In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

618 BOOK REVIEWS paratory theology commission, and the shifts that occurred during the last council's four sessions. The projected multi-volume history ofVatican Council II currently in preparation at the University of Leuven will doubtlessly serve as a companion piece. Michael A. Fahey, SJ. University ofSt. Michael's College Toronto, Canada Vaticanum I, 1869-1870. Band III: Unfehlbarkeitsdiskussion undRezeption. By Klaus Schatz. (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. 1994. Pp. xviii, 358.) This third volume in Schatz's comprehensive study of the First Vatican Council (see ante, LXXX [October, 1994], 771-773) covers both the conciliar debate on infallibility, which culminated on July 18, 1870, with the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus, the "first dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ," and the subsequent "reception" of the conciliar teaching, a process that continued for several years after the Council was officially prorogued on October 20, 1870. The "infallibility debate" at Vatican Council I has often been characterized as a conflict between a Majority of prelates favoring the definition and a Minority—perhaps some twenty percent of the bishops—in opposition. Rather than presenting this debate in strictly chronological fashion, which would have been awkward and repetitious, since the prelates did not really debate, but spoke in assigned order from prepared texts, Schatz has helpfully summarized the gist of these speeches under three headings: the Church and the present world situation (the opportuneness of the definition); infallibility in the history of the Church (the warrants for the doctrine from Scripture and Tradition); and the contentious issue of infallibility as "personal, separate, and absolute" (the theological explanation of infallibility in an ecclesiological context). This coverage of the debates reveals some frequently overlooked aspects: although the bishops of the Deputatio deFide, the committee responsible for redactingPostorAeternus, were, with one exception, members ofthe Majority, there was a certain amount of tension within the Deputatio, both in regard to the way that the proposals of the Minority should be handled and, more importantly, in regard to the interpretation of infallibility itself. In addition, as Schatz perceptively indicates, there were really three theological groupings at the Council: ultramontanes, who insisted that most papal decisions come under infallibility; moderates, who wanted to restrict the exercise of infallibility to matters concerning revelation; and exponents ofwhat today is called "collegiality," who emphasized that a papal exercise of infallibility must involve the College of Bishops. Theologically speaking, the moderate Majority was much closer to the Minority than to their ultramontane colleagues. BOOK REVIEWS619 Unfortunately, this theological affinity got lost in the heat of the debate. There was at least a reasonable chance that the Minority could have obtained a text for which it could have voted affirmatively, had it not been for its negative vote (eighty-eight non placet) on July 13. Where the Minority saw this demonstration of its strength as a demand for compromise, the Majority interpreted it as obstinacy and then introduced a number of amendments distasteful to the Minority, whose members, with two exceptions, then absented themselves from the solemn session at which Pastor Aeternus was promulgated. Nonetheless, the Minority bishops subsequently accepted the teaching of Pastor Aeternus, though not all did so immediately, and though they did so using a variety of minimalistic interpretations, which the Vatican proved willing to accept. This latitude in interpretation was both theologically based and ecclesiastically expedient. On the one hand, every conciliar definition represents a type of collégial consensus, rather than univocal agreement; on the other hand, none of the Minority bishops joined in the schism of the AItkatholiken in Germany or the Christkatholiken in Switzerland. Moreover, this schism, along with the Kulturkampf, instead of alienating Catholics from Rome, seemingly furthered the acceptance of the Pope as "Pastor and Teacher of all Christians." As might be expected, Schatz focuses mainly on the process of "reception" in German-speaking countries, where the postconciliar schisms occurred; surely more might have been said about the difficulties that arose in England and other countries about acceptiagPastorAeternus. Also, Schatz is concerned about defending the freedom of the participants both at the Council itself and in their subsequent acceptance of its teaching from the attacks of August Bernhard Hasler, Pius IX. (1846-1878), Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit...

pdf

Share