No event in the second Christian millennium has shaped the ecclesiological frontier between Rome and the Orthodox East more decisively than the First Vatican Council. Opened by Bl. Pius IX on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 8 December 1869, and suspended sine die on 20 October 1870, the Council produced two of the most consequential dogmatic constitutions in Catholic history—Dei Filius on faith and reason, and Pastor Aeternus on the universal jurisdictional primacy and personal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. The latter constitution remains, to this day, the principal theological obstacle to reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches of the East.
For a Traditional Catholic engaging in serious dialogue with Orthodoxy, Vatican I cannot be evaded, minimized, or “softened” into a vague affirmation of Petrine ministry. It must be received whole and entire—but it must also be read with the historical rigor that the Council Fathers themselves expected, with attention to the precise scope of the definitions, and with frank acknowledgment of the pastoral, ecclesiological, and political turbulence in which the Council was forged.
I. The Climate Entering Vatican I
The two centuries preceding 1869 had witnessed a protracted struggle within Latin Catholicism between Gallicanism—the constellation of theological tendencies (largely French, but with German and Austrian variants such as Febronianism and Josephinism) that affirmed national-episcopal autonomy and subordinated the papacy to the consent of the bishops or even to a general council—and Ultramontanism, the movement that “looked beyond the mountains” (the Alps) to Rome as the ultimate source of ecclesial authority and orthodoxy.
The four Gallican Articles of 1682, the canons of the Synod of Pistoia (1786), and the broader rationalist-Erastian temper of the ancien régime all conspired to make the question of papal authority the central ecclesiological question of nineteenth-century Catholic theology. By mid-century, Ultramontanism had eclipsed Gallicanism in vitality and intellectual militancy. Its leading exponents—Louis Veuillot in the pages of L’Univers, W. G. Ward at the Dublin Review, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning at Westminster, the Jesuits writing in La Civiltà Cattolica—converged on the conviction that only a strengthened, centralized papacy could safeguard the Church against the encroachments of modern liberal states and the dissolution of Christendom.
The doctrinal frame for Vatican I had been set five years earlier by the encyclical Quanta Cura and its appended Syllabus of Errors (both 8 December 1864), which catalogued eighty propositions of modern thought condemned by the pope—pantheism, naturalism, rationalism, indifferentism, socialism, the separation of Church and state, and the famously contested proposition 80: “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” The Council’s most determined defenders hoped it would dogmatize the Syllabus; its opponents feared the same.
II. The Political Context: The Roman Question
The Council convened against the backdrop of the Risorgimento and the collapse of the Papal States. Between 1859 and 1861, the armies of Piedmont-Sardinia under Cavour and Victor Emmanuel II had stripped Pius IX of Romagna, the Marches, and Umbria, leaving only the Patrimony of St. Peter—essentially Latium with Rome—protected by a French garrison under Napoleon III. Garibaldi’s incursion in 1867 had been turned back at Mentana by French troops, but the pope’s temporal sovereignty hung by the slender thread of French imperial protection.
The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War on 19 July 1870—only one day after the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus—abruptly altered everything. Napoleon III recalled his troops; he was captured at Sedan on 2 September; and on 20 September 1870, Italian troops breached the Aurelian Walls at the Porta Pia. Within hours Rome had fallen. The Council was born in political crisis and died in catastrophe—the Pope simultaneously gained absolute spiritual authority over the Catholic world and lost his last temporal sovereignty over the city of Rome.
“The Pope was simultaneously proclaimed infallible and rendered impotent.”
In the space of three months, Pius IX became the most spiritually powerful and the most politically powerless pope in history. The paradox would define the papacy for the next sixty years.
III. The Key Players
Pope Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, r. 1846–1878) is the longest-reigning canonically elected pope in history. Elected in 1846 with a reputation for moderate liberalism, he was traumatized by the assassination of his prime minister Pellegrino Rossi (1848), his flight to Gaeta, and the short-lived Roman Republic of 1849. He returned under French bayonets a changed man—the great consolidator of papal authority who restored the Catholic hierarchy in England (1850), defined the Immaculate Conception (1854), issued the Syllabus (1864), and convoked the Council. Whether one regards him with the hagiographic tradition (beatified 2000) or the critical tradition of August Hasler’s How the Pope Became Infallible (1981), his personal determination drove the Council forward.
