What do you think?
Rate this book
Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church
The enduring influence of the Catholic Church has many sources-its spiritual and intellectual appeal, missionary achievements, wealth, diplomatic effectiveness, and stable hierarchy. But in the first half of the nineteenth century, the foundations upon which the church had rested for centuries were shaken. In the eyes of many thoughtful people, liberalism in the guise of liberty, equality, and fraternity was the quintessence of the evils that shook those foundations. At the Vatican Council of 1869-1870, the church made a dramatic effort to set things right by defining the doctrine of papal infallibility. In Vatican The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church , John W. O'Malley draws us into the bitter controversies over papal infallibility that at one point seemed destined to rend the church in two. Archbishop Henry Manning was the principal driving force for the definition, and Lord Acton was his brilliant counterpart on the other side. But they shrink in significance alongside Pope Pius IX, whose zeal for the definition was so notable that it raised questions about the very legitimacy of the council. Entering the fray were politicians such as Gladstone and Bismarck. The growing tension in the council played out within the larger drama of the seizure of the Papal States by Italian forces and its seemingly inevitable consequence, the conquest of Rome itself. Largely as a result of the council and its aftermath, the Catholic Church became more pope-centered than ever before. In the terminology of the period, it became ultramontane.
Audio CD
Published October 16, 2018
37 people are currently reading
213 people want to read
About the author
John W. O'Malley
47 books45 followersRev. Father John W. O’Malley, SJ, PhD was a professor of theology at the University of Detroit, Weston Jesuit School of Theology, and Georgetown University. His specialty was the history of religious culture in early modern Europe, especially Italy. He received best-book prizes from the American Historical Association, the American Philosophical Society, the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, the American Catholic Historical Association, and from the Alpha Sigma Nu fraternity. His best known books are The First Jesuits (Harvard University Press, 1993), which has been translated into twelve languages, What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard, 2008), now in six languages, and The Jesuits: A History from Ignatius to the Present (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), now in seven languages. A companion to the book on Vatican II is his Trent: What Happened at the Council (Harvard, 2012), in five languages. He has edited or co-edited a number of volumes, including three in the Collected Works of Erasmus series, University of Toronto Press. Of special significance is The Jesuits and the Arts, (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2005), co-edited with Gauvin Alexander Bailey, and Art, Culture, and the Jesuits: The Imago primi saeculi, 1640) (Saint Joseph's University Press, 2015). In 2015 he also published Catholic History for Today's Church: How Our Past Illuminates Our Present (Rowman & Littlefield). He edited a series with Saint Joseph's University Press entitled Early Modern Catholicism and the Visual Arts, in which thirteen titles have appeared to date.
John O’Malley lectured widely in North America and Europe to both professional and general audiences. He held a number of fellowships, from the American Academy in Rome (Prix de Rome), the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, and other academic organizations. He was a past president of the Renaissance Society of America and of the American Catholic Historical Association. In 1995 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in 1997 to the American Philosophical Society, and in 2001 to the Accademia di san Carlo, Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy. He held the Johannes Quasten Medal from The Catholic University of America for distinguished achievement in Religious Studies, and he holds a number of honorary degrees. In 2002 he received the lifetime achievement award from the Society for Italian Historical Studies, in 2005 the corresponding award from the Renaissance Society of America, and in 2012 the corresponding award from the American Catholic Historical Association. He was a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Society of Jesus.
John O’Malley lectured widely in North America and Europe to both professional and general audiences. He held a number of fellowships, from the American Academy in Rome (Prix de Rome), the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, and other academic organizations. He was a past president of the Renaissance Society of America and of the American Catholic Historical Association. In 1995 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in 1997 to the American Philosophical Society, and in 2001 to the Accademia di san Carlo, Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy. He held the Johannes Quasten Medal from The Catholic University of America for distinguished achievement in Religious Studies, and he holds a number of honorary degrees. In 2002 he received the lifetime achievement award from the Society for Italian Historical Studies, in 2005 the corresponding award from the Renaissance Society of America, and in 2012 the corresponding award from the American Catholic Historical Association. He was a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Society of Jesus.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
July 13, 2018
Is it mere coincidence this book is the 666th book I’ve read?
February 21, 2022
This book describes the fight for a definition of papal infallibility. Supporters of this doctrine often saw exalting the pope as a necessary strategy for countering the modern world. O'Malley's narrative focuses on those who were worried to defend the rights of local bishops or open to accommodation with liberalism and critical scholarship. These concerns of the "minority" failed to prevent the definition, which was supported by the large majority of bishops. O'Malley argues that these minority views had future life in shaping the reception of the decree and the Second Vatican Council.
I knew very little about all this beforehand so it was great to walk through some of the basics. Much of the focus is on French Catholicism and the waves of changes it dealt with over the previous centuries. It's only recently I've come to appreciate the impact of gallicanism and Jansenism in forcing these debates. O'Malley also emphasizes the vibrant print culture and it's effective use to push forward conflicts in the broader church. The pro-definition partisans of the pope often come off as childish and scheming but O'Malley concedes that an enormous expansion of the prestige and powers of the pope did follow. He argues this is largely because of mass communications and the retreat of the state from intervention in naming bishops, but the emphasis on the unique position of the pope surely helped the office benefit from such trends.
