Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/351

 VATICAN

305

VATICAN

of infallibility, which had callerl fnrlh murh pxcito- ment even before the rouncil. Directly after the opening of the session its influence was evident in the election of the deputations. It divided the fathers of the council into two, it might almost be said, hostile camps; on all occasions the decisions and modes of action of each of these parties were deter- mined by its attitude to this question. On account of the violent disputes which had been carried on ever\-where for the past year over the question of papal infallibility, the overwhelming majority con- sidered the conciliar discission and decision of the question to be imperatively necessary. On the other hand the minority, comprising about one-fifth of the total number, feared the worst from the definition, the apostasy of many wavering Catholics, an in- creased estrangement of those separated from the Chvirch, and interference with the affairs of the Church by the Governments of the different countries. The minority, therefore, allowed itself to be guided by opportimist considerations. Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. Both parties sought to gain the victory for their opinions. As however the minority was soon obliged to recognize its powerlessness, it endeavoured by pro- tracting the discussions of the council at least to delay, or even to prevent, a decision as long as possible. Most of the German and Austro-Hungarian members of the council were against the definition, as well as nearly half of the American and about one-third of the French fat hers. About 7 of the Itahan bishops, 2 each of the English and Irish bishops, 3 bishojis from British North .America, and 1 Swiss bi.shop, (ireith, Vjelonged to the minority. While only a few .Vrmenian bishops opposed the definition, most of the Chaldean and Greek Melchites sided with the minority. It had no opponents among the bi.shops from Spain, Portugal, Belgiimi, Holland, and Central and South America. The most prominent members of the minority from the United States were Arch- bishops Kenrick of St. Louis and Purcell of Cincin- nati, and Bishop Verot of St. .Augustine; these were joined by Archbishop Connolly of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Prominent members of the majority were .Vrchbishop Spalding of Baltimore, Bishops Williams of Boston, Wood of Philadelphia, and Conroy of Albany. Conspicuous members of the coimcil from other rountries were: France: among the minority. Arch- bishops Darboy of Paris, Ginoulhiac of Lyons, Bishops Dupanloup of Orleans, and David of Saint- Brieuc; among the majority, .\rchbishop Guibert of Tours, Bi.shops Pie of Poitiers, Freppel of Angers, Plantier of Ntmes, Rae.ss of Stra.sburg. Germany: minority, Bishops Hefele of Rottenburg, Ketteler of Mainz, Dinkel of Augsburg; majority. Bishops .Mar- gin of Paderborn, Senestr(^'y of Rati.sbon, Stahl of rt'iirzburg. Austria Hungary: minority. Archbishops ['ardinal Rauscher of Vienna, Cardinal Schwarzen- lerg of Prague, Haynald of Kalocsa, and Bishop •itrossmayer of Di.akovar; majority. Bishops G,a.sser if Brixen, Fessler of Sankt Polten. Riccabona of Frent, Zwergerof Seckau. Italy: minority, .Archbishop N'azari di Calabiana of Milan, Bi.shops Moreno of [\Tea, Losanna of Biella; majority, Valerga. Latin Patri.arch of Jerusalem, Bishops Ga.staldi of Saluzzo, Dandolfi of I/ireto. England: minority, Bi.shop Clif- ord of Clifton; majority, Archbishop Manning of kVestminster. Ireland: minority, .\rchbi,shop Mac Hale of Tuam ; majority, Archbishops Cullen of Dub- in and Leahy of Cashel. The East: minority, Jus- -ef, Greek-Melchite Patriarch of Antioch; majority, Hassun, Patriarch of the .Armenians, Switzerland: iiinoritv. Bishop Greith of St-Gall; majority. Bishop Mermillod of Geneva. Important champions of the Icfinilion from the countries which sent no members if the minority were .Archbishop Dpchamps of Mechlin, Belgium, and Bishop Paya y Rico of Cucnca, Spain. XV.— 20

(.3) Change of Procedure: the Hall of Assembly Re- duced in Size. — \'arious memorials were now sent the Holy Father petitioning for new rules of debate for the sake of a corresponding progress in the proceedings of the council. Consequently, the conciliar procedure was more exactly defined by the Decree "Apostolieis Utteris", issued on 20 Feb., 1S70. According to this Decree, any member of the council who wished to raise an objection to the draft uniicr discussion was to send in his proposed amendments in writing, in order that they might be thoroughly considered by the respective deputation. In the general congregation the discussion of a draft as a whole was always to jire- cede the discussion of the individual p.arts of the draft of a decree. The members of a deputation received the right to speak in explanation or correction when not on the list of speakers. Speakers who wanderefl from the subject were to be called back to it. If a .subject had been sufficiently debated the president, on the motion of at least ten members of the council, could put the question whether the council desired to continue the discussion or not, and then clo.se the debate at the wish of the majority. -Although these rules made for an evident improvement, still the minority was not satisfied with them, especially in so far as they contemplated a possible shortening of the debates. They exprcs.sed their dissatisfaction in several petitions which, however, had no success. On the other hand, every effort was made to satisfy another complaint which had reference to the bad acoustics of the council hall. Between 22 Feb. and 18 March, that is between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth sessions of the general congregation, the council hall was reduced about one-third in size for the use of the general congregations, so that the fathers who were thus brought closer together could undersianrl the speakers better. The hall was restored to its original size for each of the public sessions.

(4) Completion of the First Constitution. — The interruption thus caused wa.s used by the deputation on Faith to revise the draft of the Decree "Dedoctrina catholica" in accordance with the wi.shes of the gen- eral congregation. On 1 March, Bishop Martin of Paderborn laid before the deput.ation the first part of the revision, the work of Father Joseph Kleutgen. S..I. It consisted of an introduction and four chapters with the corresponding canons. After an exhaustive dis- cussion in the fleputation, it was ready to be distrib- uted to the fathers of the council on 14 March as the actual "Constitutio de fide catholica". A report in WTiting W!is akso added by the deputation. Arch- bishop Simor of C!ran gave the oral report on 18 March in the thirtieth general congregation. The debate began on the same day, and was closed after seven- teen .sessions on 19 April, in the forty-sixth general congregation. Over three htmdred proposed amend- ments were brought up and discus.sed. Although many objections were made by both sides, yet the new rules of procedure made possible a relatively smooth course to the debates. The only disturbing incident was the passionate speech of Bishop .'^trossmayer of Diakovar on 22 March in the thirty-first general con- gregation; it called forth a storm of indignation from the majority, which finally forced the speaker to leave the tribime. On 24 April, the first Constitution, "De fide catholica", was un.animously adopted in the third public session by the 067 fathers present, and was for- mally confirmed and promtdgated bv the pope. _ C. The QueMinn «f Pnp<a Infnilibilihj. (\) Mo- tions calling for and opposing Definition. — The opponents of infallibility constantly a.s,sert that the pope convoked the council of the Vatican .solely to have papal infallibility proclaimed. Everything else was merely an excuse and for the sake of appearances. This assertion contradicts the actual facts. Not a single one of the numerous dr.afts drawn up by the preparatory commission bore on papal infallibility.