giovanni perrone's theological curriculum and the first vatican council

RHE_2015_3-4_08-Shea 789 / 816 CULTURA • WETTEREN 03/09/2015 11:44:16

DOI : xxxxxxxxxxxxx

GIOVANNI PERRONE’S THEOLOGICAL CURRICULUM AND THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL*

One could easily regard the First Vatican Council as an unfin-ished affair. The Council took place over less than eight months, and was cut short by the Franco-Prussian war and the invasion of Rome by the newly formed Italian state. The Council was pro-rogued but never officially closed in the 19th century, and a host of issues intended for deliberation never came to pass during the conciliar period. These issues included a dogmatic constitution on the Church, a statement on the Church’s relationship to the modern state, a new universal catechism, as well as measures re-lated to bishops, priests, ecclesiastical discipline, and missions.1 The First Vatican Council did not attain to the comprehensive programs of reform laid forth at Trent and the Second Vatican Council, but it would be an exaggeration to maintain that it of-fered no programmatic vision for the Church of its day.

* The author wishes to thank Benjamin O’Conner, Geertjan Zuijdwegt, and the RHE’s anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

1 One can appreciate the breadth of proposed conciliar initiatives by ex-amining the official acts of the Preparatory Commission in Sacrorum con-ciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. 53 vols. I. Mansi, et al., ed., Leipzig, H. Welter, 1758-1927, 49, p. 477-1308 (cited hereafter Mansi). For overviews of proposed conciliar initiatives, see Henri Rondet, Vatican I, le concile de Pie IX. La préparation, les méthodes de travail, les schémas restés en suspens, Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1962 ; John Dick, Jürgen Mettepenningen, and Karim Schelkens, Aggiornamento? Catholicism from Gregory XVI to Benedict XVI., Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 44-60; Klaus Schatz, Vaticanum I, 1869-1870. 3 vols., Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1992-1994, 2, p. 81-133; Gia-como Martina, Pio IX. 3 vols., Rome, Università Gregoriana, 1974-1990, 3, p. 158-166; Roger Aubert, Vatican I, Paris, Éditions de l’Orante, 1964, p. 54-69; Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council 1869-1870, Westmin-ster, md, The Newman Press, 1962, p. 188-211. See also Fidelis Van Der Horst, Das Schema über die Kirche auf dem I. Vatikanischen Konzil, Pader-born, Bonifacius-Druckerei, 1963, for a detailed analysis of the far more comprehensive schema on the Church that was first proposed at the Council.


c. m. shea790

In certain key ways, it did provide a vision. Participants at the First Vatican Council prepared foundational texts for initial consideration, similar to the procedures at Trent and Vatican II. The first of the Council’s schemas became Dei Filius, The Con-stitution on the Catholic Faith.2 Although the text dealt osten-sibly with speculative questions of creation, revelation, and the relationship between faith and reason, the theme of authority in the text involved the Church and implicated the question of au-thority’s locus and purview. The second document passed by the Council, Pastor Aeternus, dealt with the infallibility of the papal magisterium, and referred to faith as an assent to revealed truth by divine authority delegated to the Church.3

These two constitutions thus presented a degree of mutual coherence, for faith involves both authority and an ecclesial di-mension. The relationship between these ideas, however, has been largely unexamined. This article will situate the basic coherence of the First Vatican Council’s pronouncements within the broader theological framework shared by a large and influential segment of the Council’s participants. The study specifically traces a key historical factor — — Roman theological education — to ex-plain how the issues of faith, reason, and papal authority emerged as a distinct constellation of conciliar initiatives.

An overlooked theologian, pedagogue, and curial official at the Council, the Jesuit professor Giovanni Perrone, helps us to un-derstand this distinctive grouping of theological concerns. From the middle of the 1830s until the time of the Council, Perrone’s curriculum, the Praelectiones theologicae, enjoyed unparalleled status in Roman circles. For the bishops and theologians within the orbit of Roman teaching, prioritizing and linking questions of faith and reason with papal authority was a nearly unques-tioned backdrop to reflection on matters of faith. Thus for many participants at the Council, whether of the majority or minor-

2 “Session 3, April 24, 1870: Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic Faith,” in H. Denzinger, and P. Hünermann, eds. Enchiridion symbolorum definitionem et declarationem de rebus fidei et morum, Compen-dium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. 43rd Latin-English, ed. R. Fastiggi, and A. Nash, trans., San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2012, § 3000-3045 (hereafter cited, DH, with enumeration pertaining to section number).

3 “Session 4, July 18, 1870: First Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on the Church of Christ” (DH 3050-3075, see proemium, 3050-3052).


giovanni perrone’s theological curriculum 791

ity, the curriculum’s coupling of such theological loci provided a compelling means of meeting the challenges facing the Church in the 19th century.