In general it made me want to continue to learn more about liberal/Enlightenment Catholicism and mainline Protestantism and other possible alternative paths of the church. I will also check out O'Malley's books about Trent, Vatican II and his own reflections on the councils.
I knew very little about all this beforehand so it was great to walk through some of the basics. Much of the focus is on French Catholicism and the waves of changes it dealt with over the previous centuries. It's only recently I've come to appreciate the impact of gallicanism and Jansenism in forcing these debates. O'Malley also emphasizes the vibrant print culture and it's effective use to push forward conflicts in the broader church. The pro-definition partisans of the pope often come off as childish and scheming but O'Malley concedes that an enormous expansion of the prestige and powers of the pope did follow. He argues this is largely because of mass communications and the retreat of the state from intervention in naming bishops, but the emphasis on the unique position of the pope surely helped the office benefit from such trends.
In general it made me want to continue to learn more about liberal/Enlightenment Catholicism and mainline Protestantism and other possible alternative paths of the church. I will also check out O'Malley's books about Trent, Vatican II and his own reflections on the councils.
October 30, 2020
Excellent book. Much too long!
October 19, 2022
The doctrine of papal infallibility that was adopted by the church council known as Vatican I is something that strikes most non-Catholics as silly. Even when it is explained that is limited to specific situations and types of papal statements, it makes no sense to me. How can one person ever be infallible, even if he is annointed by God? How can one person insist on uniformity of belief on particular points so that any of the 1.2 billion Catholics who may see things differently become sinners who are going against God? I don't know. It's an idea that has no appeal to me, but I'm not a Catholic, so it's not for me to tell them how to run their church. And I suppose that religious doctrine isn't necessarily supposed to make sense, as it is a matter of faith, not reason.
As this book explains, infallibility is part of the bigger movement of ultramontanism which elevated the authority of the pope as the supreme leader of the church in all matters. Ultramontanism was a natural reaction to the Enlightenment and French Revolution and the associated anticlericalism and nationalism. Mr. O'Malley calls it a conservative rejection of the modern world. That sounded right to me. In some ways this elevation of the role of the pope in spiritual matters at the same time as he was being stripped of his temporal authority over the Papal States has been a good thing for the Catholic church, allowing for unity and greater sense of community among Catholics around the world, but I think that on the whole it has been more divisive than unifying.
Mr. O'Malley tells how there there was a lot procedural trickery in the way that Vatican I was organized and run that was designed to stack the deck in favor of the pope's position, but Mr. O'Malley also points out that there was a lot of genuine democratic debate and horse trading as the bishops tried hard to reach a consensus, and the final result was a compromise that was not quite the ringing endorsement of papal primacy and infallibity that the pope wanted. In some ways the politcal maneuvering seemed decidedly unspiritual, but the general attitude toward unity and finding a common path for all in attendance nevertheless has a spirtual dimension that we don't usually see in secular legislatures.
As this book explains, infallibility is part of the bigger movement of ultramontanism which elevated the authority of the pope as the supreme leader of the church in all matters. Ultramontanism was a natural reaction to the Enlightenment and French Revolution and the associated anticlericalism and nationalism. Mr. O'Malley calls it a conservative rejection of the modern world. That sounded right to me. In some ways this elevation of the role of the pope in spiritual matters at the same time as he was being stripped of his temporal authority over the Papal States has been a good thing for the Catholic church, allowing for unity and greater sense of community among Catholics around the world, but I think that on the whole it has been more divisive than unifying.
Mr. O'Malley tells how there there was a lot procedural trickery in the way that Vatican I was organized and run that was designed to stack the deck in favor of the pope's position, but Mr. O'Malley also points out that there was a lot of genuine democratic debate and horse trading as the bishops tried hard to reach a consensus, and the final result was a compromise that was not quite the ringing endorsement of papal primacy and infallibity that the pope wanted. In some ways the politcal maneuvering seemed decidedly unspiritual, but the general attitude toward unity and finding a common path for all in attendance nevertheless has a spirtual dimension that we don't usually see in secular legislatures.
October 14, 2018
A spectacular and magisterial account of the proceedings at Vatican I, the council that decreed papal primacy and infallibility. O’Malley shows the political, philosophical, and ecclesiastical realities that shaped the nature of the council. This volume moves much quicker in the narrative than O’Malley’s book on Vatican II.
In order to understand Roman Catholicism in the late 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, one must have an understanding of Vatican I and how it made Roman Catholicism “ultramontane.” Highly recommended!
In order to understand Roman Catholicism in the late 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, one must have an understanding of Vatican I and how it made Roman Catholicism “ultramontane.” Highly recommended!
July 3, 2020
Extremely readable account of the workings of the 1st Vatican Council in which the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was established. The background to this event, the main divisions between bishops, the inner negotiations, and the final determinations are all covered.
I was surprised to find the extent of the opposition to this doctrine, including a past bishop in my own childhood diocese!
The fallout from this council was less than anticipated by many, as the teaching got watered down somewhat by the theological writing that followed the council, and as the world turned to some serious secular historical events.