The Infallibilist Majority was led by Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster and convert from Anglicanism, the most relentless campaigner for the definition; Louis Veuillot, editor of L’Univers, who declared that “the infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of Jesus Christ Himself”; W. G. Ward, who maintained that every doctrinal pronouncement was “infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost”; and Cardinal Victor-Auguste Deschamps of Mechelen, who produced one of the more sophisticated theological cases for the definition.
La Civiltà Cattolica, the Jesuit journal founded in 1850 at Pius IX’s suggestion, served as the central propaganda vehicle for the infallibilist cause. Its February 1869 “Correspondance de France,” predicting a swift definition by acclamation, did much to galvanize the opposition even before the Council opened.
The Anti-Infallibilist Minority—never doctrinally homogeneous—included Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans, the most prolific anti-infallibilist pamphleteer; Archbishop Darboy of Paris, killed by Communards in May 1871; Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna and Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague; Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, the great historian of the councils; Bishop Strossmayer of Djakovo, whose dramatic interventions would later furnish the substrate for an apocryphal “great speech” (see below); and Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, whose undelivered speech circulated in pamphlet form as one of the most substantial American anti-infallibilist documents.
Lord Acton, though not a Council Father, was at Rome throughout, lobbying the minority bishops and writing dispatches. His mentor was Döllinger. His later maxim—“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”—was forged in the crucible of his Vatican I experience.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.”
The most famous political maxim in the English language was born from the Vatican I debates. Acton had watched, with mounting alarm, as what he considered a naked assertion of ecclesiastical absolutism was driven to dogmatic definition.
Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799–1890), the great Munich church historian, did not attend the Council but became its most formidable scholarly critic through volumes published under the pseudonym “Janus” (Der Papst und das Konzil, 1869) and “Quirinus” (Römische Briefe vom Konzil, 1870). After the Council he refused submission and was excommunicated on 17 April 1871. He never formally joined the Old Catholic Church, but became its intellectual patron.
John Henry Newman occupies a category of his own. He did not attend, though invited as a consultor. In private he denounced the “aggressive insolent faction” pressing for the definition. Yet after it was defined, Newman accepted it without reservation, and in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875) offered a careful, minimalist interpretation that was promptly vindicated by Bishop Fessler, the Council’s Secretary-General, in a work formally approved by Pius IX.
“If I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”
The most famous (and most misunderstood) summary of Newman’s position. He is not placing private judgment above the papacy; he is placing the natural law—God’s voice in the soul—prior to any earthly authority, exactly as St. Thomas Aquinas does. The pope himself would be the first to agree.
IV. The Voice of the Christian East: Patriarch Gregory II Youssef
Of the Eastern Catholic prelates present, the most prominent voice of dissent was the Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef (Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, 1864–1897). In two major interventions, on 19 May and 14 June 1870, he insisted that the Council of Florence provided the authentic conciliar formula on papal primacy and that any further definition would destroy the constitution of the Eastern Churches.
“The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of an ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek Church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.”
Patriarch Gregory II Youssef, Intervention at Vatican I, 19 May 1870Gregory II and two Melkite bishops voted non placet on 13 July and left Rome before the final vote. He ultimately signed the constitution in 1872, but only with the qualifying clause from Florence: “salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum”—“saving all the rights and privileges of the patriarchs.”
V. The Two Constitutions
Dei Filius (24 April 1870) addressed the intellectual crisis of the age. In four chapters with eighteen anathemas, it affirmed creation ex nihilo against pantheism and materialism; distinguished natural knowledge of God from supernatural revelation; defined faith as a supernatural virtue of assent to God’s authority; and affirmed the harmony of faith and reason. It remains the cornerstone of Catholic fundamental theology—a fact recognized by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio (1998), which is in many ways an extended meditation on Dei Filius.
Pastor Aeternus (18 July 1870) is the constitution that changed the world. Its four chapters define: (1) the institution of the apostolic primacy in Peter; (2) the permanence of the Petrine primacy in the Roman Pontiffs; (3) the pope’s “ordinary, immediate, and truly episcopal” jurisdiction over every church and every pastor; and (4) the infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff.
“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4 (18 July 1870)The four cumulative conditions for an ex cathedra definition are: (1) the pope speaks formally as universal pastor; (2) in virtue of his apostolic authority; (3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals; (4) he proposes it as binding upon the whole Church. The much-misunderstood final clause—“of themselves and not from the consent of the Church” (ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae)—was directed specifically against the fourth Gallican Article of 1682, which had made papal judgments depend for their irreformability on the subsequent consent of the universal episcopate. It does not deny that the Holy Spirit guarantees the reception of true definitions; it denies that such reception is the cause of their being binding.
