No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
Much of the confusion about the proper interpretation of the carefully formulated definition of Pastor Aeternus on the infallibility of the papal magisterium stems from improper presentations, even immediately after the Council. Only Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore took the time to nuance his presentation. The sympathy evoked worldwide among Catholics for the loss of the Papal States and the freedom of the Roman Pontiff also added to the confusion. The texts of the letters and statements of the bishops are important objects of study for anyone wishing to trace the course of “papal infallibility.”
1 Recent writings include: Mucci, Giandomenico S.J., “La competenza del Magistero infallible,” Civiltà Cattolica 139/111 (07 1, 1988): 17–25;Google ScholarCostigan, Richard J. S.J., “The Consensus of the Church: Differing Classic Views,” Theological Studies 51 (1990): 25–48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarO'Gara, Margaret, “Listening to Forgotten Voices: The French Minority Bishops at Vatican I and Infallibility,” Theology Digest 37 (1990): 3–15;Google ScholarPottmyer, Hermann J., “Ultramontanismus und Ekklesiologie,” Stimmen der Zeit 210 (1992): 448–64.Google Scholar
2 See Hennessy, P. K. C.F.C., “Episcopal Collegiality and Papal Primacy in the Pre-Vatican I American Church,” Theological Studies 44 (1983): 288–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 See also Hennessy, , “Infallibility in the Ecclesiology of Peter Richard Kenrick,” Theological Studies 45 (1984): 702–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Pastoral Letters on the council were written by Archbishops Alemany, Blanchet, and Spalding, as well as by Bishops Amat, Persico (appointed to succeed Augustine Verot in Savannah, when Verot was moved to St. Augustine), and Rosecrans (Columbus), who was not a participant at the council. Archbishop Perché (New Orleans), who succeeded to the see on May 25, 1870, wrote a Lenten Pastoral on the topic in 1871. It should be noted that for only Spalding and Rosecrans was English their native tongue.
5 The two most noteworthy were Peter R. Kenrick of St. Louis and John B. Purcell of Cincinnati. For Kenrick, see Hennesey, James S.J., The First Council of the Vatican: The American Experience (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 304–26;Google ScholarMiller, S. J., “Peter Richard Kenrick, Bishop and Archbishop of St. Louis, 1806-1869,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 84 (1973): 121–28.Google Scholar For Purcell, see Hennesey, 299-309.
6 Metropolitan sees and their archbishops were: San Francisco, Joseph S. Alemany, O.P.; Oregon City, Francis N. Blanchet; St. Louis, Peter R. Kenrick; New York, John McCloskey; New Orleans, Napoleon J. Perche; Cincinnati, John B. Purcell; and Baltimore, Martin J. Spalding.
7 See Marschall, J. P. C.S.V., “Francis Patrick Kenrick, 1851-1863: The Baltimore Years” (Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1965), 69–71, 114;Google ScholarHennessy, , “Infallibility,” 703.Google Scholar
8 See the correspondence with Spalding on issues outside his own archdiocese reported in Spalding, Thomas W., Martin John Spalding: American Churchman (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1973), 329–39.Google Scholar
9 E.g., the New York Freeman's Journal, September 3 and 10, 1870; the Catholic Standard (Philadelphia), September 10.
10 The Catholic Mirror (Baltimore), 02 4, 1871Google Scholar, carried an article entitled “Archbishop Spalding's Pastoral on Papal Infallibility,” which gave a translation of a commentary published the preceding November in Revue Catholique at Louvain.
11 For practical reasons, Pius IX was compelled to issue the decree Postquam Dei Munere on October 20 proroguing the council indefinitely. A suggestion of Archbishop Spalding that the council be continued in Mechlin in Belgium was never acted upon and thus the twentieth ecumenical council never reassembled.
12 The Monitor (San Francisco), 11 12, 1871.Google Scholar The Freeman's Journal for 1871 carried regular reports on its front page entitled, “Letter from an American Lady” (in Rome). The protest of Cardinal Antonelli, Secretary of State, to the pontifical representatives throughout the world can be found in a number of papers, e.g., The Pilot (Boston), 12 31, 1870.Google Scholar
13 John Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati, gave an interview to a writer of the New York Herald upon his return to the United States, in which he was quoted as stating that it would take a long time before the dogma of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff would be official, since it would have to be signed by all the bishops who had participated in the council. Shortly afterward in a speech in Cincinnati, on August 21, 1870, he denied the remark and said he had been misinterpreted. See Hennesey, , The First Council of the Vatican, 300.Google Scholar
14 McGloin, John Bernard S.J., California's First Archbishop: The Life of Joseph Sadoc Alemany, O.P., 1814-1888 (New York: Herder and Herder 1966), 242.Google Scholar
15 Archives of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, Alemany to Barnabò, San Francisco, 11 24, 1870.Google Scholar
16 The entire pastoral appears in The Monitor (San Francisco), 09 24, 1870.Google Scholar
17 The elder Kenrick, Patrick, Francis, had written a text entitled The Primacy of the Apostolic See, 3rd ed. (New York: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1848).Google Scholar
18 For the presentation on behalf of the conciliar deputation charged with the composition of the text, Gasser Brixen's intervention on July 11, 1870 was crucial in clearly limiting the objects of the infallibility of the papal magisterium. See Mansi, J. D., ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Arnheim and Leipzig: Welter, 1927), 52:1204–30.Google Scholar Vols. 49-53 were edited by Petit, L.et al. In a recent article entitled “The ‘Secondary Object’ of Infallibility,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 536–50Google Scholar, Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., points to the fact that the new Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Christian people are obliged with an irrevocable assent of faith to accept those truths which have been traditionally referred to as secondary or indirect objects when taught by the magisterium (536). He notes that the Second Vatican Council continued the language of Vatican I in stating that these secondary or indirect objects must be held (tenendum) because of their interrelation with the deposit of faith, rather than stating that they must be believed (539-40). Thus in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, clearly an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, we find taught something that two ecumenical councils refused to teach.
