1. The two following examples are typical. Dulles, Avery in Models of the Church (Garden City, N.Y., 1974)Google Scholar writes: “Catholics, therefore, are commonly thought to be committed to the thesis that the Church is most aptly conceived as a single, unified ‘perfect society’”(p. 8). McBrien, Richard P. in The Remaking of the Church (New York, 1973)Google Scholar speaks of the pre-Vatican II period as one in which the Church saw itself “as an institutionalized societas perfecta” (p. 5).

2. For a concise treatment of the use of “society” in ecclesiology see Lawlor, Francis X., “Society (in Theology),” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 13:394–395.Google Scholar

3. Figgis, John N. notes that in the Counter-Reformation “the Jesuits developed the notion of the Church as a societas perfecta over against the other societas perfecta” (Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius: 1414–1625 [Cambridge, 1923], p. 64).Google Scholar

4. There were also ten “unofficial” schemata submitted by individual bishops. In many of them the concept of “societas” was central. They can be found under the title of Proponunlur Integra Schemata in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 53 vols. (Paris and Leipzig, 1901–1927), 51:863–916,Google Scholar hereafter referred to as Mansi.

5. The text of Supremi pastoris is in Mansi, 51:539–553, the adnotationes in 51:553–636, and the observationes in 51:731–863. The text of Tametsi Deus by Kleutgen and his Relatio are also in Mansi, 53:308–332.

6. Other directions of nineteenth-century ecclesiology are treated in Aubert, Roger, “La géographie ecclésiologique au XIXe siécle,” in Nédoncelle, Maruice et al. , l'ecclésiologie au XIXe siécle, Unam Sanctam 34 (Paris, 1960): 4–76Google Scholar and Hocedez, Edgar, Histoire de la théologie au XIXe siécle, 3 vols. (Brussels and Paris, 1947–1952).Google Scholar

7. Mansi, , 49:237–240.Google Scholar For the history of Vatican I in all its phases see: Aubert, Roger, Vatican I (Paris, 1964);Google ScholarButler, Cuthbert, The Vatican Council, 2 vols. (London, 1930);Google ScholarCecconi, Evgenio, Storia del concilia ecumenico Vaticano scritta sui documenti originali, 4 vols. (Rome, 1872–1879);Google Scholar and Granderath, Theodor and Kirch, Konrad, Geschtchte des Vaticanishchen Konzils, 3 vols. (Freiburg i. Br., 1903–1906).Google Scholar

8. Twenty-five members were on the commission: 15 Italians, 4 Germans, 1 Austrian, 2 French, 1 Spaniard, 1 Englishman, and 1 American. See also Betti, Umberto, La costituzione dommatica “Pastor aeternus” del concilio Vaticano I (Rome, 1961), pp. 7 ff;Google Scholar and Aubert, Roger, “La composition des commissions préparatoires du premier concile du Vatican,” in Iserloh, Erwin and Repgen, Konrad, eds., Reformata Reformanda: Festgabe Hubert Jedin 2 vols. (Münster, 1965), 2:447–482,Google Scholar and Hennesey, James, “National Traditions and the First Vatican Council,” Archivum historiae pontificae 7 (1969):491–512.Google Scholar

9. The commission also prepared three other schemas: on the Catholic doctrine against the error of Rationalism; on the Roman Pontiff; and on Christian marriage. See Mansi, , 49:749–750.Google Scholar

10. Mansi, , 49:621.Google Scholar

11. For further biographical data on these theologians see Dewan, William F., “Preparation of the Vatican Council's Schema on the Power and Nature of the Primacy,” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 36 (1960):33–37.Google Scholar Also, on Hettinger, see Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 6:2324–2325);Google Scholar on Perrone, , Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 12:1255–1256Google Scholar and New Catholic Encyclopedia 11:146;Google Scholar and on Schrader, , Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 14:1576–1579Google Scholar and New Catholic Encyclopedia 12:1178.Google Scholar