VI. Gasser’s Relatio: The Key the World Forgot
The decisive doctrinal address explaining Chapter 4 was delivered on 16 July 1870 by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen, the official relator of the Deputation on Faith. His four-hour relatio—now universally recognized as the indispensable hermeneutical key to the definition—explicitly clarified five critical points that the maximalists did not want to hear:
Infallibility extending to encyclicals, the Syllabus, canonizations, and all papal doctrinal pronouncements.
The pope as a “separated” oracle, independent of the Church’s Tradition.
No moral obligation to consult the bishops before defining.
Infallibility limited strictly to formal ex cathedra definitions—not encyclicals, allocutions, or “minor censures.”
The pope as head of the body of bishops, never as a person separated from the Church.
The pope is morally bound to consult the universal Church (Tradition, bishops, theologians) before defining.
This reading was corroborated by Bishop Fessler’s Die wahre und falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Päpste (Vienna, 1871), formally approved by Pius IX, and by Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875). It was retrospectively confirmed by Lumen Gentium §25 at Vatican II. Anyone who quotes Pastor Aeternus without reading Gasser is reading half a document.
“A Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy.”
VII. The Vote, the Walkout, and the Storm
The first vote of 13 July produced 451 placet, 88 non placet, and 62 placet iuxta modum. Faced with the impossibility of public schism, approximately 55 to 60 minority bishops petitioned Pius IX for leave to depart rather than vote against the definition in his very presence. He granted leave. On the morning of 18 July, in St. Peter’s, 533 fathers voted placet; only Bishop Riccio of Cajazzo and Bishop Fitzgerald of Little Rock voted non placet. Both immediately submitted. A thunderstorm broke over the Vatican as the definition was proclaimed—a detail put to opposite uses by both sides.
In the weeks and months that followed, every single minority bishop submitted to the definition. Dupanloup wrote to Pius IX that he had “always professed it in my heart.” Hefele submitted reluctantly in April 1871. Strossmayer was the last European bishop to submit, holding out until 26 December 1872. Only Döllinger and a small body of mostly German academic theologians refused, were excommunicated, and became the seed of the Old Catholic schism.
VIII. The Orthodox Response to Pastor Aeternus
The Eastern Orthodox patriarchates had been invited to Vatican I not as fellow members of a true ecumenical council but as schismatics summoned to return to obedience. They unanimously declined. The Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI refused even to receive the papal envoy, returning the bull unopened. The Orthodox reaction to the definitions was uniformly negative—and has remained so.
The single most authoritative Orthodox response is the Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical of Constantinople issued by Patriarch Anthimus VII in 1895, in response to Leo XIII’s invitation to reunion. Its central claim:
“Having recourse to the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every Bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the Synodical Ordinances and decisions of the Universal Church as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule.”
Patriarch Anthimus VII, Patriarchal Encyclical of Constantinople (1895)The classical Orthodox objections to Pastor Aeternus fall under several headings. What follows is an honest engagement with the strongest versions of those objections, followed by the Catholic responses.
“Infallibility belongs to the whole Church expressed through ecumenical councils received by the whole people of God—not to any individual, however exalted. The very notion that a definition can be irreformable ‘of itself’ (ex sese), prior to reception, is alien to Orthodox ecclesiology.”
The Catholic Church agrees that infallibility belongs first of all to the Church as a whole. Lumen Gentium §12 teaches that the People of God “cannot err in matters of belief” through the sensus fidei. Pastor Aeternus does not deny that the Holy Spirit guarantees the reception of true definitions—it denies that such reception is the cause of their being binding. The clause ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae targeted the fourth Gallican Article (1682), not the patristic doctrine of reception.
Moreover, Gasser’s relatio explicitly affirmed the pope’s moral obligation to consult the Tradition borne by the entire episcopate before defining. The charism of infallibility is located in the pope precisely as head of the body, never as a “separated person.”
“The canonical tradition recognizes the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals (primus inter pares), holding a primacy of honor and order among equal patriarchs—never a primacy of jurisdiction. Canons 3 of Constantinople I, 28 of Chalcedon, and 36 of Trullo assign Rome its rank on the basis of political dignity, not divine institution.”
Catholic apologetics responds that a merely honorary primacy was never the patristic understanding. Pope Victor’s threat to excommunicate the Asian churches over the Quartodeciman controversy (c. 190), the appeals to Rome from Athanasius, Chrysostom, Flavian, and Maximus the Confessor, and the declaration of Chalcedon that “Peter has spoken through Leo” all imply a primacy including real authority, not just precedence.
