps the real issue between Catholics and Orthodox is not papal infallibility, but rather papal jurisdiction.
But then again Cardinal Kaspar’s words you quoted a few months back make it seem like this was only to protect the papacy from being overwhelmed in times of persecution. I suppose I could accept that if it weren’t for past historical examples in which such claims to jurisdiction had sharp teeth indeed, e.g., the interdict against England in the 13th century.
My bottom line question then — are papal infallibility and jurisdiction as harmless as you make them sound? Or is there something I am missing?
“… (although apparently he may destroy part of the Church) …”
Please explain.
“… if it weren’t for past historical examples in which such claims to jurisdiction had sharp teeth indeed, e.g., the interdict against England in the 13th century.”
If there was ever an interdict that was fully justified, it was this one. King John, an adulterer, drunkard and murderer, tried to force his own episcopal nominees on the English Church, and when various cathedral chapters refused to elect the clerics that he favored, seized their property and imprisoned some of them. some of these chapters appealed to Rome, Rome upheld their case and confirmed the episcopal elections they had made, in defiance of the king, who retaliated by a wholesale seizure of church property to get his way; and, in turn, he was excommunicated, and the realm interdicted. I wholly admire Innocent III’s action in this case, and regret only that he had not maintained his initial similar response to the Crusaders and Venetians who captured and sacked Constantinople in 1204.
Gregorio –
I must confess that I am very far from an expert on Vatican I, or really any of the topics I post on. I post in order to learn from the erudite commenters. 🙂
Years ago an Eastern Catholic priest friend of mine told me that the really tricky issue between Orthodox and Catholics is not papal infallibility (he, like you, suggests that it is a very, very limited teaching) but rather papal jurisdiction. As a good Orthodox convert, I was incredulous at the time, but now I think that he may have been on to something.
I’m not trying to make papal infallibility or jurisdiction “sound harmless” or really “sound” like anything. I’m trying to find out, from Catholic sources themselves, what it’s all about, from their perspective. Frankly, I’ve had my fill of the polemics on the topic (both Orthodox and Protestant).
Dr. Tighe,
My point was just that it seems papal pronouncements are protected from error of unfaith only when addressed to bind the *whole* Church in the name of Peter, which is a very limited claim. Short of that, it would seem possible that he would be able to spread false teachings or behaviors, like Honorius and “one will” or the many popes who ordered the torture of heretics (which has justly been rejected by the modern Catholic Church). I would suggest that ordering atrocities or even limited erroristic teaching could harm souls.
Oh, and on the interdict. I could see that excommunications of key people would be needed in such a case of rebellion. But denying the life-giving sacramental mysteries to an entire nation? That doesn’t seem right at all.
The history is certainly interesting, and yes, the decree of VI could have been stronger than it ended up being, but to me, and I imagine to many Orthodox, the bottom line is this: Vat I seems to say that the Bishop of Rome can unilaterally bind the entire Church to a certain dogmatic teaching if he chooses to. That is what I find problematic. If someone can show me that Pastor Aeternus does *not* say that, I will reconsider my position on the teaching. Joe
>The dogma, as defined by the Council, is essentially a negative protection: It does not guarantee that the pope will speak the truth (under the stringent conditions governing an infallible pronouncement). It guarantees only that he will be specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that he will not utter error.
Precisely. And what other example do we have of a “negative protection” left by Christ to Peter or the other apostles? All the other charisms were positive: to teach all nations, to baptize, to forgive sins, to “feed my sheep”. What is the sense of a charism that can fulfill its purpose by never being used? I’m sorry, to me the VI teaching on infallibility stands out like a sore thumb. It just doesn’t “fit” the NT accounts as I read them. Joe
Precisely. And what other example do we have of a “negative protection” left by Christ to Peter or the other apostles?
With all due respect, Joe, that strikes me as a pretty weak argument. What other example do we have of God becoming Man? What other example do we have (so far) of Resurrection from the dead?
Singularity–even if it obtains in this case–means nothing. There is no Scripture text, patristic passage, or canon that says God has to do something more than once.