19 Francis Kenrick had died prior to the council, but he was quoted by some on both sides of the question. Alemany spoke on June 20 and the fiery Augustine Verot of Savannah contradicted him on June 24: Mansi, ed., 52:790-97 and 955-66.
20 See Hennessy, , “Infallibility,” 707–708.Google Scholar
21 Catholic Sentinel, 12 17, 1870, p. 1.Google Scholar
22 Hennesey, , The First Council of the Vatican, 296–99.Google Scholar
23 Blanchet, Francis N., Pastoral Letter and Conciliary Discourse of the Most Rev. F. N. Blanchet, Archbishop of Oregon City (Portland, OR: Catholic Sentinel Printing Establishment, 1871).Google Scholar
24 Ibid., 12-14.
25 Mansi, ed., 52:1047-50. Blanchet submitted his discourse to the secretary rather than deliver it.
26 Catholic Sentinel, December 17, 1870.
27 Monitor, June 17, 1871. Letter is dated May 22.
28 Oregon City in 1870 had fourteen priests and twenty-one churches in the archdiocese. No estimate is made on the number of laity. Sadlier's, Catholic Almanac, 1870.Google Scholar
29 Hennesey, , The First Council of the Vatican, 328.Google Scholar
30 Spalding, T. W., Martin John Spalding, 320.Google Scholar Spalding undoubtedly felt supported by a letter which had been sent to him by the clergy of his diocese on June 29, 1870 affirming support for his position. A copy appeared in the Catholic Mirror, July 9, 1870.
31 Spalding, Martin John, Pastoral Letter of the Most Rev. M. J. Spalding, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore: To the Clergy and Laity of the Archdiocese on The Papal Infallibility (Baltimore: Kelly, Piet, 1870), 40.Google Scholar The letter appeared in numerous newspaper editions (see fn. 10 above) but our references will be to the published edition found in Miscellanea Catholica Americana, Mullen, John K.Library at The Catholic University of America.Google Scholar
32 See Hennessy, , “Episcopal Collegiality,” 292–93.Google Scholar
33 Spalding, T. W., Martin John Spalding, 320.Google Scholar
34 Spalding, M. J., Pastoral Letter, 6–7.Google Scholar
35 Ibid., 10 (italics mine).
36 Ibid., 10-11.
37 Broderick, John F. S.J., ed., Documents of Vatican I 1869-1870 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1971), 60–62.Google Scholar
38 Spalding, M. J., Pastoral Letter, 11.Google Scholar
39 Ibid., 13.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid., 13-14.
43 See Hennessy, , “Episcopal Collegiality,” 293.Google Scholar
44 Spalding, T. W., Martin John Spalding, 319.Google Scholar
45 Spalding, M. J., Pastoral Letter, 14.Google Scholar
46 See Hennessy, , “Episcopal Collegiality,” 292.Google Scholar
47 Spalding, M. J., Pastoral Letter, 14.Google Scholar
48 Spalding, T. W., Martin John Spalding, 319.Google Scholar
49 He devoted pp. 20-27 to this topic.
50 See Hennessy, , “Episcopal Collegiality,” 292.Google Scholar
51 Spalding, M. J., Pastoral Letter, 20–21.Google Scholar
52 Translation from Betterson, Henry, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1943), 378.Google Scholar
53 Spalding, M. J., Pastoral Letter, 23–24.Google Scholar
54 Ibid.
55 Spalding was the only American-born metropolitan to attend the council and men like Kenrick and Purcell, although native speakers, did not write pastorals.
56 See fn. 10 above.
57 Catholic Mirror, 02 4, 1871, p. 4.Google Scholar
58 Catholic Standard, 01 28, 1871, p. 3Google Scholar (italics mine).
59 The Pastoral Letter was dated October 16, 1870. It was printed in the Freeman's Journal of October 29, 1870 and the Catholic Standard of November 5, which version is used here (italics mine).
60 Catholic Telegraph and Register, 09 1, 1870, p. 4.Google Scholar
61 Perché, Napoleon Joseph, Pastoral Letter for the Lent of 1871 (New Orleans: Catholic Propagator, 1871).Google Scholar
62 Ibid., 12-13 (italics mine).
63 Pastoral Letter of the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States Assembled in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (Baltimore: Baltimore Publishing, 1884).Google Scholar
64 John Ireland attended Vatican I as a priest representing his bishop.
65 Pastoral Letter, 6.
66 Ibid., 7.
67 Gibbons, James, The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1877).Google Scholar
68 Hennesey, , The First council of the Vatican, 296.Google Scholar
69 Gibbons, , The Faith of Our Fathers, 144–45.Google Scholar
70 Dolan, Jay P., The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 221–22.Google Scholar