The actual document, PASTOR AETERNUS, in included as an appendix (in English).
I was surprised to find the extent of the opposition to this doctrine, including a past bishop in my own childhood diocese!
The fallout from this council was less than anticipated by many, as the teaching got watered down somewhat by the theological writing that followed the council, and as the world turned to some serious secular historical events.
The actual document, PASTOR AETERNUS, in included as an appendix (in English).
January 28, 2022
I am glad I read it, and I learned quite a few things, but it doesn't seem that the author agreed with the definition of infallibility in Pastor Aeternus and that colors his entire approach to the topic. I don't have reason to distrust his facts, but there seems to be a very strong unorthodox bias to me.
July 27, 2021
I enjoyed reading this book. It's very well written. It gave me a better understanding of the historical and theological forces that gave rise to the council and it helped me to put Vatican 2 into a broader historical context. I will be reading this author's book on Vatican 2 next.
July 22, 2019
True to the title of the work, John O'Malley shows the shift in Catholic thinking that put the bishop of Rome at the center of the Church. There are several elements to consider: papal primacy, ultramontanism, and papal infallibility. These are three different ideas, but we usually put all three together.
I am very familiar with the political situation in Italy during the 19th century. What surprised me was that the incentive for defining infallibility as a dogma actually came from Northern Europe - from journalists and bishops who themselves were converts to Catholicism. John O'Malley builds the scenario, documents the developments, demonstrates the participation and the partisan mentality that went into the majority and minority of bishops at the Vatican Council (I).
As John O'Malley points out, there were many firsts at Vatican I, but there were many difficulties that happened full participation. It was the largest and most international council to date, and nobody was truly prepared for it. It was held in a host city that feared imminent siege and conquest, and that city in fact would be invaded before the council could conclude 20% of its agenda. It was the first church assembly under the daily scrutiny of the press and its proceedings were studied as soon as they were released - studied by governments and cabinets even more than by church people. It was a council that would celebrate a dramatic victory even as its members would disperse in haste before invading armies and revolutionary groups in Rome and at home. The author documents the drama, names the names, uncovers the tricks of the insiders and the rhetoric of the reformers.
The book is highly readable, extremely interesting for those interested in the Catholic Church and the reasons that Catholic Culture made dramatic shifts in what O'Malley calls the "long 19th Century". I have enjoyed this book, have learned a lot, and recommend it to anyone who is interested in Church history.
I am very familiar with the political situation in Italy during the 19th century. What surprised me was that the incentive for defining infallibility as a dogma actually came from Northern Europe - from journalists and bishops who themselves were converts to Catholicism. John O'Malley builds the scenario, documents the developments, demonstrates the participation and the partisan mentality that went into the majority and minority of bishops at the Vatican Council (I).
As John O'Malley points out, there were many firsts at Vatican I, but there were many difficulties that happened full participation. It was the largest and most international council to date, and nobody was truly prepared for it. It was held in a host city that feared imminent siege and conquest, and that city in fact would be invaded before the council could conclude 20% of its agenda. It was the first church assembly under the daily scrutiny of the press and its proceedings were studied as soon as they were released - studied by governments and cabinets even more than by church people. It was a council that would celebrate a dramatic victory even as its members would disperse in haste before invading armies and revolutionary groups in Rome and at home. The author documents the drama, names the names, uncovers the tricks of the insiders and the rhetoric of the reformers.
The book is highly readable, extremely interesting for those interested in the Catholic Church and the reasons that Catholic Culture made dramatic shifts in what O'Malley calls the "long 19th Century". I have enjoyed this book, have learned a lot, and recommend it to anyone who is interested in Church history.
June 22, 2025
On the eve of the French Revolution in 1788 the church owned about 10% of the land in France and constituted one of three formal branches of government (the First Estate). The Pope directly governed most of central Italy from Rome to Ravenna. And for centuries prior the papacy retained the ability to levy taxes (tithes) over most of Christendom, and at moments had the extraordinary power to depose and appoint monarchs. There is a sense in which western Europe was ruled by a combination of temporal powers and the church from the fall of the western Roman Empire to the 19th century.
The French Revolution was a watershed: liberals seized church property and executed clergy. Napoleon imprisioned the Pope in 1799 and temporarily abolished the Papal States. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 returned Rome to the Pope, but did not resolve a fundamental issue that Enlightenment thinking posed to papal authority: the incompatibility of liberal democracy with a strong Catholic church. (See also: Bismarck's Kulturkampf, the ongoing wars of Italian unification, and the much earlier question of Anglicanism in England)
Pius IX was elevated to the papacy in 1846 against this backdrop. The First Vatican Council (Vatican I) was in effect, his attempt to reassert power in the wake of these sweeping changes.
Vatican I is frankly pretty dry and gets into a lot of arcane detail about parliamentary proceedings during the council. It's a book where the subject matter is fascinating even if the content is in the weeds.
So what exactly did Vatican I do? Two major issues of doctrine were decided in Dei Filius and Pastor aeternus before the Italian occupation of Rome in late 1870 put an end to the proceedings.
