Pastor Aeternus Research Articles

Pastor Aeternus, Robert Bellarmine, and the Possibility of a Heretical Pope

In a recent article, Emmet O’Regan has argued that the First Vatican Council not only defined dogmatically that the papal Magisterium is infallible under certain conditions but also “definitively excluded the possibility of a heretical pope” by elevating St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” to the “dignity of a dogma.” This article argues that when Pastor Aeternus is read in light of the official Relatio, it is clear that the council was not intending to exclude the possibility of a heretical pope, that is, the opinion of Albert Pighius. Instead, Gasser makes it clear that the council was intending to define what Bellarmine called the “most common and certain opinion,” which is “whether the pope is able to be a heretic or not, he is not able in any way to define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church.” O’Regan has misidentified which view of Bellarmine the council intended to define.

Is Bellarmine’s “Fourth Proposition” Identical with the “Extreme View” of Albert Pighius?

Christian Washburn has questioned my claim that the idea of a publicly heretical pope was formally excluded in Pastor Aeternus, by equating Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” with the extreme Ultramontanist school of Albert Pighius. Washburn argues that Gasser had merely indicated that Bellarmine’s “fourth opinion” would be raised to dogmatic status, rather than the “fourth proposition.” I attempt to address this critique by demonstrating how Bellarmine’s own school of thought within the “fourth opinion” was markedly different from that of Pighius.

The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council?

During the prelude to the First Vatican Council, the idea of a heretical pope was used as the primary argument against the solemn definition of papal infallibility. The medieval canonists and conciliarists had allowed for the notion of papal heresy by making a strict distinction between the apostolic seat itself and the individual occupants of the throne of Peter. However, when we examine the text of Pastor Aeternus in light of the contents of the official Relatio, which was drawn up at the council to explain the meaning of this document, we find that the above distinction used by the conciliarists was formally proscribed with an anathema. This article will argue that in doing so, the Council Fathers definitively excluded the possibility of a heretical pope.

The Charism of Infallibility: Re-Receiving Pastor Aeternus’ Teaching on Papal Infallibility in Light of Iuvenescit Ecclesia’s Teaching on Charismatic Gifts

Abstract More than 150 years since Vatican I, the definition of papal infallibility continues to be a major obstacle in the work for Christian unity. In response to ecumenical and historical objections, Roman Catholic scholars have tended to downplay claims of a priori certainty by stressing the epistemological role of ecclesial reception. The present essay argues that this approach can be greatly strengthened through re-examining the decision of Pastor Aeternus to describe infallibility as a charism, particularly in light of the understanding of charisms found in Lumen Gentium and, more recently, Iuvenescit Ecclesia.

The Concept of Papal Infallibility in Christianity and ‘Iṣmah (Sinlessness) in Islam: A Comparative Study

The issue of papal primacy remains debated among Christian churches. The definition of papal infallibility made in the First Vatican Council through Pastor Aeternus has been an obstacle to the unification of churches. The doctrine of ‘iṣmah of prophets has been crucial concerning the concept of prophethood. Both papal infallibility and ‘iṣmah of prophets denote that Pope and prophets were being preserved from sins and errors. This study, therefore, examines concepts of papal infallibility and ‘iṣmah of prophets in understanding, theory and practice. Similarities and differences in these concepts are examined based on how the adherents of religions perceive them. Debates from selected denominations and theological schools in both religions: Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox for Christianity and Shiites, Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites for Islam are focused. Since the study is theoretical, it relies on materials from classical to contemporary sources. Although both concepts seem similar, the findings convey that many differences are found, with few similarities between the two concepts.

Expanding Horizons 150 Years after Vatican I: Toward a Renewed Relationship between Synodality and Primacy

Pope Francis calls the church to greater synodality to build up practices of communion, participation, and mission at every level of the church’s life. Proponents of synodality often interpret Vatican I’s definition of papal primacy as an obstacle to the synodal path. Recent scholarship, however, suggests ways that Vatican I need not present a stumbling block; rather, when properly contextualized and interpreted, Pastor Aeternus has the potential to illumine the inherent dynamism between primacy and synodality. This study explores how fresh approaches to Vatican I and synodality can direct us to more responsive ecclesial structures in the diverse and changing church of today.

