Centenaries are supposed to be occasions when we take stock of the event we are commemorating. In the light of developments in the last hundred years how does the work of the First Vatican Council look today? And since it so happens that the hundred years in question includes the Second Vatican Council, recently concluded, it is natural to put the question in this form: how does the work of Vatican I look today, in the light of Vatican II?

I think it would be fair to say that it is widely considered that the work of Vatican I was a little unfortunate, and has since proved embarrassing, because its definitions enhanced the authority of the papacy. Vatican II is supposed to have helped to redress that balance by disclosing the nature of the Church as a whole, from the bishops down to the People of God, or perhaps I should say from the bishops up to the People of God, in view of our preference nowadays for turning everything upside down. Such critics of Vatican I are not, of course, denying either the dogmatic infallibility or the juridical primacy of the Pope, which were defined at that Council; but they are saying that it is a distortion to stress the powers of the papacy and to neglect the powers of the college of bishops or the rights of the rest of the Church, and they are saying that the one-sided definitions of Vatican I tended to create such distortion in men's minds until they were balanced by the pronouncements of Vatican II.