Giovanni Perrone and his theological curriculum

Giovanni Perrone is an almost forgotten figure today, but it is hard to overstate his importance for Roman Catholic theology and magisterial teaching in the 19th century.4 Perrone played a key role in theological instruction, directing of studies at the Col-legio Romano — now the Gregorian University — for over fifty years (from 1824 until his death in 1876). During this period, he served on more than ten curial commissions, and assumed an im-portant role in the ecclesiastical scrutiny of semi-rationalists and traditionalists.5 Perrone played a pivotal role in the definition of

4 In the 1960s Perrone was the subject of two monographs, Giulio da Nembero, La definibilità dell’immacolata concezione negli scritti e nell’attività di Giovanni Perrone, S.J., Milan, 1961; and Walter Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Römische Schule, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1962. A hand-ful of subsequent studies have also drawn more brief attention to his work, Gerald McCool, Nineteenth-Century Scholasticism: The Search for a Unitary Method, New York, 1977, p. 220; Peter Walter, Die Frage der Glaubensbe-gründung als innerer Erfahrung auf dem I. Vaticanum, die Stellungnahme des Konzils vor dem Hintergrund der Zeitgenössischen römischen Theologie, Mainz, Matthias-Grünewald, 1980, p. 17-64; Karl Neufeld, ‘Römische Schule’: Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zur genaueren Bestimmung, in Gregorianum, 63 (1982), p. 677-99; Giacomo Martina, Il Collegio Romano: 1824-1873, in Roma moderna e contemporanea, 3/3 (1995), p. 667-91. More recently see: Jérôme Rousse-Lacordaire, La cabale au service du christianisme au XIXe

siècle, in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 96/4 (2012), p. 703-749; and Charles Shea, Faith, Reason, and Ecclesiastical Authority in Giovanni Perrone’s Praelectiones Theologicae, in Gregorianum, 95/1 (2014), p. 159-177.

5 Hubert Wolf, ed., Römische Inquisition und Indexkongregation. Proso-pographie, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 2005, 3.1, p. 1163-1168; Johan Ickx, La Santa Sede tra Lamennais e San Tomasso d’Aquino: la condanna di Gerard Casimir Ubaghs e della dottrina dell’Università Cattolica di Lovanio, 1834-1870, Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2005, p. 80-87, 270-272, 279-282, 293-299, 328-331, 547-549; Philippe Boutry, Souverain et pontife: recherches prosopographiques sur la curie romaine à l’âge de la restau-ration 1814-1846, Rome, École Française de Rome, 2002, p. 733-734; Erich Naab, Perrone, Giovanni, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, VII (1994), p. 227-229. The most complete biographical account of Perrone’s life remains his funeral oration, Antonio Angelino, Onori funebri renduti al Padre Giovanni Perrone della Compagnia di Gesù nella Chiesa di S. Ignazio


c. m. shea792

the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854: he wrote the first major work on the definability of the doctrine at Pius IX’s behest in 1847, and produced the first draft of the official declaration in 1852.6

Perrone’s importance to the Church in his day emanated from his unaffected faithfulness, clarity, and prodigious capacity for work rather than his originality or brilliance. Perrone was the most well-known and respected professor in Rome during the 19th century, and his contributions to curial undertakings had much to do with this duty. A former student’s reminiscence of Perrone is worth citing at length:

A well known persona of those times in Rome was Fr. Giovanni Per-rone, a professor in the Roman College and a Piedmontese. When I saw him for the first time, I was almost frightened — so ugly was his appearance; a true Socratic face on an equally uncomely body. As soon as he spoke, his traits became beautiful, then he could at times enrapture. He was a positive theologian in the sense of the old school and understood dogmas correctly, clearly, and completely in order to lay them forth in their rudiments; on the other hand, he steered clear of speculative questions, and a saying was often heard from him: “Quidquid sit, hoc relinquimus Scholasticis.” Perrone was no shining teacher, but a dignified one, and none of his students went away from him without a great bond of gratitude to him; he did not fascinate through witty, bold ideas and elegant, fine-tuned diction, but he offered healthy teaching, and his Catholic sense always en-abled him to find what was right. Simple and kind in his undertak-ings, as a teacher and writer he was restlessly active. He spent his life in uninterrupted routine; the place in the library where he worked was seldom empty for more than forty years.7

presso al Collegio Romano, il giorno 23 Novembre 1876, Rome, Tipografia del Commercio, 1876. For a bibliography of Perrone’s theological writings, see Carlos Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus. Nouvelle Édi-tion. 12 vols, Paris, Alphonse Picard, 1890-1932, 4, p. 558-571.

6 De Immaculato B. V. Mariae conceptu an dogmatico decreto definiri pos-sit, Rome, Ioannes Baptista Marini and Bernardus Morini, 1847. Perrone’s schema, Deus Omnipotens, can be found in Vincenzo Sardi, ed. La solenne definizione del Dogma dell’Immacolato Concepimento di Maria Santissima: Atti e documenti II. 2 vols. Rome, Tipografia Vaticana, 1905, 2, p. 22-38. For discussion see, da Nembero, La definibilità… [see n. 4], p. 85-104.

7 “Eine bekannte Erscheinung zu jener Zeit in Rome war P. Joh. Per-rone, Professor am Römischen Kollegium, ein Piemontese. Als ich ihn zum erstenmal sah, erschrak ich fast, so häßlich war seine Gestalt; ein wahres Sokratesgesicht auf einem gleichfalls unschönen Kumpfe. Erst wenn er



Perrone’s quiet industriousness elicited widespread respect and contributed to his influence in Rome. Perrone trained more than four generations of Church leaders. “Non sumus episcopi,” Perrone was known to say, “sed facimus episcopos.”8 The leaders that Per-rone trained in Rome would later call upon his services and the services of his students.

