How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion

by August Bernhard Hasler

English, German

Genres: History, Religion, Theology

383 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1981

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL CRITIQUE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

August Bernhard Hasler (died in 1980) was a Swiss priest and historian, "who served for five years in the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity, concentrating on work with Lutheran, Reform, and Old Catholic churches. It was during this time that he was given access to the Vatican Archives and discovered diaries, letters, and official documents that had never been studied before."

He wrote in the Foreword to the first (1978) edition, "Until very recently there had been no historical study of the way the solemn definition of papal infallibility came about and why this happened precisely in 1870. In the late summer of 1977 I published a two-volume work dealing with these problems... in this book I would like to make the most important findings of my investigation available to a broader reading public, presenting these results within a historical framework ...

"The opening up of numerous archives and the publication of several historical studies have altered our idea of the events which led to the dogma of infallibility... The Vatican dogma is not merely one of the greatest obstacles in the path to Christian unity, it also blocks reform within the Church and, generally speaking, supports the spirit of authoritarianism in the community at large."

He notes, On June 18, 1870, emotions were running high in the great hall of the [First Vatican] Council. A Dominical cardinal, Filippo Maria Guidi had come forward to speak against the pope and the Infallibilists (the first Roman prelate to do so), emphatically stating that the pope was not infallible in and of himself, independent of the Church, but only insofar as he reflected the views of the bishops and the tradition of the Church...

"That very evening Pius IX had Cardinal Guidi called in and bitterly castigated him for his speech. In reply to Guidi's protest that he had only spoken as a witness to tradition, the pope snapped back at him with the oft-repeated phrase, "I am tradition.' ... We know astonishingly little about this cardinal, the only Roman prelate who dared to challenge Pius IX in public for any length of time. In the historical literature his name is passed over in silence." (Pg. 89-91)

He says, "But the minority had a still weightier objection: Some of the popes had themselves become teachers of error. The most famous case was Pope Honorious I (625-38)… Alongside him Pope Liberius (352-66) was also mentioned as a heretic. He made common cause with the Arians... Pope Vigilius (537-55) had also been accounted less than orthodox. Under pressure from the emperor of Byzantium, Vigilius in his weakness ... disavowed de facto the doctrinal resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon, whereupon the bishops of North Africa excommunicated him.

"The minority bishops then counted up a whole series of popes who, in the following centuries, committed errors on questions of marital ethics, the sacrament of Holy Orders, and issues regarding natural and international law. The minority regarded as especially compromising the case of Pope Boniface VIII... If the pope was infallible, then his bull Unam sanctam must also be considered infallible. But in it Boniface maintained he had secular authority over all Christians and declared that faithful obedience to the papacy was required for salvation... Today no one bothers to defend this bull anymore." (Pg. 163-164)

He elaborates about Honorius: "in an official letter ... [he] declared that he believed in the existence of only one will in Jesus Christ. A few decades afterwards this doctrine... was condemned as heresy by the Sixth Ecumenical Council... The anathema was expressly leveled at, among others, Pope Honorius. The Seventh Ecumenical Council ... repeated the anathema. These indisputable facts gave the Infallibilists all sorts of trouble even during the preparatory stages of Vatican I, and cast long shadows over the whole infallibility debate.

"The majority could not dare to deny the conciliar decrees, per se... But the Infallibilists nevertheless tried to cleanse Pope Honorious of the stain of heresy. Honorius, they insisted... had merely shown negligence in the struggle against heresy, and for that reason had been censured by the Council... They had a second argument ready just in case: Even if Honorius HAD been a heretic... The pope's letter ... could in no way be considered as an ex cathedra decision... [Yet] more crucial for the anti-Infallibilists ... was the fact that three ecumenical councils had called Honorius a heretic. Even the slickest interpretation could not make these facts disappear." (Pg. 165-166)

He quotes Bishop Georg Joseph Strossmayer: "There is no denying that the Council lacked freedom from beginning to end'" (Pg. 133) and "No power in the world will ever convince the world that the Council was really free.'" (Pg. 200) For his opposition at the Council, "Strossmayer had especially harsh treatment meted out to him. Rome ignored his urgent requests for help... he was informed ... that he would have to go on waiting for an answer until he had obediently accepted the conciliar decrees." (Pg. 201)

But Hasler admits, "No less puzzling is the attitude of Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer. For years neither friend nor foe could move him to a declaration of submission... 'I'd rather die,' he protested... 'than go against my conscience and convictions...' But Strossmayer's resistance was visibly crumbling... Strossmayer... did not formally consent to the definition until 1881, when he made a profession of sorts under the pontificate of Leo XIII. At the end of his life he swore he had only opposed the dogma as inopportune." (Pg. 224-225)