Dei Filius builds upon 1864's famous Syllabus of Errors in condemning rationalism and liberalism and establishing faith as a PEER to reason instead of an anachronism.
There is an epistemic sphere that is not amenable to reason. It's sort of the opposite of Jeremy Bentham.
Pastor aetnernus endorses the notion of an "ultramontane" church -- of papal infallability -- establishing the Pope as the ultimate authority in revealing God's messages to man.
You add the two together and you get a formula for a powerful church in a liberalizing world. That which cannot be decided by science and reason (i.e. what is "good") has been and will remain the province of the eternal church with the Pope at its head.
----------
One of the points that Nick Land makes in Xenosystems is the Cathedral's blindness to preferences derived from faith and not reason.
It seems that certain decisions can't be reasoned to "correctness" -- there are simply preferences and tradeoffs. And when you cloak all decisions in rationalism despite that fact, you end up with powerful social scientists that wrap self-interest or class interest in a thin layer of p<0.05. How should we weigh economic prosperity measured by GDP against cultural cohesion? Or family formation? These are real questions without obvious answers, and it is not unappealing to have a moral authority to look towards.
The French Revolution was a watershed: liberals seized church property and executed clergy. Napoleon imprisioned the Pope in 1799 and temporarily abolished the Papal States. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 returned Rome to the Pope, but did not resolve a fundamental issue that Enlightenment thinking posed to papal authority: the incompatibility of liberal democracy with a strong Catholic church. (See also: Bismarck's Kulturkampf, the ongoing wars of Italian unification, and the much earlier question of Anglicanism in England)
Pius IX was elevated to the papacy in 1846 against this backdrop. The First Vatican Council (Vatican I) was in effect, his attempt to reassert power in the wake of these sweeping changes.
Vatican I is frankly pretty dry and gets into a lot of arcane detail about parliamentary proceedings during the council. It's a book where the subject matter is fascinating even if the content is in the weeds.
So what exactly did Vatican I do? Two major issues of doctrine were decided in Dei Filius and Pastor aeternus before the Italian occupation of Rome in late 1870 put an end to the proceedings.
Dei Filius builds upon 1864's famous Syllabus of Errors in condemning rationalism and liberalism and establishing faith as a PEER to reason instead of an anachronism.
The Catholic Church ... does hold that there is a twofold order of knowledge distinct both in principle and also in object; in principle, because our knowledge in the one is by natural reason, and in the other by divine faith; in object, because, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely revealed, can not be known...
...reason never becomes capable of apprehending mysteries as it does those truths which constitute its proper object. For the divine mysteries by their own nature so far transcend the created intelligence that, even when delivered by revelation and received by faith, they remain covered with the veil of faith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of darkness, so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life, not yet with God; 'for we walk by faith and not by sight.
There is an epistemic sphere that is not amenable to reason. It's sort of the opposite of Jeremy Bentham.
Pastor aetnernus endorses the notion of an "ultramontane" church -- of papal infallability -- establishing the Pope as the ultimate authority in revealing God's messages to man.
You add the two together and you get a formula for a powerful church in a liberalizing world. That which cannot be decided by science and reason (i.e. what is "good") has been and will remain the province of the eternal church with the Pope at its head.
----------
One of the points that Nick Land makes in Xenosystems is the Cathedral's blindness to preferences derived from faith and not reason.
It seems that certain decisions can't be reasoned to "correctness" -- there are simply preferences and tradeoffs. And when you cloak all decisions in rationalism despite that fact, you end up with powerful social scientists that wrap self-interest or class interest in a thin layer of p<0.05. How should we weigh economic prosperity measured by GDP against cultural cohesion? Or family formation? These are real questions without obvious answers, and it is not unappealing to have a moral authority to look towards.
September 22, 2020
Summary: A brief history of the movement toward Vatican I and the council itself.
I seriously considered not blogging about this book. Vatican I is an area that I have almost no background knowledge, so I cannot comment on the quality of the book. I had a friend recommend to me another book by John O'Malley, and as I was saving the book to my future reading list, I saw that Vatican I was free to listen to in Audible because of their new member benefit.
I know I have extensive holes in my knowledge of history. And in this case, that includes not knowing hardly anything about European history after roughly Elizabeth I and hardly anything about Catholic history between Trent and Vatican II.
Luckily, nearly half of the book was about the history and cultural influences that led to the start of Vatican I. So the book seemed to place the context of the subject well so that even someone like myself can benefit. Vatican I did not end, the Franco-Prussian war moved to Rome, and the council was evacuated. Officially Vatican I did not end until the start of Vatican II. Several of the decisions of the council may not have happened if the schedule had been different. There is quite a bit of criticism of Pope Pius IX, but that criticism also seems tempered from how strong it feels like it could have been.
As a Protestant who wants to have a good relationship with the Catholic church and who is unlikely to become Catholic for several reasons, Vatican I, and that general era it is part of, is what concerns me. I am not a fan of Papal Infallibility, although more in theory than practice. From what I know, it has not been 'abused' much, and I generally, I object to how it could be misused more than anything else. And I am not a fan of the concept of the Immaculate Conception, although I know that wasn't part of Vatican I, but an earlier statement by Pope Pius IX, because it seems unnecessary or not a complete solution.