Perrone’s curriculum for training priests, the Praelectiones Theologicae, was one of his most influential achievements. The Praelectiones went through thirty-four editions between 1835 and the 1870s; a Compendium of the text went through an additional forty-seven editions during the same time.9 The curriculum was the first to offer the Roman Church a full-fledged methodology for theological inquiry, and strikingly anticipated themes of the Vatican Council’s constitutions.10

The curriculum was divided into four years. The first year in-troduced students to the authority structures of the Church, God, creation, Christ, and the communion of saints. The second year covered the seven sacraments. Years three and four of Perrone’s curriculum dealt exclusively with questions of faith and reason, as well as ecclesiastical authority. Exactly half of Perrone’s four-

sprach, verschönerten sich seine Züge; dann konnte er zuweilen hinreißen. Er war ein positive Theolog im Sinn der älteren Schule und verstand es, die Dogmen korrekt, klar, vollständig, gründlich darzulegen; spekulativen Fragen dagegen wich er aus, und es war ein von ihm häufig gehörtes Wort: Quidquid sit, hoc relinquimus Scholasticis. Perrone war kein glänzender, aber ein gediegener Lehrer, un keiner seiner Schüler ging von ihm hinweg, ohne ihm zu großem Danke verpflichtet zu sein; er fesselte nicht durch geist-reiche, kühne Ideen und elegante, gefeilte Diktion, aber er bot eine gesunde Lehre, und sein katholischer Sinn ließ ihn immer das Richtige treffen. Ein-fach und liebenswürdig im Umgange, als Lehrer und Schriftsteller rastlos tatig, brachte er sein Leben in ununterbrochener Regelmäßigkeit zu; sein Platz in der Bibliotek, wo er arbeitete, war durch mehr als vierzig Jahre hindurch selten leer” (Franz Hettinger, Aus Welt und Kirche, Freiburg, Herder, 1911, 1, p. 81).

8 Hettinger, Aus Welt und Kirche… [see n. 8], 1, p. 82.9 Charles Boyer, Jean Perrone, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. 15

vols., A. Vacant, ed., Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1899-1950, 12, p. 1255-1256 (1255). Sommervogel, Bibliothèque… [see n. 5], 6, p. 558-572 (558-560). The edition of Perrone’s curriculum cited for present purposes will be, Praelectiones theologicae, quas in Collegio Romani habebat, Johannes Perrone e Societate Jesu in eod. Coll. Theol. Prof., 2 vols., Paris, Montrouge, 1842.

10 For a more extended treatment of themes in Perrone’s curriculum, see Charles Shea, Faith, Reason… [see n. 4], p. 159-177.


c. m. shea794

year curriculum dealt with theological methodology. The signif-icance of the Praelectiones for purposes here was how closely it drew together questions of faith and reason with those of author-ity mediated through the Church. These issues were not just ex-plicitly linked for students; they provided the very structure for the entire four years of study.

The Praelectiones opened with a simplified version of the trea-tise on theological loci, entitled Tractatus de vera religione contra incredulos et heterodoxos.11 The treatise began with a rebuttal of atheistic positions and argued for the reasonableness of divine revelation on account of miraculous signs (contra incredulos).12 The second part of the treatise (contra hereticos) was a polemic against those who believed in revelation but not the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.13

A contention against the Perrone’s position on revelation was its supposed ambiguity and obscurity.14 He responded to this charge by arguing for the efficacy of external signs in conjunction with the consensus and testimony of the Church. In the second half of the treatise (contra hereticos), Perrone developed the theme of an essential public witness to revelation to argue for the necessity of the ecclesiastical magisterium. This argument turned on whether God entrusted revelation to the individual (spiritus privatus) or to a believing community. Perrone’s conclusion was unequivocal: God entrusted revelation to the community. Since revelation was given at the time of the apostles in written and in verbal form, it was a datum subject to interpretation or misinterpretation as any object of external inquiry might be.15 The individual, for Perrone, was unable to pass through the veil of uncertainty that surrounds revelation, because revelation’s existence was remote from imme-

11 For overviews of the treatise, see Walter, Die Frage… [see n. 4], p. 19-27; and Kasper, Die Lehre… [see n. 4], p. 29-32.

12 Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 1, p. 17-164.13 Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 1, p. 163-232.14 “Ambiguaque semper res est revelatio; nunquam enim ille qui revela-

tionem accipit ita certus de ea esse potest, ut nullam moveat suspicionem erroris atque fallaciae; et sane…plures turpiter quovis tempore decepti sunt circa internas eiusmodi inspirationes, quae non nisi lusus turbatae mentis fuerunt, imaginationesque falsae, quales sunt quae dormientibus occurrunt” (Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 1, p. 20).

