-
1. Introduction
- The Catholic University of America Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Introduction 23 On Friday, July , , in the tension-filled final days of the First Vatican Council, the council minority sent a delegation to Pope Pius IX to plead for the insertion into the draft of the Pastor Aeternus of even one phrase mentioning the role of the episcopate in formulating an important statement of the faith.1 If this were done, they said, then nearly all those who had voted non placet in the preliminary vote on July (who numbered of the total of voting) could vote placet, and there could be a nearunanimous final vote.2 But all such phrases were rejected, and the phrase “ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae” was added to the text, which was then voted through solemnly on Monday, July .“So little, it may seem now, ninety years after the event,” says Philip Hughes, writing in , “separated the Minority, at the crucial hour, from their brethren—the question which is the better form of words.”3 . Cuthbert Butler, O.S.B., The Vatican Council, – (London: Longmans Green, ), :; in one-volume ed. (London: Collins and Harvill, ), . . On this meeting of the minority with Pius IX, see Pierre Vallin, S.J.,“Pour l’histoire duVatican I: La démarche de la minorité auprès de Pie IX, le juillet ,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (): –. . Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis:A History of the Twenty Great Councils (London: Burns and Oates, ), . But in reality both sides were right in regarding the “form of words” as being far more than a “little” matter. The minority, with deep conviction, considered that the omission of any mention of the involvement of the episcopate in the preservation and teaching of the faith was an omission of something essential to the historic understanding of the Church.The majority, for their part, were determined to assert a strictly monarchical version of papal supremacy and to exclude any phrase that might suggest any kind of qualification or limitation of that sovereign ruling and teaching power. Specifically, as the precise wording of the ex sese clause indicates, they were determined to close and bolt the door forever on the dreaded spectre of “Gallicanism .” The dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus, in its finished form, states that the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable “ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae” (of themselves, and not from the consensus of the Church).4 This phraseology is clearly calculated to counter Article of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy of .That article asserts that the pope does indeed have the leading role (“praecipuas partes”) in teaching the faith to the whole Church but stipulates that his judgment is not irreformable “unless the consensus of the Church is present with it” (nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit).5 The determination to prevent any possible revival of this idea associated with Gallicanism , with its evident nonacceptance of a totally monarchical papacy, was the reason why the majority refused to allow any mention of the episcopate in the text of the definition. It might somehow provide a possible opening to future “Gallicans.”6 Introduction . DS . . The text of the Gallican Declaration is given in Latin in DS –. An English translation is available in Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall, eds., Church and State through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries (Westminster, Md.: Newman, ), –.The translation given here is my own. The decision to render consensus throughout as “consensus” rather than “consent” is based on consultation with classical scholars. The word accesserit does not have to mean a consensus subsequens, that is, a consensus of the episcopate expressed after the Roman Pontiff has spoken. It certainly need not be subsequent in the Gallican authors studied here, as will be noted in a number of places. . Several scholars have written useful studies of the council debate on the word- [3.141.27.244] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 20:25 GMT) The definition ofVatican I, reaffirmed byVatican II in Lumen Gentium , is clearly a product of a complex of historical factors, as the human persons on both sides strive according to their lights to assert what they consider right for the Church. Each side has an idea of the Church shaped by centuries of varied influences and aspirations. It is one same Church cherished by both sides, and one chair of Peter accepted and revered by both sides, despite very different ideas of the nature and function of the primatial office. Since these views developed in history, historical study can...