12. Only chapter 11 and the later caput addendum on papal infallibility were publicly debated. They were eventually joined and rearranged to form Pastor aeternus. A detailed commentary on Supremi pastoris can be found in van der Horst, Fidelis, Das Schema über die Kirche auf dem Vatikanischen Konzil (Paderborn, 1963).Google Scholar Also see Beumer, Johannes, “Das für das erste Vatikanische Konzil entworfene Schema De Ecclesia im Urteil der Konzilvater,” Scholastik 38 (1963):392–401.Google Scholar

13. Mansi, , 51:539.Google Scholar The translation of the documents is my own. English versions of part of Supremi pastoris can be found in Clarkson, John F., Edwards, John H. et al. , The Church Teaches (St. Louis, 1955), pp. 87–94;Google ScholarBenedictine Monks of Solesmes, Papal Teachings: The Church (Boston, 1962), pp. 809–823;Google Scholar and Neuner, Josef and Roos, Heinrich, The Teaching of the Catholic Church (Staten Island, N.Y., 1967), pp. 211–220.Google Scholar

14. See the remarks of Schwarzenberg of Prague (Mansi, 51:733); Tranóczy of Salzburg (Mansi, 51:734); David of St. Brieuc (Mansi, 51:739); Caixal y Estradé of Urgel (Mansi, 51:740); and Riario Sforza of Naples and thirteen others (Mansi, 51:741).

15. Mansi, 51:739.

16. American Protestants were sensitive to the polemical tone of Vatican I. See Beiser, J. Ryan, The Vatican Council and the American Secular Newspaper (Washington, 1941)Google Scholar and Smylie, James H., “American Protestants Interpret Vatican Council I,” Church History 38 (1969):459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. The Orthodox Church was mentioned only once, in a negative way, in the notes to Chapter 11 on the primacy of the pope. See Mansi, 51:598.

18. Passaglia taught Scheeben at the Roman College and collaborated with Schrader on various projects. For a discussion of Schrader's understanding of the Mystical Body based on his course at the University of Vienna in 1866 see Schauf, Heribert, De corpore Christi mystico sive de ecclesia Christi theses. Die Ekklesiologie der Konziltheologen Clemens Schrader, S.J. (Freiburg, 1959).Google Scholar

19. Mansi, 51:533.

20. Ramadié of Perpignan (Mansi, 51:741). Also Ketteler of Mainz (Mansi, 51:745).

21. David of St. Brieuc (Mansi, 51:755).

22. Ramadié of Perpignan (Mansi, 51:760); Lyonnett of Albi (ibid.); and Dupanloup of Orléans (ibid.).

23. Mansi, 51:761. For further information on the theology of the Mystical Body and Vatican I see Madoz, J., “La Iglesia cuerpo mistico de Cristo según el primer esquema ‘De Ecclesia’ en el concilio Vaticano,” Revista Expañola de teologia 31 (1943):159–181Google Scholar and Kerkvoorde, Auguste, “La théologie du Corps mystique au XIX^e siécle,” Nouvelle revue théologique 67 (1945):417–430.Google Scholar

24. The use of “societas” in the schema may be attributed to the influence of Perrone. According to Hamer, Jerome, “Perrone was the prime author of the whole of the first ten chapters” (The Church is a Communion [New York, 1964], p. 15).Google Scholar Perrone was certainly responsible for paragraph 5 of the Syllabus of Errors (see Mansi, 49:622) which referred to the Church as a perfect society (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 2919). Schrader, however, edited the entire schema. His influence is certainly present in chapter 1: “The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.”

25. Mansi, 51:540.

26. Ibid., p. 555. Canon 1 reads: “If anyone shall say that the religion of Christ exists and is expressed in no particular society founded by Christ, but that it can be properly observed and practiced by each one after his own manner, without taking into account whether there be a society which is the true Church, let him be anathema” (Mansi, 51:551).