15 See “Propositio IV,” (Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 1, p. 181-186).



diate human experience. Only a living community, invested with many of the same qualities as the deposit of faith — that is, be-ing public, exterior, and infallible — could serve as a steward of that deposit and a witness to its credibility.16

Perrone’s curriculum had a definitive trajectory. For beginning students, the Tractatus de vera religione outlined the authoritative principles of the Praelectiones. Perrone expounded on these prin-ciples for third- and fourth-year students in the treatise De locis theologicis. Perrone was explicit about the significance of begin-ning and ending the course of study with an exposition on the nature of revelation, faith, reason, and the importance of external authority. In his introduction to De locis theologicis, he explained the relationship between the two “book ends” for his curriculum:

[P]ursuing the path that we embraced in the last part of our treatise entitled: On True Religion Against Heretics, in order to attain our goal, it seems to us better to begin with the Church, the prescription of which we have already established, or if I may so speak, her anterio-rity, which we confirmed over and over in the same treatise. Now, one can collect from this principle, as from a most fruitful harvest, all that concerns holy Scripture and tradition, be it oral, or written, and consigned to other documents, or transmitted to us by any other medium. Once this is solidly established, one will be able to pass to other questions, which, in our days especially, have been the object of sharp controversy, namely, the analogy of reason and faith.17

Perrone regarded the debate over the proper employment of faith and reason as the critical question of his day. In the intro-ductory treatise, Perrone introduced the question of revelation, faith, and authority in epistemological order: beginning with the

16 Ibid.17 “Quamobrem iter insistendo, quod et alias ingressi sumus in poste-

riori tractationis nostrae parte quam de Vera religione adversus heterodoxos inscripsimus, magis ad rem conficiendam opportunum nobis visum est ex-ordiri ab Ecclesia cujus praescriptionem, sive anterioritatem, ut ita loquar, cum jam constituimus, sic magis ac magis in hac ipsa tractatione confirm-abimus. Ex hoc porro principio velut ex uberrima segete pronum erit col-ligere quae ad sacram Scripturam, et ad traditionem sive oralem, sive lit-teris, documentisque deinceps consignatam, aliave ratione ad nos deductam referuntur. Quibus absolutis firmiterque constabilitis, pandetur via ad reli-quas quaestiones agitandas de quibus acris controversia aetate potissimum hac nostra et contentio excitata est, de analogia videlicet rationis ac fidei” (Giovanni Perrone, Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 2, p. 688-689, quotation taken from Shea, Faith… [see n. 10], p. 169).


c. m. shea796

possibility of revelation, and ending with revelation’s necessary conditions. In the treatise concluding the curriculum, Perrone posed the issue in ontological order: beginning with the Church and ecclesiastical authority; proceeding to scripture and tradition; and ending with the proper understanding of faith and reason.

The curriculum’s theology of faith and reason thus presupposed the entire framework of ecclesiological and salvation-economic re-lations taught by the Church. For Perrone, faith was by nature oriented to external authority. Perrone defined faith as “the free assent, which the intellect, preceded and helped by divine grace, gives to truths revealed by God, on account of divine authority.”18 Divine authority was faith’s formal motive.19 But the individual responded to this authority within the ambit of the Church. Per-rone called this proximate authority the “rule of faith.”20 Hence the very act of faith involved a public, ecclesial dimension. As Perrone explained in the Tractatus de vera religione:

[T]he act of faith is composed of two things; it is composed, as is said, of the material object; such are the revealed truths and the formal object or motive, namely, the authority and veracity of the revealing God. And these two things united with the help of divine grace are necessary and sufficient to constitute an act of faith. In consequence, when we say that those who reject the Catholic Church and follow the fantasies of their private spirit have no faith, we understand by this that they have no proximate rule, universal and infallible, to propose

18 “Liberum illum assensum quem intellecta divina gratia praevenus et adjutus praebet veritatibus, supernaturaliter revelatis ob Dei ipsius reve-lantis auctoritatem” (Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 2, p. 1260-1261).

19 As the following passage makes clear: “Sic igitur propositam thesim evincimus: fides ex dictis est assensus liber quem praebet intellectus a di-vina gratia praeventus et adjutus, ex imperio voluntatis a gratia item exci-tatae, veritatibus divinitus revelatis, ob Dei ipsius revelantis auctoritatem; quo fit, ut fides plane supernaturalis sit 1. ex principio eam gignente, nempe ex gratia quae supervenit naturae, quaeque prorsus gratuita est; 2. Ex ob-jecto quod constituitur ab omnibus solis veritatibus quas Deus homini pate-facere dignatus est modo peculiari ab eoque plane distincto quo seipsum in naturae operibus manifestat; 3. ex motivo, quod vocant, formale, quodque aliud non est aut esse potest quam Dei ipsius revelantis auctoritas, quae in-cludit summam ejus sapientiam, bonitatem ac veracitatem, quibus ipse nec decipi nec decipere potest” (Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 2, p. 1360). Original emphasis.

20 This became the subject of one of Perrone’s most prolific works, Il protestantismo e la regola di fede, Turin, Tipografo Libraio, 1854, which is an elaboration of the principles set forth in the Praelectiones theologicae.



to us in a sure manner the revealed truths, [and] the veritable sense of revelation, in a manner that we can in no way be mistaken about the material object. For, since revelation is supernatural and comes from God, since its sense is such and not otherwise, it is in this way a fact of which we cannot have certitude except by way of those to whom God himself has rendered testimony, the depositors and inter-preters. These since the beginning were the apostles, one with Peter, in whom the teaching Church unites. [The Church] is always alive and perseveres unceasingly by the living magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of Peter, and in the bishops, who are con-joined with him and subordinated to him.21

Perrone’s methodology brought faith, reason, and ecclesiasti-cal authority into coherent and compelling schema. According to his curriculum, human reason demanded a trustworthy external authority — or rule — that could testify to truths beyond its sphere. Faith was this rule, both illuminating reason’s boundar-ies and surpassing its natural limits. The Church alone provided a heuristic guide to the truths of faith and functioned as a del-egate of divine authority. In Perrone’s curriculum, the questions of faith, reason, and ecclesiastical authority formed a seamless garment.