He is actually critical of Hans Küng’s proposal in Infallible? An Inquiry: "Küng’s alternative proposal ... that the Church is indefectible in the truth... is undoubtedly much more acceptable than infallibilism because it offers more room for freedom. But is it also more consistent? And are not its critics correct in maintaining that a community such as the Catholic Church can only be held together, sociologically speaking, by a strictly authoritarian management...? Can the Church ever allow unconstrained research if it wishes to avoid the danger of self-destruction?" (Pg. 273)

He argues, "When is the pope infallible? The requisite conditions here are framed in such a way that it is almost impossible to say that such and such a decision must qualify as infallible. In particular, the stipulation that only ex cathedra decisions of the pope are infallible makes the definition of infallibility meaningless as far as the preceding centuries are concerned. Since the expression 'ex cathedra' was ... given various meanings until the nineteenth century, we can never confidently say we have [an] ex cathedra papal decision in any given case.

"So the definition of infallibility turns out to be empty words because it is compatible with any historical situation whatsoever.... it cannot be refuted or falsified... The conciliar minority at Vatican I recognized the evasiveness of such manipulative language and denounced it." (Pg. 280-281)

Obviously controversial, Hasler’s historical study is nevertheless “must reading” for anyone study the issue of papal infallibility---whether one agrees with him, or not.

[Robert Federline · Rating 1 out of 5]

The best thing that can be said about this book is that the Appendix actually includes some of the criticism directed against the allegedly more complete and more thorough discussion of the same topic by the same author. Unfortunately, for the author, the critics present better and more reasoned arguments than does he.

From a theological perspective, this is a work of heresy. It appears from several passages near the beginning of the book that August Hasler does not believe in the divinity of Christ. He and his friend, Hans Kung (who wrote the introduction, and who apparently supplied some of the information relied upon for this book) believe in abortion and otherwise fail to subscribe to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. As such, how can one take seriously his criticisms of the Church, while purporting to proclaim what the Church believes?

While much of the language of the book appears to be couched in the language of science, the science is incomplete and poorly applied. At bottom, it appears that simply because Hasler does not like the declaration of the infallibility of the Pope, anything associated with it he believes must fall. He continuously complains that the "minority" position was rejected. The minority position has never determined what the Church teaches. Remember that Satan himself, Lucifer, the beautiful angel of light, was so persuasive that when he rejected God, he managed to take a third of the angels with him. They continued to remain, however, in the minority.

This work is only worthwhile reading if one is interested in learning of the losing arguments in the debate over papal infallibility. One should always be aware of the arguments on both sides of a question. This work is not, however, of sufficient worth that it even deserves to survive.

Omit this from your reading list.

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read the firsts 6 chapters, and that taught me enough about the topic. The challenge is that there are a ton of players, all bishops and cardinals and such, and it's hard to track it all. Hasler really did his homework in the Vatican archive, and kudos to him. This book is complete, that's for sure. But for a more casual reader (like me) it's way too much detail. The gist of the story is that Pius IX decided he wanted the pope to be infallible in all decisions. This had never been before, and most Biblical scholars felt there was no precedent for this in canon or scripture. Essentially it was a huge power grab by Pius, and since he held the purse strings of all those bishops, he got them all to go along with it.

Most of us, if we grew up Catholic, are familiar with Vatican II. But did you ever wonder what happened at Vatican I? This book will tell you, and more.

If you do track down this book, the chapter on Pius himself is definitely worth the read. And at the end, Hasler wrote an open letter to Paul VI about infallibility that is also interesting.

[Ben Mizrahi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a non scholarly version of a scholarly book Hasler wrote on the question of papal infallibility, prefaced by Hans Küng 9who have also famously attacked the doctrine during the 1970s).

The book has confirmed one of the main reasons that I chose not to join the Roman Catholic church after leaving the Evangelical movement: I have never been able to find the idea papal infallibility and papal supremacy in neither scripture nor holy tradition (which for members of the Evangelical Catholic branch of Lutheranism such as myself, is also authoritative, though its authority is lower than that of Scripture and is fallible). Hasler's book have confirmed that this doctrine was born in sin, and was even declared heretical during the early years of the 14th century by no less than the Pope himself. It also does a great work of showing why Vatican I was neither free nor ecumenical, and how Pius IX's lackeys managed to manipulate the council using every dirty trick on the book, hence I cannot accept it as ecumenical for the same reasons I cannot accept Trent (or Vatican II).

However, I think the later chapters, which deals with Pius IX's politics and the history of the church between the two Vatican councils only detracts from the book's important argument. I have to admit that I am ultra-conservative myself, and whatever shortcomings I find in Pius IX's character, and despite being a "Protestant" (I put the word in brackets because I find the term itself to be practically meaningless), I do share many of his antiliberal and anti socialist views and I cannot condone Hasler's own ultra left-wing politics and attacks on the authority of Scriptures and the Church themselves.

[Will · Rating 1 out of 5]

I expected an analysis of how the doctrine developed. What we get is an extended ad hominem tirade on how Pius IX was an awful, awful man.