As for Canons 3 and 28, the Catholic tradition has always objected that these canons were challenged by the Roman legates precisely because they appeared to derive Roman primacy from political rank rather than from the Petrine commission. The Roman objection to Canon 28 of Chalcedon is itself a first-millennium witness to the Petrine understanding of primacy.
“The claim that the pope possesses ‘ordinary, immediate, and truly episcopal’ jurisdiction in every diocese reduces every other bishop to a delegate or vicar of the Pope. As Patriarch Gregory II Youssef warned, this would ‘completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek Church.’”
This is perhaps the most serious of the Orthodox objections, and Catholic theology has not been unaware of it. Lumen Gentium §21 at Vatican II taught that bishops receive their authority directly from Christ by episcopal consecration, not by delegation from the Pope. Lumen Gentium §27 affirms that bishops “govern the particular churches entrusted to them as vicars and ambassadors of Christ”—not as vicars of the Roman Pontiff.
The phrase “ordinary, immediate, and truly episcopal” does not mean the pope normally exercises jurisdiction in every diocese; it means his authority can reach into every diocese when the good of the Church requires it. The distinction between possessing and exercising a power is essential to reading Pastor Aeternus correctly.
IX. Modern Orthodox Theologians on Vatican I
The twentieth-century Orthodox diaspora produced sophisticated ecclesiological responses to Vatican I that deserve serious engagement:
“Wherever the Eucharist is celebrated by a bishop in apostolic succession, the whole Church is fully present. This precludes a universal jurisdictional primacy that would render the local bishop a mere subordinate.”
Afanasiev’s eucharistic ecclesiology was extraordinarily influential at Vatican II itself, where it was cited by defenders of episcopal collegiality. His argument—that the local Eucharistic community has full Catholic dignity—finds echo in Lumen Gentium §26.
“A universal primacy of honor is not only acceptable but ecclesiologically necessary—but it must be exercised synodally and never as a jurisdiction de iure divino.”
Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon (1931–2023) went further than either Afanasiev or Meyendorff, conceding in Being as Communion (1985) and subsequent essays that some form of universal primacy is not merely useful but ecclesiologically necessary, grounded in the Trinitarian taxis. This opened unprecedented space for dialogue with Rome. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (1934–2022) summarized the standard Orthodox position with characteristic clarity in The Orthodox Church: Orthodoxy can recognize a primacy of honor comparable to that exercised in the first millennium, but cannot accept universal jurisdiction or personal infallibility as defined at Vatican I.
X. The Old Catholic Schism: A Case Study in Separation from Rome
Döllinger refused submission and was excommunicated on 17 April 1871. A congress of dissident clergy and laymen met in Munich in September 1871; subsequent congresses at Cologne (1872) and Constance (1873) produced an institutional structure. Episcopal succession was secured in 1873 through the apostolic succession of the See of Utrecht, which had been separated from Rome since 1724.
The doctrinal charter of the new communion is the Declaration of Utrecht (24 September 1889), whose eight articles affirm adherence to the faith of the undivided Church of the first thousand years; rejection of the Vatican decrees and the Immaculate Conception; the Vincentian principle (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est); affirmation of the seven sacraments and apostolic succession; and commitment to reunion.
The Old Catholic movement is a vital case study because it began with a serious patristic claim—that the Vatican Decrees were a novum unsupported by the consensus of the first millennium—and it claimed, with considerable plausibility in 1889, to represent “the old Catholic faith” against Roman innovation. A century later, the same communion has:
Entered full communion with the Anglican Communion via the Bonn Agreement (1931), presupposing mutual recognition of Anglican orders—orders Leo XIII had declared “absolutely null and utterly void” in Apostolicae Curae (1896). Decided in 1976 (effectively from 1996) to ordain women to the priesthood and eventually the episcopate. Approved the blessing of same-sex unions in the Austrian Old Catholic Church (1998), followed by the German and Swiss provinces. Liberalized teaching on divorce and remarriage and on contraception.
“A body that separates from Rome on the grounds of fidelity to paleo-tradition lacks, over time, the institutional mechanism to resist the assimilating pressure of the surrounding culture.”
The Vincentian canon—quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus—turns out to be insufficient by itself to preserve a Tradition once the living organ of its determination has been rejected. The Polish National Catholic Church left the Utrecht Union in 2008 over women’s ordination, forming the Union of Scranton—a witness that the original conservative impulse survives, but only in isolation. The Old Catholic communion of 2026 bears almost no resemblance to the church Döllinger imagined in 1871.