IV. Pastor Aeternus at 150

Kristin Colberg's fine essay in the December 2019 issue of Horizons clearly lays out the social, historical, and theological context for Pastor Aeternus. The year 1870 was a tumultuous, difficult, even dangerous, time for the Roman Catholic Church as it dealt with rationalism, challenges to secular as well as religious authority, new scientific ideas, and the loss of its own political power. When I have taught historical survey courses, I always stress the significance of context, and Pastor Aeternus is no exception. I also ask my students, when reading about controversial issues, to ask the question: “What is each position trying to protect?” Clearly, Pastor Aeternus is trying to protect the church's independence from secular powers, from perceived errors, and from forces of disunity both in society and in the church itself.

III. Pastor Aeternus, Liberalism, and the Limits of Papal Authority

Two dogmatic constitutions from the First Vatican Council, Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus, are worth revisiting today. These documents were in part a response to the challenge of liberalism. Although such a retrieval of the wisdom of Dei Filius and Pastor Aeternus is necessary as a means of protecting Christ's revelation, this is not sufficient. The doctrine of Pastor Aeternus should also be developed to make more clear the limits of papal authority.

V. Balance and Imbalance: The Papacy and the Contested Legacies of the Vatican Councils

Toward the end of his magisterial study of Catholic ecclesiological struggles spanning 1300 to 1870 CE, Francis Oakley employed a striking image to illustrate the victory of papalism over conciliarism. After Vatican I, the “solitary horseman” left on a desolate “ecclesiological battlefield” many centuries in the making was “none other than the resilient ghost of Bellarmine.” By this image, Oakley meant that Pastor Aeternus’ twin definitions of papal infallibility and jurisdictional supremacy represented the definitive triumph of the ultramontane school, as typified by the counter-reformation Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. For Oakley—and in this point he echoed a common interpretation—Vatican I consigned conciliar and constitutionalist Catholic ecclesiologies to “oblivion.”

I. Pastor Aeternus in Its Context

How has Pastor Aeternus stood the test of time in the face of Vatican II, the great social leveling brought about by democracy and the mass media, and the severe erosion of confidence in hierarchical institutions, including the Catholic Church?

Settling Old Scores: Pastor Aeternus as the Final Defeat of Early Modern Opponents of Ultramontanism

Settling Old Scores: Pastor Aeternus as the Final Defeat of Early Modern Opponents of Ultramontanism

Looking at Vatican I's Pastor aeternus 150 Years Later: A Fresh Consideration of the Council's Significance Yesterday and Today

Many pressing issues facing the church today require a deeper appreciation of Vatican I, marking its one hundred and fiftieth year. We can now return it to its context and accept its “incompleteness” rather than insist upon its “wrongness.” The distance provided by time shows that its teachings are not as rigid or extreme as they are often perceived to be, but rather stand open to significantly broader interpretations. Pastor Aeternus has faced Vatican II, the social leveling brought about by democracy and the mass media, and an erosion of confidence in hierarchical institutions. Yet the council cannot be left behind. This essay's goal is to contextualize Vatican I's voice so that we can hear what it intended to say in its own day and see how it might contribute to some of our own most urgent conversations today.