Perrone’s influence in the 19th century

Perrone’s curriculum played an important role in shaping cur-rents of Roman Catholic thought during the nineteenth century

21 “[A]ctum fidei bifariam constare, tum nempe ex objecto, ut vocant, materiali, cujusmodi sunt veritates ipsae revelatae, tum ex objecto formali, seu motivo, auctoritate scilicet et veracitate Dei revelantis, quae quidem duo una cum divinae gratiae auxilio requiruntur et sufficient ad actum fidei theologicae constituendum. Quum proinde dicimus respectu eorum, qui auc-toritate ecclesiae catholicae rejiciunt, ut sectentur placita spiritus privati, nullam dari fidem, id intelligimus ex defectu regulae proximae universalis atque infallibilis, quae nobis tuto proponat tum veritates revelatas tum ve-rum sensum revelationis, ita ut circa objectum materiale decipi nulla ra-tione possimus. Quod enim revelatio supernaturalis data divinitus fuerit, et quod talis et non alius sensus sit ejusmodi revelationis, est quoddam factum, de quo nobis certo constare non potest, nisi per eos, quos Deus ipse con-stituit ejusdem testes, depositarios ac interpretes, quales ab initio fuerunt apostoli una cum Petro, in quibus coepit ecclesia docens, quae viva semper est ac jugiter perseverat vivo magisterio suo in romanis pontificibus, Petri successoribus, atque in episcopis, qui cum ipsis conjunguntur et ipsius sub-ordinantur” (Praelectiones theologicae… [see n. 9], 1, p. 214-5).


c. m. shea798

in general and at the First Vatican Council in particular. The Praelectiones and its abridgement went through more than eighty editions during the middle decades of the nineteenth century. The places where the curriculum was in use were particularly signifi-cant.22 The Collegio Romano, which used the Praelectiones, trained over 100 bishops during the 1830-1850s.23 Also, in the late 1840s and 1850s, bishops in several episcopal synods in Italy, including Pisa, Umbria, Venice, Sienna, and Rome, designated the curricu-lum as mandatory or advisable in seminary education.24

The curriculum’s immediate circle of influence was the “Ro-man School” of theology. This not only included Perrone’s stu-dents and successors at the Collegio Romano, but also included others influenced by Perrone’s thought.25 The Roman School in-cluded influential theologians such as Carlo Passaglia, Clemens Schrader, and Johann Baptist Franzelin, some of whom played important roles in drafting official magisterial statements and in controversies leading up to the First Vatican Council.

The Roman School has sometimes been a subject of historical debate, since even its central adherents diverged from each other in significant ways.26 Perrone himself might be characterized best as an exemplar of “eclectic scholasticism,” which defined theology in Rome from the restoration of the Jesuits until the 1850s. Perrone freely drew inspiration from the Bible, the Greek Fathers, me-dieval and baroque scholastics, as well as contemporaries such as Johann Adam Möhler and John Henry Newman.27 It is right to characterize Perrone as a positive theologian in so far as he

22 See below, p. 12-15.23 L’Università Gregoriana del Collegio Romano, nel primo secolo dalla resti-

tuzione, Rome, Tipografia Cuggiani, 1924, p. 240-261.24 Acta et decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum. Collectio Lacensis,

Freiburg, Herder, 1882, 6, p. 232, 264, 761, 795; for Venice, see Mansi, 47, p. 1165-1166.

25 Peter Walter, Römische Schule, in LThK, (1999), 8, p. 1292; Salva-dor Pie-Ninot, Las dos escuelas actuales de teología fundamental, in Estu-dios eclesiásticos, 73 (1998), p. 255-260; Karl Neufeld, ,Römische Schule‘: Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zur genaueren Bestimmung, in Gregorianum, 63 (1982), p. 677-699; Kasper, Die Lehre… [see n. 4], p. 9-26.

26 Neufeld, ,Römische Schule‘… [see n. 25], p. 677-699.27 Charles Shea, Father Giovanni Perrone and Doctrinal Development in

Rome: An Overlooked Legacy of Newman’s Essay on Development, in Journal for the History of Modern Theology, 20/1 (2013), p. 85-116; and Id., Newman,



focused on the sources of revelation and largely eschewed rigorous systematization and speculative questions.28

Perrone’s students were somewhat different from their teacher. Carlo Passaglia and Clemens Schrader worked closely with one another and drew their inspiration primarily from the Greek Fa-thers and the Jesuit theologian and patristic scholar Denys Pétau (1583-1652).29 Passaglia, the senior of the two, achieved his great-est influence in the Church during the 1850s. Schrader was sent to Austria in 1857, and Passaglia, disheartened, left the Jesuit order and Rome in 1860 to join the cause of Italian unification.30 De-spite Passaglia’s differences from Perrone in theological interests and style, his apologetic approach in the 1850s emphasized eccle-siastical authority and reason’s submission in matters of faith. In this way, Passaglia was significantly indebted to Perrone.31

Johann Baptist Franzelin also differed from older members of the Roman School, largely on account of the more speculative thrust of his thought.32 As a younger contemporary of Perrone and Passaglia, Franzelin was more impacted by the Thomistic revival of the late 19th century.33 He was thus more drawn to

Perrone, and Möhler on Dogma and History: A Reappraisal of the Newman-Per-rone Paper on Development, in Newman Studies Journal, 7/1 (2010), p. 45-55.

