Some bishops at the First Vatican Council refused to take a position on defining papal infallibility. A small group kept silent out of timidity. Others wished to establish a common ground to facilitate a unanimous decision.
As the Council’s deliberations proceeded, the Council Fathers clarified the meaning of the schema. In addition, the majority (supporting infallibility) showed goodwill by approving legitimate changes proposed by the minority. These actions increasingly inclined undecided prelates to support the majority. The minority was losing ground.
Even some bishops who were known to oppose the definition decided to support it. For example, the Archbishop of Rouen, Henri-Marie-Gaston Cardinal de Bonnechose, unexpectedly spoke in favor of infallibility. His biographer, Bishop Louis François Nicolas Besson of Nîmes, related that the Cardinal was praying one day in St. Lawrence Outside the Walls. Suddenly, he saw the question clearly: “An interior movement took place in his soul, and he felt obliged to bear witness to the truth.”
As a result, many people lost interest in the Council’s deliberations. A small group of more strident anti-infallibilists and opportunists1 insisted on prolonging the debates. However, not even the most famous speakers could attract the Assembly’s attention any longer. The Council Fathers were sufficiently informed. They would undoubtedly approve infallibility by a large margin.
In this calm atmosphere, the Dominican Philip Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, asked for the floor. He was one of the greatest theologians of his time and one of the promoters of Scholastic renewal. Since he had not yet spoken at the Council, a justified curiosity invaded the session hall. The participants listened to his opinion in profound silence.
Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law
The Cardinal made a point of recalling his fidelity to the doctrine of Saint Thomas. In its name, he spoke against employing any definition formula containing the words “infallibility of the pope.” Such terms, he argued, would imply the Sovereign Pontiff’s personal infallibility. He preferred the definition to read, “The pope’s doctrinal definitions are infallible.” He started from the premise that the pope cannot err only when speaking as a doctor of the Church. Therefore, he concluded that papal definitions should be declared infallible only if uttered after consulting the tradition of the Church, that is, the Episcopate, as depository and witness of traditional doctrine.
Cardinal Guidi’s words merely restated issues already addressed. Still, his prestige and reputation lifted the minority from embarrassment and revived a discussion that everyone tacitly considered closed. The minority could not restrain its enthusiasm: it erupted into bravos and applause. The majority lodged vehement protests. By the end of the speech, every sentence was interrupted by the minority’s “bene, bene, optime” [well, excellent!] and the majority’s “no, no, that’s not right!”
The clamorous incident caused great excitement. It seemed that everything would have to be discussed again. To avoid reopening useless debates, Pius IX called Cardinal Guidi that same afternoon and severely reprimanded him. The Cardinal tried to defend himself. When he claimed that he had not denied papal infallibility but only wanted to recall that the bishops are “witnesses of tradition,” Pius IX interrupted him with the exclamation, “La Tradizione son’io! “[I am Tradition!].
Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times
Thanks to the pope’s intervention, the debates were closed. Still, a rapprochement between the minority and the majority was still attempted. The majority agreed to title the chapter in question De Romani Pontificis infallibili magisterio [On the Roman Pontiff’s Infallible Teaching] to replace De Romani pontificis infallibilitate [On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff]. Still, it refused any modification of the text that would imply a need for the Episcopate to intervene in dogmatic definitions of the visible Head of the Church.
On behalf of the delegation in charge of preparing the scheme, Bishop Vonzenz Gasser of Brixen presented the new text with the accepted amendments to the plenary on June 11. This would not be the final vote. The conciliar fathers could vote “placet” to accept the proposed scheme, “non-placet” to reject it, and “placet juxta modum” if they desired amendments. On June 13, with 601 Council Fathers in attendance, there were 88 “non-placet” and 62 “placet juxta modum.”
Later, the commission would offer a new wording; only then would the Council decide. During the final phase, only “placet” or “non placet” would be allowed. The schema went back to the Committee, and there was no longer any doubt the new version would be approved.
The minority understood the situation perfectly. It still tried to prolong the debates, hoping the imminent war between France and Germany would interrupt the Council and prevent a decision. The International Committee, composed of minority bishops, saw the futility of its maneuvers. Nonetheless, the Committee formed a delegation whose members were the Primate of Hungary, the Archbishops of Lyon and Munich, and the Bishops of Mograden and Dijon under the leadership of the Archbishop of Paris. They asked the pope to make several modifications to the schema’s wording. Specifically, they asked him to include some words implying participation by the Episcopate among the conditions of infallibility.
Why America Must Reject Isolationism and Its Dangers
Unable to admit defeat, Bishop Felix Dupanloup of Orléans wrote two more letters to Pius IX requesting his intervention. As always, the Bishop insinuated that the pontiff was unaware of his concerns. He, therefore, begged His Holiness to examine things for himself.
Seeing that their efforts were in vain, the minority met. They resolved (by 33 votes to 22) not to attend the session that would make the final decision on infallibility. The 55 bishops wrote a letter to Pius IX explaining their reasons and left the Eternal City.
Footnotes
- As explained in previous installments, both anti-infallibilists and opportunists opposed the Council’s definition of papal infallibility. The difference was tactical. Anti-infallibilists openly opposed the definition, while opportunists argued that it was “inopportune” to define it at the Vatican Council.