Revered and Reviled: A Re-examination of Vatican Council I by John R. Quinn

Reviewed by: Revered and Reviled: A Re-examination of Vatican Council I by John R. Quinn Peter J. Gruber C.O. Revered and Reviled: A Re-examination of Vatican Council I BY JOHN R. QUINN New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017. viii + 117 pages. Hard-cover, $49.95. ISBN: 9780824523299. The two Vatican Councils are often perceived as polar opposites. Vatican I is often seen as closing the door to the modern world, while Vatican II is understood as thrusting those same doors open. This discontinuity is especially pronounced in the descriptions of the ways the two councils construe the papacy and the episcopate. What Bishop John R. Quinn advances, however, is that no such discontinuity exists, that the First Vatican Council’s clarifications on the papacy prepared the way for the Second Vatican Council to fill in the teaching on the role of the bishops. Quinn writes that this book is for the “moderately educated reader who wishes to have a deeper knowledge of the important issues of papal primacy and of the infallible teaching magisterium of the Pope” (vii). Throughout, he argues against a maximalist interpretation of Vatican I and papal infallibility, which asserts that “the Pope by reason of the primacy must govern all aspects of church life all over the world and that he is infallible in almost all his public teachings” (vii). This extreme interpretation of Vatican I is maintained not by modern-day ultramontanes, but by those who moved too quickly to reject its pronouncements; for example, Hans Küng caricatures infallibility in this way in order to further his own rejection of it. Where Küng sees rupture, Quinn sees continuity. In chapter one, Quinn discusses how, contrary to his intentions of a weaker, controllable papacy, Napoleon actually prompted the growth of a more centralized government within the church and a more prestigious papacy. The end result was the rise of a more extreme ultramontanism throughout Europe, which a-historically reconstructed the primacy of the papacy in terms of sovereignty. In chapter two, Quinn turns his attention to Pius IX and his Syllabus of Errors, paying attention to the influences that led to its formulation ahead of Vatican I. By contextualizing the most alarming propositions with attention to their originating documents, the reader is led to see how the allergy of papal theologians to historical context resulted in pithily expressed propositions that polarized public opinion. Whether or not the Syllabus was covered by papal infallibility divided the ultramontane camp of Manning and the more balanced camp of Newman. Ultimately, despite the intentions of Pius IX, Quinn concludes, “Vatican Council I did not become the Council of the Syllabus” (33). Chapter three shifts attention to the Council itself and the drafting of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor aeternus. Situating the [End Page 111] primacy of the pope within the context of primacy of jurisdiction, this constitution does not reduce the role of bishops to being mere functionaries of a papal sovereign—an exaggerated “maximalist” interpretation. Since the Council was suspended before the second section of the document concerning the role of the episcopate could be debated and enacted, in many cases the maximalist interpretation of papal primacy errantly prevailed, only to be corrected definitively at the next Vatican Council. Chapter four hones in on the central question of papal infallibility. Without getting caught in the weeds of the many details now available to historians, Quinn incisively surveys the polarization of the issue both prior to and during the Council, which ultimately led to a restrained definition palatable to almost all the Council fathers. Appended to the end of this chapter, Quinn summarizes Newman’s line of reasoning from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk in explanation and defense of papal infallibility. Chapter five reevaluates Vatican I by addressing the fourfold contention of August Hasler that the Council was invalid. This brief foray into the controversy raised by Hasler gives Quinn an opportunity to further contextualizes the personality of Pius IX and bolster the legitimacy of the Council in the mind of the reader. In Chapter six, “Newman and Vatican I,” Quinn turns his attention to Newman himself. Newman...