28 Fernando Dominguez, Positive Theologie, in LThK, (1999), 8, p. 447.29 Christoph Beginner, Die pneumatologisch-anthropologischen Ansätze in

der Trinitätslehre des Dionysius Petavius und ihr Einfluss auf die ‘Römische Schule’ um Carlo Passaglia und Johann Baptist Franzelin, in Münchener the-ologische Zeitschrift, 62 (2011), p. 343-355.

30 Peter Walter, Carlo Passaglia: auf dem Weg zur Communio-Ekklesi-ologie, in Theologen des 19. Jahrhunderts: eine Einführung. P. Neuner, and G. Wenz, eds., Darmstadt, Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002, p. 165-171; Gianluca Carlin, L’eccesiologia di Carlo Passaglia 1812-1887: Mit einer deutschen Zusammenfassung, Münster, Lit Verlag, 2000, p. 15-52.

31 In particular, Passaglia’s Conferenze tenute in quaresima nella chiesa del Gesù in Roma, Milan, Volpato, 1855, closely followed the structure of Per-rone’s 1835 Tractatus de vera religione.

32 Wolf, ed., Römische Inquisition… [see n. 5], p. 616-622; Friedrich Bautz, Franzelin, Johannes, in BBKL, II (1990), p. 112-113; Peter Wal-ter, Johann Baptist Franzelin 1816-1886, Jesuit, Theologe, Kardinal, Bozen, Verlaganstalt Athesia, 1987; Christoph Weber, Kardinale und Prälaten in den letzten Jahrzehnten des Kirchenstaates 1846-1878, Stuttgart, Anton Hiers-mann, 1978, 1, p. 258-259; Kasper, Die Lehre… [see n. 4], p. 14-26.

33 For recent treatments of the neoscholastic revival, see Thomas Raf-ferty, The Thomistic Revival and the Relationship between the Jesuits and the Papacy, in Theological Studies, 75/4 (2014), p. 746-773; and Peter Walter,


c. m. shea800

speculative questions and synthesis than Perrone, but his empha-sis on tradition and the historical sources of revelation place him squarely within the broad field of the Roman School and Perrone’s influence.34 His work on faith at the First Vatican Council shows his indebtedness to his teacher.35

Perrone’s curriculum also influenced persons outside of the Ro-man School, including in England, Germany, and Belgium. In England, Nicholas Wiseman, the tireless missionary to the Ox-ford Movement, trained English converts using Perrone’s cur-riculum.36 These converts included important theologians such as John Henry Newman and William George Ward. Newman him-self studied in Rome after his 1845 conversion and in fact became friends with Perrone. The two even co-wrote an unpublished pa-per on doctrinal development.37 Fellow Oxford Movement convert Cardinal Henry Manning also studied Perrone’s work after leav-ing the Church of England.38

The curriculum was also employed in the training of German theologians in Rome who studied at the Germanicum. These in-cluded central figures in the neoscholastic revival in Germany and at the Vatican Council, such as Joseph Kleutgen39 and Matthias

’Den Weltkreis täglich von Verderben bringenden Irrtümern befreien’ (Leo XIII): Die Internationalisierung der theologischen Wissenschaft am Beispiel der Neuscholastik, in Transnationale Dimensionen wissenschaftlicher Theologie, C. Arnold, and J. Wischmeyer, eds., Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, p. 319-353.

34 See especially Franzelin’s De divina traditione et scriptura, Rome, Pro-paganda Fide, 1870.

35 See below, p. 18 n. 72. 36 Nicholas Wiseman to John Henry Newman (Maryvale) 27 December

1845. Birmingham Oratory Archive, Personal Collections, Wiseman.37 The document was posthumously edited by Thomas Lynch, The New-

man-Perrone Paper on Development, in Gregorianum, 16 (1935), p. 402-447; for background on this text and the relationship between Newman and Per-rone, see Shea, Father Giovanni Perrone… [see n. 27], p. 85-116.

38 James Pereiro, Cardinal Manning: An Intellectual Biography, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 117-118.

39 Konrad Deufel, Kirche und Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der theologischen Wende im 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des kirchlich-theologischen Kampfprogramms P. Joseph Kleutgens S. J., Munich, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1976, p. 116-119.



Scheeben.40 It also included important behind-the-scenes figures such as Albert Westhoff, rector of the seminary in Cologne,41 and the Council theologian Willibald Maier.42

German bishops at the First Vatican Council were generally di-vided on the question of papal infallibility, with many abstaining or voting against the measure. Yet those bishops who trained at the Germanicum were unanimous in their support of the doctrine. These included Ignaz von Senestrey, bishop of Ratisbon, 43 Georg Stahl of Würzburg,44 and Franz Leonrod of Eichsätt.45

Another important German figure, Cardinal Karl-August von Reisach (1800-1869), died shortly before the Vatican Council be-gan, but deserves mention for his importance and proximity to the Roman School.46 Reisach attended the Germanicum and stud-ied under Perrone from 1824 to 1829. He was later sent to the diocese of Eichstätt, where he rose in stature on account of his orthodoxy and unstinting support for curial initiatives in Germa-ny. Reisach became a consultant for the Congregation of the In-dex and Bishop of Eichstätt in 1836. He was elected Archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1846 and raised to the cardinalate in 1855. A year later, he became a member of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affaires and the Congregation for

40 Augustin Kerkvoorde, La formation théologique de M.J. Scheeben à Rome, in Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses, 22 (1946), p. 174-193.