XI. Aftermath: Geopolitics and the Church After 1870
The suspension of the Council was followed by Pius IX’s encyclical Respicientes ea omnia (1 November 1870), excommunicating the “usurpers” of papal territory. When Italy offered the Law of Guarantees (1871), Pius rejected it. The “prisoner of the Vatican” period lasted until the Lateran Pacts of 11 February 1929—fifty-nine years during which four popes did not set foot outside the Vatican.
In Germany, Bismarck viewed the Vatican decrees as a direct threat to state sovereignty and launched the Kulturkampf. The Kanzelparagraph (1871) threatened clergy with imprisonment for “political” preaching. The Jesuits were expelled from the Empire (1872). The May Laws of 1873–1875 imposed state supervision of clerical education and appointments. By 1878, five of eight Prussian dioceses had lost their bishops; nearly 1,800 priests had been imprisoned or exiled.
“We will not go to Canossa!”
In fact, Bismarck eventually did go to Canossa, in his own way. Leo XIII gradually negotiated the dismantling of the Kulturkampf, culminating in the Peace Laws of 1886–1887. Bismarck accepted the Supreme Order of Christ from Leo XIII in 1885—unprecedented for a Protestant chancellor.
In England, Gladstone’s pamphlet The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1874) sold tens of thousands of copies, charging that the Vatican decrees rendered Catholic bishops “the pope’s postmen” and therefore politically suspect. Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk was the definitive Catholic reply.
XII. Vatican II: The Completion of Vatican I
Newman had predicted that Vatican I would be “completed” by a future council. Lumen Gentium (1964) provided that completion. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church reaffirmed verbatim the definition of Pastor Aeternus, but restored the doctrine of episcopal collegiality: the bishops, in union with the Pope as their head, constitute a college that is also a subject of supreme authority. Bishops receive their authority directly from Christ, not by delegation from the Pope. Infallibility belongs first to the Church as a whole.
The Nota Praevia Explicativa attached by Paul VI clarified that the Pope can always exercise his power independently, while the College cannot act without its Head. This balancing act has been called “Vatican I plus” rather than “Vatican I minus.”
John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) issued a remarkable invitation for dialogue on the exercise of the Petrine ministry:
“I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility… in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §§95–96 (25 May 1995)This invitation has produced the Ravenna Document (2007), the Chieti Document (2016) on synodality and primacy in the first millennium, and the Alexandria Document (2023) explicitly addressing the second millennium and Vatican I. The dialogue continues.
XIII. Disputed Sayings and Fabricated Speeches
No treatment of Vatican I is complete without addressing two quotations that circulate endlessly in both Catholic and anti-Catholic literature.
“La tradizione son io!” (“I am the Tradition!”) The setting: on 18 June 1870, Cardinal Guidi of Bologna proposed an amendment specifying that the pope’s infallibility is exercised with the counsel of the bishops. That evening Pius IX summoned Guidi and excoriated him. Guidi protested that he had spoken from the Tradition. The Pope is reported to have responded: “La tradizione son io! Io sono la Chiesa!”
The historicity of the exchange is now generally accepted by historians (Martina, Hasler, O’Malley). The saying should not be treated as Pius IX’s theological position (which would be heterodox; the Pope is servant of the Tradition, not its source) but as a momentary outburst by a frustrated, elderly pontiff under enormous pressure. Pastor Aeternus itself is explicit that the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter’s successors “not so that they might make known some new doctrine, but that they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the Deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles.”
The “Strossmayer Speech”—a long oration widely circulated in Protestant tract literature, purporting to demonstrate from Scripture and the Fathers that Peter was never the first pope—is a forgery. Composed by an apostate ex-Augustinian named José Agostino de Escudero, it bears no relation to Strossmayer’s actual interventions. The real Strossmayer was a serious anti-infallibilist Council Father who eventually submitted (December 1872). Any Catholic apologetic engagement must distinguish between his real historical role and the fabricated “speech” of Protestant polemics.
“The ‘Strossmayer Speech’ is a fabrication. If you encounter it, you are reading a forgery.”
The apocryphal speech has been reprinted in countless Protestant tracts and websites since the late nineteenth century. Strossmayer himself was a real anti-infallibilist bishop who made substantive arguments—but the “speech” attributed to him was written by José Agostino de Escudero. Citing it discredits any argument in which it appears.