27. Ibid., p. 540.

28. Ibid., p. 746.

29. Ibid., p. 745.

30. Ibid., p. 734.

31. Ibid., p. 738.

32. Ibid., p. 774.

33. Ibid., p. 540. Canon 10 reads: “If anyone shall say that the Church is not a perfect society but a collegium, or that it is within civil society or the State in such a way that it is subject to secular power, let him be anathema” (Ibid., p. 552). Dupanloup of Orléans rejected the entire canon, since “the concept of perfect society is uncertain; the word collegium is obvious only to a few” (Ibid., p. 860). Chapters 13, 14, and 15 treated in detail the relationship between the Church and civil society.

34. Ibid., p. 540.

35. Ibid., p. 560.

36. Ibid., p. 775.

37. Ibid., p. 778.

38. Callot of Oran (Ibid., p. 775), Dupanloup of Orléans (Ibid., p. 777), Ginoulhiac of Grenoble (Ibid., p. 779).

39. Ibid., p. 779.

40. Ibid., p. 776.

41. Ibid., p. 770.

42. Ibid. On the role of the English bishops see Cwiekowski, Frederick J., The English Bishops and the First Vatican Council (Louvaine, 1971).Google Scholar

43. Ibid., p. 543.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Canon 1I reads: “If anyone shall say that the Church is divinely instituted as a society of equals, that the bishops truly have an office and a ministry, but not a proper power to govern which belongs to them by divine right and is to be freely exercised by them, let him be anathema” (ibid., p. 552).

47. Ibid., p. 837.

48. Ibid., p. 840.

49. Ibid., p. 834.

50. Ibid., p. 835. Raess of Strasbourg said that no perfect society is egalitarian (ibid., p. 836).

51. Ibid., p. 836.

52. Ibid., p. 551.

53. Ibid., p. 540.

54. Ibid., p. 541.

55. De controversiis (De ecclesia militante), Tom. 2, L. 3, c. 2 (Naples, 1857), vol. 2, p. 75.Google Scholar

56. Ibid., p. 780.

57. Ibid., p. 782.

58. Ibid., p. 784.

59. Ibid., p. 541.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid., p. 543.

63. See Griffin, John R., “Dr. Pusey and the Oxford Movement,” The Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 42 (1973):137–153.Google Scholar

64. Mansi, 51:785.

65. Ibid., p. 786.

66. Ibid., p. 785–786.

67. Ibid., p. 541.

68. Found in Denzinger, Heinrich and Schönmetzer, Adolf, Enchrirdion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum 36th ed. (Freiburg, 1976), 2730.Google Scholar

69. Observations made by Dinkel of Augsburg (Mansi, 51:796), Callot of Oran (ibid., p. 793), and Ramadié of Perpignan (ibid.).

70. Mansi, 51:790. On American participation in the council see Hennesey, James, The First Council of the Vatican: The American Experience (New York, 1963).Google Scholar

71. Nicolau, Michael and Salaverri, Joachim, Sacrae theologiae summa, 3rd ed. (Madrid, 1955), 1:826.Google Scholar Salaverri refers to both schemata of Vatican I (p. 830).

72. See Granderath, Theodor, Constitutiones dogmaticae sacrosancti oecumenici concilii Vaticani ex ipsis actis explicitae atque illustratae (Freiburg, 1892), pp. 110–111.Google Scholar Also see Gadille, Jacques, “La phase decisive de Vatican I: Mars-Avril 1870,” Annunarium historiae conciliorum 1 (1969):336–347.Google Scholar

73. Mansi, 53:238.

74. Biographical information on Kleutgen can be found in Lakner, Franz, “Kleutgen und die kirchliche Wissenschaft Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für katolische Theologie 57 (1933):161–214;Google ScholarDictionnaire de théologie catholique 8:2359–2360;Google Scholar and New Catholic Encyclopedia 8:212.Google Scholar On Kleutgen's methodology see McCool, Gerald A., Catholic Theology in the Nineteenth Century: The Quest for a Unitary Method (New York, 1977), pp. 167–215.Google Scholar