(At some point, it is God's work that brings about sinlessness. So if Mary must be conceived in sinlessness, then why not her parents as well and further and further back. A more straightforward solution it seems to me, as a non-Catholic without a good understanding of the logic of the immaculate conception, is that if sinlessness is essential, that the nature of Christ bringing about forgiveness of sin, brings about Mary's forgiveness of sin. In other words, Jesus had the power to forgive sin before his death and resurrection, so why could not the simple forgiveness of sin happened without a miraculous conception.)
Because the council ended early, the more extensive work on the nature of the church, of which the concept of Papal Infallibility was just a small part, was never approved. There were several other ramifications of Vatican I. Still, O'Malley emphasizes that you cannot really understand Vatican I without understanding Vatican II, and I need to do some more work to understand Vatican II. Overall I thought this was helpful, and most of the time, it was clear enough that there were not too many concepts that I was unclear on, but for me, this was almost totally new material.
I seriously considered not blogging about this book. Vatican I is an area that I have almost no background knowledge, so I cannot comment on the quality of the book. I had a friend recommend to me another book by John O'Malley, and as I was saving the book to my future reading list, I saw that Vatican I was free to listen to in Audible because of their new member benefit.
I know I have extensive holes in my knowledge of history. And in this case, that includes not knowing hardly anything about European history after roughly Elizabeth I and hardly anything about Catholic history between Trent and Vatican II.
Luckily, nearly half of the book was about the history and cultural influences that led to the start of Vatican I. So the book seemed to place the context of the subject well so that even someone like myself can benefit. Vatican I did not end, the Franco-Prussian war moved to Rome, and the council was evacuated. Officially Vatican I did not end until the start of Vatican II. Several of the decisions of the council may not have happened if the schedule had been different. There is quite a bit of criticism of Pope Pius IX, but that criticism also seems tempered from how strong it feels like it could have been.
As a Protestant who wants to have a good relationship with the Catholic church and who is unlikely to become Catholic for several reasons, Vatican I, and that general era it is part of, is what concerns me. I am not a fan of Papal Infallibility, although more in theory than practice. From what I know, it has not been 'abused' much, and I generally, I object to how it could be misused more than anything else. And I am not a fan of the concept of the Immaculate Conception, although I know that wasn't part of Vatican I, but an earlier statement by Pope Pius IX, because it seems unnecessary or not a complete solution.
(At some point, it is God's work that brings about sinlessness. So if Mary must be conceived in sinlessness, then why not her parents as well and further and further back. A more straightforward solution it seems to me, as a non-Catholic without a good understanding of the logic of the immaculate conception, is that if sinlessness is essential, that the nature of Christ bringing about forgiveness of sin, brings about Mary's forgiveness of sin. In other words, Jesus had the power to forgive sin before his death and resurrection, so why could not the simple forgiveness of sin happened without a miraculous conception.)
Because the council ended early, the more extensive work on the nature of the church, of which the concept of Papal Infallibility was just a small part, was never approved. There were several other ramifications of Vatican I. Still, O'Malley emphasizes that you cannot really understand Vatican I without understanding Vatican II, and I need to do some more work to understand Vatican II. Overall I thought this was helpful, and most of the time, it was clear enough that there were not too many concepts that I was unclear on, but for me, this was almost totally new material.
January 10, 2019
4 ☆
Finished reading ... Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church / John W. O'Malley ... 26 December 2018
ISBN: 9780674979987 … 260 pp. + Endnotes, Index = 307 pp. in total
If you count roughly the last 500 years as the 'modern day' Catholic Church, and that's a fair estimation!, then this book completes O'Malley's histories of the trio of Church Councils of the modern era: Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II. Another gripping read of plots, intrigue, bullying, politics – and you might add mindlessness into the mix as so many bishops and cardinals thought what they were told to think. The few who raised legitimate questions were hounded as heretics.
After buying the above book, a friend loaned me the following, a second volume on the same subject.
3 ☆
Finished reading ... Australian Catholic Bishops and the First Vatican Council 1869-1870: an Historical Reflection / Peter Price ... 10 January 2019
ISBN: 9780995416178 … 202 pp. + Bibliography = 208 pp. in total
This made an interesting companion piece to O'Malley's book. Firstly, it has to be remembered that at the time of Vatican I, the Australian Catholic Church was very much an Irish Church in spite of its original English Benedictine influence. Although having said that, three Spanish bishops, two of them Benedictines, also attended the Council. They all voted with the majority. This book gives portraits of all these men plus some history of the Catholic Church in Australia as Vatican I took place relatively early in Australia's history.
The events of the Council itself are described similarly to O'Malley's presentation. The difference is in covering the minority viewpoint from an English perspective more than a European (especially French and German) one, as O'Malley did. Neither author, of course, ignored the other main players in the opposition, minority groupings.
The equally important items up for definition as dogma were the primacy of the pope and infallibility. It is the latter that has had the lion's share of publicity but it is the former which has had much more and on-going influence in the Church.
Both authors make a small but important reference to the Church in the present day, the way Vatican I continues to influence the Church and, especially Price, list the questions raised by both dogmas that still have not been answered.
