![Pastor Aeternus Moves Toward Acceptance by the Vatican Council, Despite the Arguments of the Minority](https://www.tfp.org/content/uploads/2024/08/Pastor-Aeternus-Moves-Toward-Acceptance-by-the-Vatican-Council-Despite-the-Arguments-of-the-Minority.jpg)
Pius IX reversed the order of work so the First Vatican Council could address the question of infallibility without further delay. To that end, the Council Fathers began studying the draft constitution De Ecclesia Christi’s eleventh chapter, which dealt with the pope’s primacy. This chapter began with the words Pastor Aeternus. When that section became a separate document, the two-word phrase became its title.
The minority’s mood was expressed most acutely in Bishop Dupanloup’s letter to the pontiff, which was quoted at length in the last installment. Father Henri-Joseph Icard,1 did his best to calm the most agitated elements of the opposition—Bishops Felix Philibert Dupanloup of Orléans and Josip Juraj Strossmayer of Đakovo. On February 12, Father Icard recorded in his diary:
“I talked at length with the Archbishop of Sens about the very aggressive tone of many French bishops at the Council. That can only produce an unpleasant impression. … Bishop [Louis-Romain-Ernest] Isoard [of Annecy] tells me that the Bishop of Orléans is committed and compromised by a particular milieu in which he lives. We agreed that I would speak with him. This prelate sincerely loves the Church, but his imagination carries him away. His excitement does not allow him the necessary calm.”
Father Icard later says he found Most Rev. Dupanloup “in a great state of excitement” and tried to calm him down. He asked him to intervene with Bishop Strossmayer, who was also very agitated.
It seems that Father Icard’s negotiations were unsuccessful. As tensions rose. many prelates no longer even greeted each other. Bishop Louis-Romain-Ernest Isoard, the Rota Auditor, was forced to suspend the meetings with French bishops he held in his home every Monday.
Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law
The discussion on infallibility began on May 13, 1870. The atmosphere was one of apprehension. One hundred and eighteen speakers were registered, which foreshadowed tumultuous sessions. For three weeks, the debates centered around the overall scheme. The leading speakers from both the minority (anti-infallibility) and the majority (pro-infallibility) analyzed the subject at length. The most characteristic speeches against infallibility were by Bishop Karl Josef von Héfélé of Rottenburg, the famous historian of the Councils, and Bishop Strossmayer. Bishop Héfélé invoked as his main argument the condemnation of Pope Honorius I by the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681). Bishop Strossmayer focused on the disobedience of Saint Cyprian to Pope Saint Stephen. The “untimeliness” thesis was defended mainly by Friedrich Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague, and Most Rev. Georges Darboy, Archbishop of Paris.
The minority developed a coordinated plan of action. It entrusted each objection to an expert and set its great orators in motion. The discussion sometimes became so passionate that the Most Rev. Joseph-Alfred Foulon, Bishop of Nancy wrote, in a letter of May 23: “Several speakers give me the impression of speaking with closed fists or with their finger on the trigger of a revolver.”
The pro-infallibility majority had no difficulty refuting the arguments of their opponents successfully. Bishop Louis-Édouard-François-Desiré Pie of Poitiers was the rapporteur of the commission that had prepared the scheme. He immediately overturned the main argument of the anti-infallibilists. He showed there was no question of attributing the privilege of infallibility to the pope as a private person nor opposing the pope to the Church. Historical objections were also resolved. The majority clarified that Pope Honorius had not been censured because he taught a heresy but because he failed to resist heretics as he should. They met Bishop Strossmeyer’s argument by showing that Pope Saint Stephen never condemned Saint Cyprian, nor did the latter resist any dogmatic decree of the pope.
Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times
For an hour and fifty minutes, the Council Fathers watched Henry Cardinal Manning with interest. The Archbishop of Westminster was one of the leading majority speakers. His primary task was to answer objections from the “opportunists,” those arguing that the time was not “opportune” for a declaration of infallibility. He recalled his conversion from Protestantism, saying that the greatest difficulty he experienced lay precisely in the doubts of certain Catholics about infallibility.
“It seemed to me that if the pope could fall into error, the Church, which owes him obedience, would have to accept error, and consequently, She was not infallible; or else, She had to refuse obedience to the papal authority, which God himself instituted.”
Victor-Auguste-Isidor Cardinal Deschamps of Mechelen was another great spokesman for the majority. He took care to dispel any doubts that might legitimately occur regarding the dogma. On behalf of the commission that had prepared the schemas, he explained in detail the infallibility of the pope.
After the general discussion, the Council Fathers quickly studied the preamble and the first two chapters of the schema Pastor Aeternus in the plenary sessions held on June 6 and 7.
Pastor Aeternus’s third chapter dealt with the Sovereign Pontiff’s immediate authority over all the faithful. Through Most Rev. Dupanloup and Bishop Lajos Haynald of Kalocsa (Hungary), the minority expressed the fear of seeing the pope and the Roman Curia intervene too often in the life of dioceses. Some Eastern Bishops pointed out that this decree would constitute an obstacle to the return of schismatics to the Catholic Church. Speaking for the majority, after showing the proper terms of the project, Jean-Baptiste-François Cardinal Pitra and Bishop Charles-Émile Freppel of Angers recalled that the Holy See had consistently been recognized as having this power. Furthermore, its exercise had only benefitted the Church. The third chapter was approved with some modifications, despite the minority’s resistance.
Why America Must Reject Isolationism and Its Dangers
In one month, from May 13 to June 15, the Council succeeded in discussing most of the Pastor Aeternus outline. The great battle was approaching. On June 15, they started studying chapter four, which dealt particularly with infallibility. However, great progress had already been made. They had resolved the main objections, and everything suggested that the majority would easily come up with a formula that would satisfy almost all the Council Fathers.