660 



ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 



when supported by tho judgment of the whole 

 Church, utens consilio, or accipiens consilia 

 universal Ecclesice. On the 13th of July, at 

 the eighty-fifth General Congregation, the vote 

 was taken on the third and fourth chapters in 

 general. It resulted: Q placet, 53 placet juxta 

 modum, 88 non-placet; total, 601. The fol- 

 lowing is an analysis of the vote of the 13th: 

 The non-placets were Germans, 83; French, 

 24; Italian, 10; Orientals, 8; American, 8; 

 English, 2; Irish, 2 ; Dr. Errington, 1 ; total, 88. 

 Among the archbishops who voted placet juxta 

 modum are those of Salzburg, Granada, Manila, 

 Burgos, Cologne, Rheims, New York, and 

 several more ; fifteen archbishops, not reckon- 

 ing cardinals, abstained from voting, among 

 whom are the Italian primates of Palermo and 

 Malta. As regards English and Irish votes, 

 among the non-placets are the names of Mc- 

 Hale and Moriarty, and Bishops Vaughan, of 

 Plymouth, and Clifford, of Clifton; Bishops 

 Ullathorne and Chadwick (of Newcastle) voted 

 juxta modum; Bishop Turner, of Salford, and 

 the Irish Bishops Furlong and Leahy, were ab- 

 sent. At the eighty-sixth General Congrega- 

 tion "(July 16th), the votes were taken on the 

 modifications proposed by those who had voted 

 placet juxta modum on the 13th. 



The public session, the fourth in number, 

 took place on the 18th of July, the Pope pre- 

 siding in person. The final vote resulted: 

 placet, 533 ; non-placet, 2 ; total, 535. Of the 

 Fathers, who had left Rome, 120 had announced 

 their intention to vote for the definition, making 

 the total number in its favor 655. (The text of 

 the dogma is given among the PUBLIC DOCU- 

 MENTS in this volume.) At the end of this ses- 

 sion leave of absence was given the fathers 

 whose duty or health required they should leave 

 Rome, till November llth. On July 26th a 

 schema of a Constitution for Apostolic Mis- 

 sions was distributed. Another General Con- 

 gregation was held in August. The adjourned 

 session of the Council, appointed for November 

 llth, was prevented from meeting by the oc- 

 cupation of Rome by the Italian Government, 

 and the Council was suspended October 20th. 



The following is a summary of the fathers 

 who actually took part in the Council : 



Cardinals (including 1 patriarch, 14 archbishops, and 



10 bishops) 50 



Patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops (not including 

 cardinals), patriarchs 11, archbishops 105, bish- 

 ops 444; total 560 



Archbishops and bishops in partibus infldelium : ex- 

 ercising the office of administrator, coadjutor, 



vicar-apostolic, or prefect apostolic 75 



Not exercising such office 38 



Retired bishops 6 



Administrator apostolic, not a bishop 1 



Abbots and superiors general of religious orders and 

 congregations 53 



General total 783 



Deduct as not of the episcopal order ... 79 



Total of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, who 

 took part in the Council at any time between De- 

 cember 7, 1869, and June 18, 1870 704 



After the Council, many of the bishops and 

 priests of the opposition took the ground that 



the dogma of infallibility was not of binding 

 force until additional formal action had been 

 taken in the publication of it. To meet this 

 view, Cardinal Antonelli addressed the follow- 

 ing circular to the Papal nuncio at Brussels : 



Most Illustrious and, Right Hev. Lord : It has come 

 to the knowledge of the Holy See that some Catho- 

 lics, and perhaps even one or two bishops, imagine 

 that the Apostolic Constitution proclaimed at tho 

 (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, in its session of 

 July 18th lastj is not binding so long as it is not 

 solemnly published by an additional act of the Holy 

 See. No one can surely fail to understand how- 

 strange such a proposition as this is. The Constitu- 

 tion in question was promulgated in the most solemn 

 manner in which it could be, when the Holy Father 

 solemnly confirmed it and promulgated it, in the Vat- 

 ican Basilica, in the presence of more than five hun- 

 dred bishops. Besides this, it was posted up with 

 the usual formalities in the ^places where such publi- 

 cations are usually made at Rome, although that pro- 

 ceeding was not needed in a case like the present. 

 Consequently, and in accordance with a well-known 

 rule, this Constitution has become obligatory upon 

 the entire Catholic world, and there is no need or its 

 being notified by any other promulgation whatsoever. 



I have thought it my duty to address these brief 

 observations to your lordship, in order that they 

 may serve for your guidance in case of any doubt 

 arising in any quarter upon this subject. 



(Signed) J. CARDINAL ANTONELLI. 



ROME, August 11, 1870. 



Though no state government was officially 

 represented at the Council, its proceedings 

 were watched with a deep interest by many 

 of the European governments, which were of 

 opinion that the adoption of the Schema de 

 Ecclesia would have an important bearing upon 

 the relations between the Papal power and that 

 of the secular governments. In reply to the 

 submission of the canons, Count von Beust, the 

 Austrian prime-minister, addressed a protest to 

 the Papal Government, in which he warned it 

 against taking any steps which might be in op- 

 position to the Austrian Constitution, or lead 

 to encroachments on the rights of the Austrian 

 state. He declared the determination of the 

 Austrian Government not to suffer any such 

 encroachments, at the same time expressing its 

 wish to avoid conflicts between the state and 

 the Church. This note was understood to be 

 entirely independent of any agreement which 

 might be entered into between the powers in 

 the event of any step being actually taken by 

 the council against their interests or of their 

 supposed peace and civilization, with the view 

 of a common course of action in the matter. 



Count Daru, on the part of the French Gov- 

 ernment, also addressed a note to the Papal 

 Government, declaring that the French Gov- 

 ernment felt itself obliged to depart from the 

 position of complete abstention and rigorous 

 neutrality which it had at first adopted with 

 regard to the Council ; that determination had 

 originally been reached under the supposition 

 that the Assembly of the Fathers would con- 

 fine itself to the circle of questions purely re- 

 ligious and theological, a domain in which the 

 Cabinet of the Tuileries considered it had no 

 right to interfere, and in which it admitted 