How the Bad Guys Won

How the Bad Guys Won Peter Heinegg Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church. By John W. O'Malley, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018. 307 pp. $24.95 Needless to say, the urbane, scholarly, serenely judicious Father O'Malley (now 91, a professor emeritus at Georgetown University, and perhaps best known for his Trent: What Happened at the Council, 2013) would never use the crude colloquialism “bad guys.” But his precise, immaculate account of the events leading up to the official definition of papal infallibility by Pius IX (1792‐1878) in the “Dogmatic Constitution” Pastor Aeternus (1870) shows that this was more than a dreadful theological‐philosophical mistake. It was the signal triumph of a period of deeply conservative Vatican ideology and control that would continue until at least the Second Vatican Council (1962‐1965) and is still far from over. The now canonized reactionary Pius X (1835‐1914) waged war, most notably in his blasts (e.g., in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907) against the secular hydra‐heresy he called “modernism”: any attempt to make any changes in church tradition (doctrine, liturgy, biblical interpretation), the kind of concessions to the Enlightenment that Pio Nono assailed in his ferocious‐ludicrous catalog Syllabus of Errors (1864). Vatican II reversed or qualified some features of this anti‐intellectual piety, but strains of it could still be found in the reigns (that telling term!) of Paul VI (1963‐1978), who famously condemned “artificial” contraception in 1968, and John Paul II (1978‐2005) and Benedict XVI (2005‐2013), who made life miserable for proponents of liberation theology and other innovative thinkers. For liberals like O'Malley, the more than a century and a half from Pius IX up until Pope Francis must seem like a long series of missed opportunities for real reforms in the overclericalized, overcentralized, and overdogmatized Roman Catholic Church. To be fair, there have been some promising moments, as in 1943 when Pius XII, silent about the Nazis, put in a good word, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, for “Wissenschaft”: the mostly Protestant‐devised contemporary methods of scriptural explication. On the other hand, the horrific revelations of priestly pedophilia—acts typically concealed under the aegis of unchallenged church authority—have made it increasingly hard to have an optimistic view of the twenty‐first‐century R.C.C. O'Malley knows all this, but barely adverts to it, sticking to his position of fair‐minded ecclesiastical historian. He begins by noting the irony that the major impulse for defining papal primacy and infallibility came, not from prelates, but from conservative Catholic laymen like the powerful, zealous journalist Louis Veuillot (1819‐1883), who saw it as a way to block the spread of post‐French‐Revolutionary culture. And before Veuillot and Co., there had been the influence of the far more gifted Joseph de Maistre (1753‐1821), whose On the Pope (1819) is still considered a classic of nineteenth‐century French literature. The Church in Pius’ day was beleaguered by anticlerical regimes in France, Italy, and Germany, but the same time it witnessed a Romantic resurgence in Catholic sentiment, as seen in all sorts of medieval revivals, personal conversions, and crucially, from O'Malley's perspective, edifying books like Chateaubriand's The Genius of Christianity, or the Spirit and Beauty of the Christian Religion (1802), a kind of grand aesthetic apotheosis, glorifying the Catholic faith and its artistic splendors. The book was hailed as a masterpiece, though nowadays it's often disdained by critics as showy and superficial. In any case, Catholics were building churches, going on pilgrimages, and praying in public with old‐fashioned fervor. Skeptics and unbelievers may have been ruling academia and making the headlines, and they are certainly better remembered today than the religious apologists they attacked; but southern Europe was still a very Catholic continent, as seen in the visions of Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes (1858) and the cult of the Immaculate Conception, which was formally endorsed by Pius IX in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus (1854). This was the first time an individual pope had ever defined an article of faith (repeated in 1950, when another passionate Mariolater, Pius XII, declared that Mary “was...

The developing understanding of authority and primacy in Anglican–Roman Catholic–Old Catholic dialogue after the Second Vatican Council

This article explores the way in which Anglican–Old Catholic consultations after the Second Vatican Council addressed the questions of authority and primacy in the Church. It argues, first, that in the context of their dialogues with each other and with the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans and Old Catholics have developed a positive understanding of the role of authority and (universal) primacy in the Church. Second, Anglicans are more willing to think of the implementation of a kind of universal primacy than Old Catholics. Third, the question of primacy is, in the dialogues discussed in this article, seen in union with synodality at all levels of ecclesial communion. Fourth, the value attributed to universal primacy has pushed the (Old Catholic) protest against Pastor Aeternus into the background. Fifth, given the agreement on the value of universal primacy, the question not of whether, but rather of how a universal primacy could be received by the Church is legitimate.

What are these among so many? Pre and post Vatican II recordkeeping

Contemporary Church recordkeeping has been an area all too often ignored by historians and archivists. There were two significant events in the last 140 years that defined the types of records created and maintained within the Church namely: Vatican I and Vatican II. After the suspension of Vatican I and the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus, we begin to see a centralization in ecclesiastical governance structures, due in part to interpretations of papal primacy. This centralization of Church authority eventually impinged upon the recordkeeping processes of dioceses. However after Vatican II the pendulum shifted with the promulgation of the Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of the Bishop and the re-introduction of the tenet of collegiality. The promulgation of this document and others caused a de-centralization of Church recordkeeping practices. Using the Archdiocese of Vancouver as a case study this paper will attempt to show recordkeeping changes that occurred after Vatican I and Vatican II and the impact these councils had on archdiocesan administration.

