Talk:First Vatican Council

Suspended

It was suspended following the capture of Rome and never resumed, nor was it ever officially closed. It is therefore still in session and no other ecumenical council may be held.

What about the Second Vatican Council, then? Marnanel 21:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From the article: the Council was formally closed in 1960 by Pope John XXIII, prior to the formation of the Second Vatican Council. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Not true. It was never formally closed. See my comment below. 68.196.9.196 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)captcrisis

Catholic triumphalism lives

This article might almost have been written by an ultra-traditionalist Catholic. The discussion of opposition to the dogma of papal infallibility is weak. And yes, Pius IX was interested in having the Council define Papal Infallibility, and made no particular secret of it. Jhobson1 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of the two bishops...

As per my recent trip to the Vatican, a plaque mentioned that "two bishops, out of 435, voted against the principle of papal infallibility" - I was curious if it was known which two bishops were dissenting, or if it were a secret ballot whose dissenters were never known? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas. ClaudeMuncey 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dom Cuthbert Butler"The Vatican Council 1870" (1964) provides an exhaustive account based on Bishop Ullathorne's letters. Voting was not secret but open.

Misplaced discussion/wrong heading?

The article is interesting, but concentrates solely on infallibility. Shouldn't there be a general intro to the council, and coverage of other topics discussed. The infallibility section might well merit a page of its own, under a suitable title. 'First Vatical Council' is surely not that title. 82.152.219.37 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Benedict Heal

Vatican I was not just about infallibility, theologically and otherwise. I'm downgrading the article to C class. GregorB (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Temporal dogma (sic)

I find very peculiar the insertion, based on a 1909 book according to which "According to the original plan, the Temporal Dogma was to have been the first item on the Council’s agenda, but subsequently the Infallibility Dogma was placed first." Temporal "dogma"?! "Infallibility Dogma placed first"?! The first document that the Council produced was that on the Catholic Faith (24 April 1870). It was three months later that the document on the Church, which included the question of infallibility, was produced (18 July 1870).

I doubt too that insertion about a rumour that the Council would be reopened in Malta or Trent is of sufficient importance to keep in the article, but I feel that the first insertion is certainly not for keeping, especially in the lead. Soidi (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what Raffaele De Cesare wrote on page 422 of The Last Days of Papal Rome? I provided the link to the scanned copy, which is at http://books.google.com/books?id=0XcpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA422&dq=%22the+last+days+of+papal+rome%22 Italus (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your link says: "No preview available". So it does not confirm the attribution to this 1909 book of the demonstrably false statement that the first thing the Council actually discussed was papal infallibility. Perhaps the statement should be reworded. Soidi (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever reading the scanned copy on the link that I provided. My original wording was not precise. Elevating the temporal power into a dogma was not "to have been the first item on the Council’s agenda," but it was to be precede elevating infallibility into a dogma.Italus (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When I click on your link what I get, after the title of the book and its three authors, is:

Book overview

No preview available - 1909 - 488 pages - Italy

...

It is curious that you get so much more. It would be helpful if you would kindly provide an exact quotation from what you can read, but I cannot. And thanks for removing the strange phrase, "temporal dogma". Soidi (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that your computer cannot read the scanned pages of the book. The chapter on the Ecumenical Council is truly fascinating and informative. May I suggest that you try a different computer. Italus (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

PLease how can the Civita Cattolica be regarded as an authority - it was an extremm untra-montanist paper? Bishop Ullathorne seems to have been unaware of the idea of any scheme to elevate the temporal power into a dogma. Most or the bishops were uneasy about the Syllabus of Errors and the Bull Unam Sanctam in so far as they affected temporal power. Bellarmine's doctrine on the subject seems to have been generally rejected in Anglo-Saxon and German lands.(see Butler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.10 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC) It would be useful to distinguish between the power of the Pope as a temporal ruler of the Papal States, and the power claimed by the Medieval Popes and defened by Bellarmine of deposing rulers and having jurisdiction on temporal matters. Neither was defended at the Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.10 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the hearsay. The author seems unaware that the Church doesn't simply define any dogma they happen to like. In theory, a doctrine needs to have been accepted by the Church of all times and places - while such a claim will often be controversial (and especially so with papal infallibility), it at least has to be a doctrine that was held. Infallibility, though controversial, was at least proposed for a few centuries, while there never was a doctrine like "the Pope's temporal power". Given that there seems to be trouble to be precise on that matter, it all seems like hogwash. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read what Raffaele De Cesare wrote starting on page 422 of The Last Days of Papal Rome? I had provided the link to the scanned copy, which is at http://books.google.com/books?id=0XcpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA422&dq=%22the+last+days+of+papal+rome%22 Italus (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Restore reference to original objective of the Council

In my opinion, a competent editor should restore the reference from Chapter XXXIII of Raffaele De Cesare's http://books.google.com/books?id=0XcpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA422&dq=%22the+last+days+of+papal+rome%22#v=onepage&q=%22the%20last%20days%20of%20papal%20rome%22&f=false , which starts with: "The first idea of convening an Ecumenical Council in Rome to elevate the temporal power into a dogma, originated in the third centenary of the Council of Trent, which took place in that city in December, 1863, and was attended by a number of Austrian and Hungarian prelates." The chapter then states that Austria had recognized the Kingdom of Italy after the 1866 Austro-Prussian War. Consequently, because of this and other substantial political changes: "The Civiltà Cattolica suggested that the Papal Infallibility should be substituted for the dogma of temporal power ..." Italus (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The possibility that the Council would define as dogma the temporal power was quite real, and not hearsay as claimed in the previous section by Str1977. The actions of the Italian King and Government to block this possibility are discussed in http://books.google.com/books?id=0XcpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA429#v=onepage&q&f=false . Italus (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete the bit about being formally closed in 1960

This appears to be an internet legend. There are a lot of official and semi-official internet resources on both Vatican Councils and not one of them cites a document closing Vatican I. 47.20.164.204 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)captcrisis

Done. Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I see someone added it again. The source cited is vatican.com, a travel booking site, obviously not authoritative. 74.119.231.16 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)captcrisis

Pastor Aeternus: Not 433 votes, but 533

The constitution was accepted not with 433, but with 533 votes. Source eg. Giuseppe Alberigo (cur.), Storia dei concili ecumenici, Editrice Queriniana, 1990. The other languages of Wikipedia have 533 too already, by the way. 80.108.105.80 (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)