Personally – I am a heretic. I don't believe in papal primacy in the sense that Pius IX forced on the church. And I don't believe in infallibility – everything is open to reappraisal when new facts come to light.
Peter Price was a former neighbour, our children were at primary school together.
Peter died while I was in the middle of reading his book. RIP
Finished reading ... Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church / John W. O'Malley ... 26 December 2018
ISBN: 9780674979987 … 260 pp. + Endnotes, Index = 307 pp. in total
If you count roughly the last 500 years as the 'modern day' Catholic Church, and that's a fair estimation!, then this book completes O'Malley's histories of the trio of Church Councils of the modern era: Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II. Another gripping read of plots, intrigue, bullying, politics – and you might add mindlessness into the mix as so many bishops and cardinals thought what they were told to think. The few who raised legitimate questions were hounded as heretics.
After buying the above book, a friend loaned me the following, a second volume on the same subject.
3 ☆
Finished reading ... Australian Catholic Bishops and the First Vatican Council 1869-1870: an Historical Reflection / Peter Price ... 10 January 2019
ISBN: 9780995416178 … 202 pp. + Bibliography = 208 pp. in total
This made an interesting companion piece to O'Malley's book. Firstly, it has to be remembered that at the time of Vatican I, the Australian Catholic Church was very much an Irish Church in spite of its original English Benedictine influence. Although having said that, three Spanish bishops, two of them Benedictines, also attended the Council. They all voted with the majority. This book gives portraits of all these men plus some history of the Catholic Church in Australia as Vatican I took place relatively early in Australia's history.
The events of the Council itself are described similarly to O'Malley's presentation. The difference is in covering the minority viewpoint from an English perspective more than a European (especially French and German) one, as O'Malley did. Neither author, of course, ignored the other main players in the opposition, minority groupings.
The equally important items up for definition as dogma were the primacy of the pope and infallibility. It is the latter that has had the lion's share of publicity but it is the former which has had much more and on-going influence in the Church.
Both authors make a small but important reference to the Church in the present day, the way Vatican I continues to influence the Church and, especially Price, list the questions raised by both dogmas that still have not been answered.
Personally – I am a heretic. I don't believe in papal primacy in the sense that Pius IX forced on the church. And I don't believe in infallibility – everything is open to reappraisal when new facts come to light.
Peter Price was a former neighbour, our children were at primary school together.
Peter died while I was in the middle of reading his book. RIP
July 24, 2021
This book paints the growth of Papal prestige and power through the eighteenth and nineteenth century, as a reaction against liberalizing secularists with modern communications letting the Pope have more prominance. The idea of papal infallibility didn't come from the Pope, though he was happy to endorse it. If it didn't come from a grassroots movement, it was definitely encouraged by one - several French bishops refused to vote against it at the Council for fear of opposition from their parishioners.
So, piloting this reactionary ship - and having just anathematized the proposition that the Pope should make peace with the modern world - Pope Pius IX summoned an ecumenical council to confirm his anathemas and set the Church ever more firmly against modernism and liberalism and democracy. He stage-managed the council and handpicked the people setting its agenda; the only way it escaped him was that it moved slower than he wanted. He didn't put papal infallibility on the first agenda, but he firmly endorsed it and got it included when it was proposed. But then, after less than a year, with only two decrees issued (including infallibility), the Italian army marched into Rome, and Pope Pius declared the council ended.
But for all the Roman Catholic Church's claims to be following tradition - for all the people at the time insisted they were following it - they were doing new things. Never before had Papal decrees been such a normal thing, so closely intervening in local churches. Never before had the Pope decreed one universal script for Masses throughout virtually all the world. Never before had virtually every bishop in the world been named by the Pope; never before had he been able to remake local and national churches to his preferences. "I am Tradition," said Pope Pius in a moment of unguarded hubris - and he certainly seemed to be living that out, remaking the traditional church as he willed.
So, piloting this reactionary ship - and having just anathematized the proposition that the Pope should make peace with the modern world - Pope Pius IX summoned an ecumenical council to confirm his anathemas and set the Church ever more firmly against modernism and liberalism and democracy. He stage-managed the council and handpicked the people setting its agenda; the only way it escaped him was that it moved slower than he wanted. He didn't put papal infallibility on the first agenda, but he firmly endorsed it and got it included when it was proposed. But then, after less than a year, with only two decrees issued (including infallibility), the Italian army marched into Rome, and Pope Pius declared the council ended.
But for all the Roman Catholic Church's claims to be following tradition - for all the people at the time insisted they were following it - they were doing new things. Never before had Papal decrees been such a normal thing, so closely intervening in local churches. Never before had the Pope decreed one universal script for Masses throughout virtually all the world. Never before had virtually every bishop in the world been named by the Pope; never before had he been able to remake local and national churches to his preferences. "I am Tradition," said Pope Pius in a moment of unguarded hubris - and he certainly seemed to be living that out, remaking the traditional church as he willed.
July 7, 2021
The analysis definitely highlights the anti infallibility group, considering the final vote was like 500 in favor and only 85 opposed or something like that. The ultramontane party is more often presented as scheming than principled, but it's still a balanced and interesting book. A book could easily be written praising Pius IX and his refusal to allow European Nationalism to take over the church.