The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I by Richard F. Costigan, S.J.

91 both McCloskey and the guests make a genuine effort to give background material and contextualize the topic. A few flaws are evident in the program. All the guests are male, and all but two are priests. Some perspective from a few of the many female Newman scholars would have enhanced the series. As previously mentioned, a few speakers rambled off-topic, but this is not a major problem in the series overall. Another aspect this reviewer found to be problematic occurs in the last segment on Newman entitled “The University.” The first half of that discussion concerns itself with Newman’s thoughts and writings in concurrence with his founding of a Catholic university in Ireland. However, the last half amounts to a rather pointedly biased conversation critiquing many of today’s United States Catholic universities and promoting St. Thomas Aquinas College of which the guest,Dr.Thomas Dillon,is president. After the previous twelve segments had been consistent in relating the particular topic directly to Newman, this last portion seems out of place. Aside from these flaws, it is a marvelous gift to have an illustrious group of Newman scholars cover thirteen topics in 6.5 hours. Perhaps the greatest strength of the series is that both the host and every one of the guest speakers conveys a real love of Newman. Each one speaks with enthusiasm about Newman as a person, his ideas, and his positive influence on Christianity. Even if a viewer were to grasp only one quarter or one third of the content of each segment, that same viewer would surely be intrigued by the devotion and admiration expressed.This, I believe, would motivate the viewer to learn more about Newman. If this were to be the case, the series Cardinal Newman at 2000 will have accomplished its mission Catharine M. Ryan National Institute for Newman Studies, Pittsburgh, PA BOOK REVIEWS The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I. By Richard F.Costigan,S.J.Washington,DC:The Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Pages: xi + 218. Cloth, $54.95, ISBN 13: 978–0–8132–1413–9. Richard Costigan, professor of theology at Loyola University in Chicago, has written an excellent book on the meaning of the consensus of the Church and papal infallibility. He concentrates on the period between 1682, the year the Gallican Articles appeared, and 1870, when Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I defined papal primacy and infallibility. The Four Gallican articles were eventually approved by King Louis XIV, but they were not simply imposed by him. They expressed the long-held views of the French clergy and hierarchy. Costigan concentrates on Article 4, which stated that the Pope has the principal role in communicating the faith to the entire Church but that his judgment is not irreformable“unless the consensus of the Church is present with it” (nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit). Vatican I, however, taught VIDEO AND BOOK REVIEW NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 92 that the definitions of the Pope are irreformable “of themselves and not from the consensus of the Church” (ex sese, non autem ex consensus Ecclesiae). Costigan notes that many historians and theologians have studied Gallicanism, but he finds it “disconcerting” that many of those who have written on Gallicanism do not deal with actual Gallican sources. For example,he points to the works ofThils, Fries, Nau, and Aubert who discuss Gallicanism “without citing a single Gallican treatise or any study about Gallicanism” (4). To remedy that situation, the author studies the writings of nine authors in chronological order.The five Gallican authors are Bossuet,Tournely, Bailly, Bergier, and La Luzerne.All were French priests except Tournely who was a layman. The four Ultramontanists or papalists were all Italian priests: Orsi, Ballerini, Muzzarelli, and Perrone. The nine authors wrote prolifically, often producing multi-volume works. Costigan analyzes their writings and presents their arguments with great care and evenhandedness. In a calm and irenic style, he shows that the Gallicans and the papalists actually shared much in common. Both were staunch defenders of the Catholic faith against Enlightenment scholars, Protestant opponents, and secular polemicists. Both Gallicans and papalists argued that the Church is monarchical...

How can the church remain in the Truth?*

This article discusses papal infallibility, with reference to the history and meaning of the term, and to the ecumenical possibilities of its interpretation not as signifying the sovereign and absolute power of the papal office but as expressing the Pope's responsibility to the apostolic faith (depositum fidei), an interpretation that is arguably confirmed in the text of Pastor Aeternus. Particular consideration is also given to two recent ecumenical documents: The Gift of Authority (1999) and Communio Sanctorum (2000), both of which raise the question of infallibility. Some questions remain open, but those recently raised represent an important ecumenical step in the direction that Pope John Paul II asked for in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995).