75. Mansi, 53:308–317. I know of no English translation of Tamesti Deus A theological commentary on Kleutgen's schema can be found in van der Horst, Das Schema and Torrell, J.-P., La théologie de l'épiscopat au premier concile du Vatican, Unam Sanctam 37 (Paris, 1961):247–279.Google Scholar

76. Mansi, 53:317–332.

77. Pastor aeternus was enacted on July 18, 1870. During the summer there were three general congregations (87, 88, 89), but little was accomplished. The council was suspended on October 20, 1870. Two days later, on October 22, Martin John Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore, wrote Cardinal Barnabò, the Prefect of the Congregation de propaganda fide, suggesting that the council be transferred to Malines in Belgium. No action was taken. See Granderath, , Geschichte des Vaticanischen Konzils, 3:539–541.Google Scholar

78. It is not found in the Collectio Lacensis.

79. “L'oeuvre ecclésiologique du concile du Vatican: Une tache inachevée,” Études 307 (1960):301.Google Scholar

80. “Le corps épiscopal uni au Pape, son autorité dans l'Eglise, d'aprés les documents du premier concile du Vatican,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 45 (1961):25.Google Scholar

81. “L'ecclésiologie au concile du Vatican,” in Maurice Nédoncelle, Roger Aubert et al., L'eccléstiologie au XIX^e siécle, p. 245.Google Scholar

82. “L'ecclésiologie au concile du Vatican,” in Bernard Botte, Henri Marot et al., Le concile et les conciles (Gembloux, 1960), p. 260.Google Scholar

83. Mansi, 53:317.

84. De controversiis (De ecclesia militante), see note 55 above. According to Kleutgen, , “this definition does not exclude occult heretics from the Church as long as they profess the true faith; it does, however, exclude schismatics even if they are not heretics” (Mansi, 53:317).Google Scholar

85. Mansi, 53:319.

86. Ibid., p. 309. Canon I reads: “If anyone shall say that the religion founded by Christ is not truly a church or society in which the faithful can commonly profess their Christian religion, but that this can be practiced and observed by each one separately, let him be anathema” (Ibid., p. 316).

87. Mansi, 53:319.

88. Ibid. Canon 4 is relevant here: “If anyone shall say that the Church, to which was made the divine promises, is not an external and visible assembly of the faithful, but a spiritual society of the predestined and the just known only to God, let him be anathema” (Ibid., p. 316).

89. Mansi, 53:315. Thus, Canon 13: “If anyone shall say that the Church is not a perfect society by its own right, but that it is subject to civil power, let him be anathema” (Ibid., p. 317).

90. Mansi, 53:318.

91. Ibid. Citation is from De civitate Dei, L. 12, c. 1 (corpus christianorum Series Latina [Turnhout, 1955], vol. 48, p. 355).Google ScholarLawlor, , “Society,” p. 394,Google Scholar gives other quotations from Augustine which are appropriate in this context. Augustine used society in a Trinitarian framework. Thus: “The society of the unity of the Church of God, outside of which there is no forgiveness of sins, is, as it were, the proper work of the Holy Spirit (the Father and the Son, to be sure, working together with Him), because the Holy Spirit Himself is in a certain sense the society of the Father and the Son” (Serm. 71:20–33, PL 38:463).Google Scholar Also: “The society by which we are made the one Body of God's only Son, is the Spirit's role” (Ibid., PL 38:461).

92. For a discussion of this point in Ultramontane ecclesiology see Pottmeyer, Heizmann-Josef, Unfehlbarkeit und Souveränität (Mainz, 1975), pp. 346–388.Google Scholar

93. Roger Aubert says that if the two schemata had been discussed by the council, “the discussions would have undoubtedly improved one or other specific details, but the text would have retained its character which was insufficiently biblical, too sociological, too juridical, and without adequate concern for communitarian aspects” (Le concile et les conciles, pp. 261–262.).