What a crazy time in Europe. I never really considered that papal infallibility was an anti government movement and a populist movement. It does seem like Pius IX invented the modern papacy, and his loss of the papal states set the stage for the shift from pope as ruler to pope as universal pastor. Definitely worth a read for understanding the history and later understanding of this somewhat controversial council. But again, it didn't really seem controversial to anyone besides nationalistic rulers and academics and the media. Much like modern religious reporting we get it filtered through hostile persons. Vatican I seems like it was the first stage of the church become and enemy of the elites.
What a crazy time in Europe. I never really considered that papal infallibility was an anti government movement and a populist movement. It does seem like Pius IX invented the modern papacy, and his loss of the papal states set the stage for the shift from pope as ruler to pope as universal pastor. Definitely worth a read for understanding the history and later understanding of this somewhat controversial council. But again, it didn't really seem controversial to anyone besides nationalistic rulers and academics and the media. Much like modern religious reporting we get it filtered through hostile persons. Vatican I seems like it was the first stage of the church become and enemy of the elites.
July 7, 2023
Very thorough and clearly presented. As a member of a Catholic (but not Roman Catholic) jurisdiction, it is a great way for me to start to understand the history of the Old Catholic movement, from which the church I attend descends. This topic is also a very small weakness of the book. The last word provided therein is that there was no mass schism as a result of Vatican I, which is true, but the Old Catholic church WAS formed as a result, and it continues today. The was it was written off in this way felt like dismissal, but I reconcile that by remembering that this book is not about the Catholic church in general, but rather the ROMAN Catholic church in particular.
I do highly recommend this work for anyone curious about how very different the RCC is today from what it was a couple hundred years ago. The infallibility doctrine was in existence from the beginning; it's relatively young. Additionally, there were other documents issued from Vatican I which I think would be more controversial if they were better known. Read this book to learn about that as well.
I do highly recommend this work for anyone curious about how very different the RCC is today from what it was a couple hundred years ago. The infallibility doctrine was in existence from the beginning; it's relatively young. Additionally, there were other documents issued from Vatican I which I think would be more controversial if they were better known. Read this book to learn about that as well.
January 15, 2022
A magisterial account of the ideas, theological evolution, Geo political events, and cultural shifts that lead to the first Vatican Council, along with a detailed account of the characters, debates, ideas and details in the council itself and its resulting documents.
Interesting from a historical perspective, especially for someone interested in church history. For me personally, it provided, a helpful understanding of the very complex ideas of “papal infallibility” in Pastor Aeternus and helped bring me to the conclusion that while I am catholic in many ways … probably more Catholic than many Catholics … I would not be able to “convert” in good conscience.
While Vatican II and subsequent Popes have helped dull the worst aspects of the Council’s decrees, moving the church toward a more Christ like witness, there is still much to be done … for the church in communion with Rome and the church outside that communion.
Interesting from a historical perspective, especially for someone interested in church history. For me personally, it provided, a helpful understanding of the very complex ideas of “papal infallibility” in Pastor Aeternus and helped bring me to the conclusion that while I am catholic in many ways … probably more Catholic than many Catholics … I would not be able to “convert” in good conscience.
While Vatican II and subsequent Popes have helped dull the worst aspects of the Council’s decrees, moving the church toward a more Christ like witness, there is still much to be done … for the church in communion with Rome and the church outside that communion.
January 3, 2024
This is a beginner's history about an incredibly significant era that we modern Americans tend to not know much about. It's a popular history, so it's easy for anyone to read and is quite engaging. I was amazed at how easily and clearly Father O'Malley was able to explain complex political and religious groups of this time period: Jansenists, Gallicans, and ultramontanes, and the very complex and diverse ways they interacted with different political regimes. The dynamics of this era and its events are profoundly influential for our own times. Father O'Malley is definitely more liberal than I am, but he is a learned historian and seems to be intellectually honest. It is uncommon that he presents his opinion on things, and when he does, it is easy to tell. I think this is a must-read for Catholics, especially as the decisions that were made then have come home to be reckoned with now.
December 15, 2022
An excellent history of the council and of the origins of the dogma of papal infallibility. Although I have come across the concepts of "Ultramontanism" and "Gallicanism" in the past, and have even attempted to learn more about the concepts (Wikipedia), I have never really understood them until now. I found the author to be evenhanded in his retelling of the council and its aftermath.
The only flaw - and this is not the fault of the author - is that the narrator of this audiobook is not the greatest with all of Italian, Latin, and German names and text. He didn't mangle the text, but his flaws cumulatively started to grate. But I won't hold it against my rating.
The author has also written books about Trent and Vatican II. I will definitely check them out.
The only flaw - and this is not the fault of the author - is that the narrator of this audiobook is not the greatest with all of Italian, Latin, and German names and text. He didn't mangle the text, but his flaws cumulatively started to grate. But I won't hold it against my rating.
The author has also written books about Trent and Vatican II. I will definitely check them out.