What Will Dr. Newman Do? John Henry Newman and Papal Infallibility, 1865-1875 by John R. Page

86BOOK REVIEWS What Will Dr. Newman Do? John Henry Newman and Papal Infallibility, 1865-1875- By John R. Page. (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press,Michael Glazier Books. 1994. Pp. vi, 458. $24.95 paperback.) The fact of Newman's struggle with Pastor aeternus' definition of the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is perhaps as well known as the balance of his famous Letter to the Duke ofNorfolk is appreciated. John R. Page's What Will Dr. Newman Do? contributes a definitive narrative of the precise contours of that struggle in the years immediately preceding and following Vatican Council I. One finds a painstaking and exhaustive treatment of Newman's extant letters and private memoranda on the subject together with a discussion of the letters and editorials to which he responded. Page masterfully employs Newman's diary entries to set the correspondence in context. The reader gains a vivid awareness of the complexity of Newman's efforts adequately to explain the Council's definition. Moreover, Page repeatedly underscores the apparent inconsistency of some of Newman's replies to disparate queries and challenges. Although Page does cite Avery Dulles in support of this claim (p. 421 n. 65), Page remains engaged in the primary sources and shows comparatively little interest in finding his interpretation corroborated by other Newman scholars. Nor does Page contend with theological ramifications of Newman's struggle; it would be fascinating, for example, to consider whether Newman's understanding ofPastor aeternus might assist in interpreting the teaching authority ofthe ordinary and universal magisterium today. If the meticulous chronological approach Page adopts occasionally tempts the reader to impatience, it at once lends a certain suspense (implied in the book's title), "captur[es] . . . the depth of the dilemma" (p. 12), and sheds radiant light on Newman's personality, not to mention his deep pastoral solicitude for those troubled by the Ultramontane interpretation of the conciliar definition . Page, who generally lets his lively narrative, the estimable writing ofwhich is crowned by copious quotations from Newman, take center stage, speculates especially at the end of the book that Newman experienced Vatican Council I not only as a difficult theological challenge, which he only ventured fully to answer after the publication of Gladstone's Expostulation, and as a source of unsettlement for many who sought his pastoral guidance, but even as a "shock and offense to his own faith" and a "personal struggle" (p. 407), albeit one from which he emerged gracefully. Page appropriately pays close attention to Newman's battle with the Ultramontane party and in his presentation of the Letter to the Duke ofNorfolk centers "the human drama" (p. 12) there more than on the concerns represented by the other two "chief" "audiences" Newman kept in view, "Gladstone and Protestant England" on the one hand and "Döllinger and his followers on the Continent" (p. 414) on the other. If Page dwells relatively little on theological analysis of the Letter's understanding of conscience, it is perhaps because for him the greatest interest lies in Newman, "a vital human person, struggling to keep faith alive and vibrant in an uncertain and contentious time, ever con- BOOK REVIEWS87 scious that we see now through a glass darkly, and continually pleading for a wise and gentle minimism until that time has passed away" (p. 428). Gerard H. McCarren Immaculate Conception Seminary Seton Hall University Religion in Victorian Britain. Volume V: Culture and Empire. Edited by John Wolffe. (Manchester University Press in association with the Open University . Distributed in the United States and Canada by St. Martin's Press, New York. 1997. Pp. viii, 359. $24.95.) In 1988 the Open University created a course on "Religion in Victorian Britain," accompanied by four volumes oftexts and readings with the same title. The course and books successfully reflected the state of the field at that date, but a decade of further scholarship has convinced the Religious Studies faculty that a fifth volume should be added to cover cultural and imperial contexts omitted from the original set. There are three substantial essays on the topics of gender, church music, and colonial missions, and three case studies, two on authors whose work involved mission themes...

The Infallibility of the Papal Magisterium as Presented in the Pastoral Letters of the Bishops of the United States after Vatican I

AbstractMuch 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.”