XIV. The Path Forward
For Traditional Catholics engaged in serious dialogue with Orthodoxy, Vatican I demands neither apology nor minimization. The two dogmatic constitutions are received as binding definitions of the Catholic faith. But honesty requires that we acknowledge several truths simultaneously.
The Council was held in circumstances of acute political siege. It was shaped by the death of Christendom, the loss of the Papal States, and the Liberal-rationalist assault on revelation. To read Pastor Aeternus outside this context is to misread it. The Council’s actual definition is far narrower than the maximalist Ultramontanism that pushed for it. The minority bishops—Dupanloup, Darboy, Hefele, Strossmayer, and above all Patriarch Gregory II Youssef—made serious theological arguments that have, in important respects, been vindicated by Vatican II’s recovery of episcopal collegiality.
The Orthodox objections are not the objections of dishonest schismatics but of a Tradition that preserves real treasures of patristic ecclesiology that the West has at times forgotten. Lumen Gentium, Ut Unum Sint, and the documents of the Joint International Commission acknowledge this. The Old Catholic trajectory—from the purism of Döllinger to women’s ordination and same-sex blessings—demonstrates the historical instability of separation from Rome, even when launched in the name of conservation.
The Catholic Church cannot retract Vatican I; she can—and the magisterium itself has begun to—receive Vatican I in a wider patristic horizon. The Orthodox Church will not concede that the Vatican Decrees are de fide; but the best Orthodox theology of the last century acknowledges that some form of universal primacy is necessary, and that the question is no longer whether but how.
In the words of Pastor Aeternus itself: this charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors “for the spiritual good of the whole Church.” The good of the whole Church—including the Church of the East—is, was, and remains the only legitimate measure of the Petrine ministry.
Works Cited
- Acta et Decreta Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani. Rome, 1872.
- Afanasiev, Nicholas. The Church of the Holy Spirit. Trans. Vitaly Permiakov. University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
- Aubert, Roger. Vatican I. Éditions de l’Orante, 1964.
- Butler, Cuthbert. The Vatican Council. 2 vols. Longmans, 1930.
- DeVille, Adam A. J. Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity. University of Notre Dame Press, 2011.
- Dulles, Avery. Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith. Sapientia Press, 2007.
- Fessler, Joseph. Die wahre und falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Päpste. Vienna, 1871. Approved by Pius IX.
- Fortescue, Adrian. The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. Burns Oates, 1920; Ignatius Press, 2008.
- Gasser, Vincent Ferrer. Relatio on Infallibility, 16 July 1870. In Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, vol. 52, cols. 1204–1230. English: James T. O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility. Ignatius Press, 2008.
- Hasler, August Bernhard. How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion. Trans. Peter Heinegg. Doubleday, 1981.
- John Paul II. Fides et Ratio. 14 September 1998.
- John Paul II. Ut Unum Sint. 25 May 1995.
- Joint International Commission. Ravenna Document. 2007; Chieti Document. 2016; Alexandria Document. 2023.
- Kasper, Walter, ed. The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. Paulist Press, 2005.
- Martina, Giacomo, S.J. Pio IX. 3 vols. Università Gregoriana Editrice, Rome, 1974–1990.
- Meyendorff, John. Orthodoxy and Catholicity. Sheed and Ward, 1966.
- Meyendorff, John, et al., eds. The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church. Faith Press, London, 1963.
- Newman, John Henry. Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. 1875.
- O’Gara, Margaret. Triumph in Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I, and the French Minority Bishops. Catholic University of America Press, 1988.
- O’Malley, John W. Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church. Harvard University Press, 2018.
- Pastor Aeternus. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. 18 July 1870. Denzinger-Hünermann, nos. 3050–3075.
- Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. 1895.
- Pottmeyer, Hermann J. Towards a Papacy in Communion. Crossroad, 1998.
- Quinn, John R. Revered and Reviled: A Re-Examination of Vatican Council I. Crossroad, 2017.
- Ray, Stephen K. Upon This Rock. Ignatius Press, 1999.
- Schatz, Klaus. Vaticanum I, 1869–1870. 3 vols. Schöningh, 1992–1994.
- Siecienski, Edward. The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate. Oxford University Press, 2017.
- Vgenopoulos, Maximos. Primacy in the Church from Vatican I to Vatican II: An Orthodox Perspective. Northern Illinois University Press, 2013.
- Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Church. Rev. ed. Penguin, 1997.
- Zizioulas, John. Being as Communion. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.