April 6, 2020
This is a very good look into Vatican I, but more importantly, what came before and after. O'Malley clearly has sympathies with what he called the "minority" position at Vatican I (read: Liberal). However, he manages to stand apart from that and only occasionally let his disdain and disapproval of the Ultramontane position and its premises show through.
For O'Malley, historical context has the ability to define and even change dogma. This is not a Catholic position, by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, with this incorrect premises and his bias, this is still a book worth reading if you are interested in recent Church history.
For O'Malley, historical context has the ability to define and even change dogma. This is not a Catholic position, by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, with this incorrect premises and his bias, this is still a book worth reading if you are interested in recent Church history.
July 26, 2023
Fr. O'Malley (RIP) succeeds in the daunting task of sketching out all of the many moving and interacting contextual parts (i.e. personalities, historical developments, intellectual & scientific trends, unforeseen circumstances (e.g. poor acoustics in the meeting hall), etc.) that brought the council into being, gave it its distinctive character, and made it so contentious. Examples of characters I had not encountered in my prior reading include Cardinal Manning of the UK, Ignaz von Döllinger from Germany, and Joseph de Maistre and Louis Veuillot of France, to name only a few. An excellent read for someone looking to deepen their understanding of recent Catholic history.
November 1, 2022
I’m sad to learn that the author passed away just a few weeks ago in September 2022. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to this book about Vatican I and I’m inspired to read his earlier work on Vatican II. The author makes the history and politics of 19th century Catholicism feel alive and exciting without assuming very much background knowledge on the reader’s part. I didn’t realize the author was a Jesuit until I finished the book, so maybe that’s a compliment to his “secular” style of writing history. I’m sure his classes at Georgetown were fantastic. RIP.
April 22, 2023
Helpful gloss of the cultural milieu preceding the council and the council’s decision making.
I would have enjoyed more historical detail (e.g., in various brief asides, the author talks about the housing accommodations, the set up of the narthex for the discussions, and the participants’ down time, but these insights were rare, and I would have loved more).
As for the audiobook, the voice actor was strong EXCEPT, critically, where pronunciation of church terms, Latin, Italian, French, and German were concerned. It was quite distracting and a major production oversight.
I would have enjoyed more historical detail (e.g., in various brief asides, the author talks about the housing accommodations, the set up of the narthex for the discussions, and the participants’ down time, but these insights were rare, and I would have loved more).
As for the audiobook, the voice actor was strong EXCEPT, critically, where pronunciation of church terms, Latin, Italian, French, and German were concerned. It was quite distracting and a major production oversight.
July 26, 2018
HOW THE POPE BECAME INFALLIBLE
So much of the faith of Catholics is bound up in their thoughts about the papacy that it’s hard to believe that infallibility wasn’t formally defined until 1870 at Vatican I. What they call an “ultramontane” church dominated by the pope has developed since then. Prior to that major decisions were more often made by councils of bishops. This book explains how all of that came to be.
So much of the faith of Catholics is bound up in their thoughts about the papacy that it’s hard to believe that infallibility wasn’t formally defined until 1870 at Vatican I. What they call an “ultramontane” church dominated by the pope has developed since then. Prior to that major decisions were more often made by councils of bishops. This book explains how all of that came to be.
August 2, 2022
If one is to learn about their faith then one will have to read the history. O'Malley did a fine job combining the politics and church teaching of the time. The debates between the Vatican and the major powers and working to compromise by keeping church teaching the same. I learned a lot about the church of the time and the abuses of the time and I learned how political leaders used the Vatican to get what they wanted. This was a great read/listen and worth the time.
June 21, 2018
I've been waiting literally two decades for a proper history of Vatican I (in English), and it makes sense that O'Malley was the one to do it. I'd say this is not quite as good as his books on Trent and V2, and is also a bit too short (246 pages, and they're not exactly quarto-size pages), but certainly worthwhile overall.
June 18, 2020
This book provides an account of the facts, that lead to Vatican I. The author has a wonderful style, he makes History accessible. In my opinion he has achieved a good resuming of the History of the Catholic Church from ca. 1750 to 1870. This History is essential to understand the development of the Church at least until the Vatican II Council (1962-1965).
February 11, 2020
Scanned more than read. O’Malley is a good writer, this topic is dense but author writes clearly. Still hard for me to understand it all.
Take away: bureaucracy in church since the beginning, way too many egos and men as well 🙂.
Take away: bureaucracy in church since the beginning, way too many egos and men as well 🙂.
May 1, 2021
This seems like a good and fair overview of the debates over infallibility and how that came to be. I feel it was a bit much for what I was looking for though, as there is a large cast of characters and quite detailed at points.
August 10, 2023
Excellent history of Vatican I, the council which promulgated into official Catholic dogma the infallibility of the pope. Must read for anyone interested in the nature of Catholic church in the modern era.
August 12, 2023
3.5.
I needed to read a book about church history, and I decided to go for something from my past, also being something that affects my family's present. Not much to report except that this is attainable for the pay reader and yet is quite rich in its detail. I listened to it fairly quickly.
I needed to read a book about church history, and I decided to go for something from my past, also being something that affects my family's present. Not much to report except that this is attainable for the pay reader and yet is quite rich in its detail. I listened to it fairly quickly.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews