What happened at Vatican I / the First Vatican Council?

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

It was not till 18th July, 1870, that Rome learned that its Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra (Latin, cathedrã seat), which means speaking from the chair or seat, that is the throne in the Consistory, when the ecclesiastical court of cardinals and bishops are officially gathered together. With great pomp this pronouncement was made from the Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX, the 257th occupant of the Papal Chair. If the present pope is infallible, how is it that not all his predecessors were? There was a time when three rival popes claimed the papal chair, and spent their time and energy in cursing each other. That did not look like infallibility.

It is chronicled that this announcement was accompanied by what looked like the stern rebuke of the very elements, for the skies were ominously black with thunder clouds, and the Vatican, where the Consistory was sitting, was lit up with flash after flash of lightning, accompanied by deafening peals of thunder.

At Vatican Council I (adjourned in 1870), in addition to the doctrine of papal infallibility, Catholic bishops proclaimed that the "Peter is the Rock" interpretation of Matthew 16 was the "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Roman Catholic Church." On the contrary, many of the Church fathers believed that the rock mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter and not Peter himself.

XXI. Rome, in 1869-70. Infallibility of the pope declared.

Half the respectable authorities of the Roman Catholic world resisted to the utmost, protested against the way in which the council was conducted and deprived of all true liberty and now forces others to hold it. But big words take wonderful effect on people's minds. Dr. Manning talks to us of the universal or Catholic church spread over the world. But let us get at the facts? We have, say, 140 millions of Roman Catholics in the world, but some 60 or 70 millions of Greeks, the oldest churches in existence, denounce them as false in doctrine and the papal authority to be wholly unfounded; and the chief doctrinal point of difference is a dogma repelled by the Greeks, which one of the greatest popes that ever lived declared ought not to be introduced into the creed, as indeed a general council had forbidden anything to be added; and this Pope put up silver tablets in the principal church at Rome that it might not be added. Rome has added it since. Dr. Manning knows this as well as I do. But further, nearly 100 millions of Protestants are outside. So that we have more than half professing Christendom outside (what I must say impudently calls itself) the Catholic church, a body denounced by the oldest churches, and so horribly corrupt that a very large part indeed of what was under its authority broke loose from it; and now, on the very point of infallible authority in interpretation, it is completely divided, and hundreds of thousands have left it because the vote was carried by oppression. We can understand this. Large numbers of respectable Roman Catholic prelates resisted the decree, from America, Ireland, France, Germany, etc., who presided over flocks numbering by millions; but there were crowds of prelates in Italy, some 130 in the Papal and Neapolitan states with some few millions of inhabitants, and a number of what are called bishops in partibus removable by the Pope, who made all resistance vain on the part of those who represented ten times their number. But it has cost the papacy another split off, which appeals to the ancient records and historical facts of the church such as none can deny. And note, all the professors of divinity of these seceders always taught what they hold and have acted on now. Where then was the church's teaching? And what am I to hold to be the church which teaches?-the Pope all alone, decreed to be infallible three years ago, who is certainly not the church? or is the Greek church, older than he? or the Protestants who appeal to Paul's teaching and Peter's, etc.? Where is this church?

There are solemn premonitory signs even now. Let me mention only one fact noticed by both Romanists and Protestants. You are aware of the Ecumenical Council lately held in Rome (in 1869). Its distinctive character is remarkable, and emphatically indicative of the change that has taken place even among the Western powers. For the first time the Pope could not ask one Catholic sovereign to sit in this council. It was composed simply and exclusively of priests. Not a single ambassador or representative of the crowned heads was there. There never was such a state of things before in mediaeval or modern Europe.

Let me mention at this point a fact in illustration which, as all may not have noticed it, it is as well to name now. A remarkable change has even now taken place over the nations of the earth. They are not getting better, but the form of their evil is changing. The last Ecumenical Council held at Rome is the only one which neither had nor invited crowned heads to send representatives. The time is not yet come for the ten horns to receive authority as kings for one and the same hour with the beast. But there are practically no Catholic powers at the beck of Babylon. They are no longer her vassals, if they are not yet the minions of the beast. This is another serious state. In that council the pope could count on no civil supporters, unless perhaps some petty ones which would have only made the absence of the great powers conspicuous. Hence the invitations were exclusively to Romish ecclesiastics. No representative of Austria, Bavaria, Belgium, France, Italy, etc. was there. Even Spain and Portugal sent no plenipotentiaries to declare their adhesion to the pope: those that always had proved most submissive were for one reason or another passed by. By Babylon's own confession the western powers though called Catholic could no longer be trusted. For the first time since they formed part of Christendom they were not called to an Ecumenical Council — none but ecclesiastics. It is not that the time is come for the horns to take their place with the beast and to devour Babylon; but certainly there seems to be somewhat of a preparation for it in so striking a sign of her actual mistrust in her old paramours.

It seems right to say that Bishop Strossmayer wrote not long ago to the Francais, repudiating the speech at the Vatican Council against papal infallibility attributed to him in many home as well as foreign publications. He declares that he never uttered anything derogatory to the Roman see. If one did not know the casuistry of worldly religion, this might seem decisive against the thought of such a speech from him; but it is likely that, if delivered at all, it may have been so highly seasoned by others as to afford an occasion of denying its genuineness when the dogma was passed, and the heat of opposition gone. It is hard to suppose that Bishop Strossmayer said nothing like it in the face of the general rumour.

Being Bishop Strossmayer's speech in the recent Vatican Council, from an Italian version published at Florence.

1872 122 "Venerable Fathers and Brethren: — It is not without trembling, yet with a conscience free and tranquil before God who lives and sees me, that I open my mouth in the midst of you in this august assembly. From the time that I have been sitting here with you I have followed with attention the speeches that have been made in the hall, hoping, with great desire, that a ray of light, descending from on high, might enlighten the eyes of my understanding, and permit me to vote the canons of this Holy Ecumenical Council with perfect knowledge of the case.

"Penetrated with the feelings of responsibility, of which God will demand of me an account, I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the writings of the Old and New Testament, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church. To resolve this grave question I have been obliged to ignore the present state of things, and to transport myself in mind, with the evangelical torch in my hand, to the days when there was neither Ultramontanism nor Gallicanism, and in which the church had for doctors St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John — doctors to whom no one can deny the divine authority without putting in doubt that which the holy Bible, which is here before me, teaches us, and this the Council of Trent has proclaimed as the rule of faith and of morals. I have then opened these sacred pages. Well! (shall I dare to say it?) I have found nothing either near or far which sanctions the opinion of the Ultramontanes. And still more, to my very great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist. You, Monsignor Manning, will say that I blaspheme; you, Monsignor Fie, that I am mad. No, Monsignori, I do not blaspheme, and I am not mad. Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment. Do not refuse me your attention, my venerable brethren, and with your murmuring and interruptions do not justify those who say, like Father Hyacinthe, that this Council is nothing, but that our votes have been from the beginning dictated by authority. If such were the case, this august assembly, on which the eyes of the whole world are turned, would fall into the most shameful discredit. If we wish to make it great, we must be free. I thank his Excellency Monsignor Dupanloup, for the sign of approbation which he makes with his head: this gives me courage, and I go on.

"But why look for such remote proofs? Has not our holy father here present, in his bull which gave the rules for this Council, in the event of his dying while it was sitting, revoked all that in past times may be contrary to it, even when that proceeds from the decisions of his predecessors? And certainly, if Pius IX. has spoken ex cathedra, it is not when, from the depths of his sepulchre, he imposes his will on the sovereigns of the church. I should never finish, my venerable brethren, if I were to put before your eyes the contradictions of the popes in their teaching. If then you proclaim the infallibility of the actual pope, you must either prove, that which is impossible, that the popes never contradicted each other, or else you must declare that the Holy Spirit has revealed to you that the infallibility of the papacy only dates from 1870. Are you bold enough to do this? Perhaps the people may be indifferent, and pass by theological questions which they do not understand, and of which they do not see the importance; but though they are indifferent to principles, they are not so to facts. Do not then deceive yourselves. If you decree the dogma of papal infallibility, the Protestants, our adversaries, will mount in the breach, the more bold that they have history on their side, whilst we have only our own denial against them. What can we say to them when they show up all the bishops of Rome from the days of Luke to his holiness Pius IX.? Ah! if they had all been like Pius IX., we should triumph on the whole line; but alas! it is not so. [Cries of 'Silence, silence; enough, enough.'] Do not cry out, Monsignori! To fear history is to own yourself conquered; and, moreover, if you made the whole waters of the Tiber pass over it, you would not cancel a single page. Let me speak, and I will be as short as it is possible on this most important subject. Pope Vigilius (538) purchased the papacy from Belisarius, lieutenant of the Emperor Justinian. It is true that he broke his promise and never paid for it. Is this a canonical mode of binding on the tiara? The second Council of Chalcedon had formally condemned it. In one of its canons you read 'that the bishop who obtains his episcopate by money shall lose it and be degraded.' Pope Eugenius III. (IV. in original) (1145) imitated Vigilius. St. Bernard, the bright star of his age, reproves the pope, saying to him, 'Can you show me in this great city of Rome any one who would receive you as pope if they have not received gold or silver for it?'