41 Peter Schmidt, Das Collegium Germanicum in Rom und die Germaniker: zur Funktion eines römischen Ausländerseminars (1552-1914), Tübingen, Max Niemeyer, 1984, p. 345; L’Università Gregoriana… [see n. 23], p. 278.

42 Schmidt, Das Collegium Germanicum… [see n. 41], p. 335; Schatz, Vaticanum I… [see n. 1], 2, p. 137-139; L’Università Gregoriana… [see n. 23], p. 273.

43 See below, p. 19-20.44 Schmidt, Das Collegium Germanicum… [see n. 41], p. 343; Schatz,

Vaticanum I… [see n. 1], 2, p. 376.45 Schmidt, Das Collegium Germanicum… [see n. 41], p. 334; Schatz,

Vaticanum I… [see n. 1], 2, p. 376.46 Ickx, La Santa Sede… [see n. 5], p. 199; Wolf, ed., Römische Inquisi-

tion… [see n. 5], p. 1246-1250; Boutry, Souverain et pontife… [see n. 5], p. 739-740; Erich Garhammer, Reisach, Karl-August, in LThK, 8 (1999), p. 1022-1023; Raimond Lachner, Reisach, Karl-August Graf, in BBKL, 7 (1994), p. 1567-1571; L’Università Gregoriana… [see n. 23], p. 222-223; Schmidt, Das Collegium Germanicum… [see n. 41], p. 339; Weber, Kardi-nale und Prälaten… [see n. 23], 2, p. 511-512; for his role in the Ambrigio Affaire, see Hubert Wolf, Die Nonnen von Sant’Ambrogio: Eine wahre Ge-schichte, München, C. H. Beck, 2013, passim.


c. m. shea802

the Index. Reisach was responsible for translating Kleutgen’s (an-other of Perrone’s students) work into Italian.47 And in the con-demnation of Gerard Ubaughs’s ontologist work in 1861, Reisach showed that he remained close to Perrone in matters related to faith and reason.48

Perrone also impacted Jean-Baptist Malou, a prominent Bel-gian intellectual. Malou studied under Perrone at the Germani-cum from 1832-1835,49 and returned to Belgium in 1836 to take up chair in the theological faculty at the University of Louvain. While there, Malou became an important advocate of Perrone’s curriculum, and helped to produce a Louvain edition of the Praelectiones theologicae. Eventually, the faculty adopted Perrone’s curriculum as its own.50 Malou regarded the Collegio Romano as a model for his new faculty.51 His enthusiasm for Perrone’s work was controversial, but he enjoyed support from Rome.52 In 1849, Malou was elected Bishop of Bruges and advocated Perrone’s pos-itive methodology against Belgian traditionalists.53 He remained in contact with Perrone as traditionalist works came under Ro-man scrutiny, and advocated the teaching of Perrone’s work — especially the Compendium — in Belgian seminaries.54 Although Malou died before the Council in 1864, he was an instrumental figure in spreading Perrone’s thought in Belgium.

47 Joseph Kleutgen, La filosofia antica: esposta e difesa, 5 vols., Rome, Tip. e Lib. Poliglotta, 1866-1868.

48 Ickx, La Santa Sede… [see n. 5], p. 552.49 Vincent Viaene, Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius

IX (1831-1859): Catholic Revival, Society, and Politics in 19th-Century Europe, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2001, p. 100-105; L’Università Gregori-ana… [see n. 23], p. 252.

50 Leo Kenis, De Theologische Faculteit te Leuven in de Negentiende EEUW, 1834-1889, Brussels, Paleis der Academiën,1992, p. 221.

51 Ickx, La Santa Sede… [see n. 5], p. 80-87.52 Kenis, De Theologische Faculteit… [see n. 50], p. 182-183, 220-221.53 See Malou’s 16 September 1859 Circulaire de Monseigneur l’Évêque de

Bruges, adressée à M.M. les principaux, les professeurs et surveillants des col-lèges et des pensionnats ecclésiastiques du diocèse, in Journal historique et lit-téraire, 26 (1859-1860), p. 341-345. Appended to Malou’s circular was a brief from Perrone, which praised the recent work of Belgian ultramontanist, Joseph Lupus on rationalism and traditionalism, Lettre du R.P. Perrone à M. le chanoine Lupus, Ibid., p. 345-348.

54 Kenis, De Theologische Faculteit… [see n. 50], p. 182-183, n. 95.



Not surprisingly, Perrone’s theology and curriculum also had an important impact upon the Roman Curia. Gregory XVI was known to have placed considerable trust in Perrone and favored his curriculum.55 Perrone also influenced the future Pope Leo XIII, Vincenzo Pecci, who studied at the Collegio Romano.56 Leo XIII’s brother, theologian and later cardinal Giuseppe Pecci also studied under Perrone and worked as a theological consultant at the Vatican Council.57 He played a key role in the neoscholastic revival later in the century. One could add to this list a host of Italian prelates who studied at the Collegio Romano.58

Most importantly, Perrone also had an important impact upon Pius IX and his reign. Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti (the future Pius IX) worked with Perrone in the Congregation of Bishops and Reg-ulars in the early 1840s before becoming Pope,59 and Perrone — having been the theological expert for the Congregation — seems to have had an impact on his thought. John Henry Newman be-came acquainted with both Perrone and Pius IX in Rome after his departure from the Church of England (1846-1847). In 1849 Newman wrote, “[T]he pope has in a way taken up Perrone.”60 And there is indeed evidence to corroborate Newman’s claim.

In addition to Perrone’s work on the definition of the Immacu-late Conception and the employment of his theological course of study throughout much of Italy, Perrone’s theological curriculum was cited in official magisterial documents in the years preceding the Vatican Council. In 1860, Perrone’s work was referred to as a touchstone for orthodoxy in disputes regarding faith and rea-son between the Congregation of the Index and theologians at the University of Louvain.61 The Congregation of Propaganda also

55 Angelino, Onori funebri… [see n. 5], p. 16.56 L’Università Gregoriana… [see n. 23], p. 175-176.57 Edgar Hocedez, Histoire de la théologie au XIXe siècle, 3 vols., Paris,

Desclée de Brouwer, 1948-1952, 2, p. 351-352; Schatz, Vaticanum I… [see n. 1], 1, p. 150, 152.

58 L’Università Gregoriana… [see n. 23], p. 211-261.59 Boutry, Souverain et pontife… [see n. 5], p. 417.60 John Henry Newman to William George Ward, (Birmingham) 11

March 1849. John Henry Newman, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. 32 volumes. Edited by C. S. Dessain et al., London – New York, T. Nelson, 1961-2010, 13, p. 81-83 (82).

61 Acta sanctae sedis in compendium opportune redacta et illustrata. 41 vols., Rome, Typis Stereotypis ex Officina S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1872-1908, 3, p. 287-288 (cited hereafter: ASS).


c. m. shea804

employed Perrone’s work in 1868 in responding to certain articles from William George Ward in the Dublin Review.62 The Congrega-tion rebuffed Ward’s maximalist view of papal authority with a distinction from Perrone:

Not all of the Pope’s doctrinal expositions appear ex cathedra. Some-times he speaks not as teaching the Church, but as doctrinally advis-ing a certain private or particular Church. Expositions of this fash-ion, although they enjoy the utmost authority, are not to be held as infallible for all.Indeed the office of the Pope is entrusted, not merely with teach-ing but also with ruling and governing the Church. […] “All of these things,” says Perrone, “issue forth on account of his highest authority and are to be held in great value and received in humble deference and veneration of mind; yet in no way do they form an ex cathedra definition.”63

The citation of a living contemporary theologian as an author-ity in a magisterial text was an exception in its day, and, to this writer’s knowledge, unique. The use of Perrone’s work in such a context might have to do with the author’s substantial labors for curial congregations. As Johan Ickx has recently shown, Per-rone played an important and often independent role as a behind-the-scenes voice in magisterial censorships during the 1860s.64 Perrone had worked as a consultant for the Congregation of the

62 Although the text from the Congregation of Propaganda mentioned William Ward and the Dublin Review by name, it did not single out spe-cific articles or passages for scrutiny. It seems likely that the Congregation’s clarification was in response to an anthology of Ward’s writings on the sub-ject, The Authority of Doctrinal Decisions which are Not of Faith, Considered in a Short Series of Essays Reprinted from “The Dublin Review,” London, Burns, Lambert, & Oats, 1866.

63 ASS 4:628. The Latin original was the following: Thesis Sexta: Non omnes Pontificis expositiones doctrinales ex cathedra prodeunt. Interdum loquitur, non ut Ecclesiam doceat, sed ut privatum aliquem vel particu-larem aliquam Ecclesiam doctrinaliter admoneat. Expositiones autem hui-usmodi, quamvis quam maxima gaudeant auctoritate, non pro omnio in-falibiiibis [sic] habendae sunt. [Explanation]: Officium etenim Pontifici committitur, non docendi tantummodo sed etiam regendi et gubernandi Ecclesiam. […] “Haec omnia, ait P. Perrone, pro summa auctoritate ex qua dimanant magno semper in pretio habenda sunt ac humili mentis obsequio ac veneratione accipienda; nihilo tamen minus non constituunt definitionem ex cathedra” (Text citing De locis theologicis, 2, p. 1018, n. 2).

64 Ickx, La Santa Sede… [see n. 5], p. 252, 263, 269-272, 293-299.



Index since 1854 and in the following year was named as a con-sultant for the preparation of the Syllabus of Errors.65 Although Perrone’s work for these curial bodies often involved controversy, such controversy demonstrated the weight of his opinions and the effectiveness of his action. It was in part because of Perrone that the liberals — Carlo Vercellone, consultant for the Congregation of the Index, and Cardinal Girolamo d’Andrea (1812-1868), Pre-fect — were marginalized in the proceedings against traditional-ists and ontologists at the university of Louvain.66 Yet regard-less of these internal factors, the official use of Perrone’s work remains an exception, and demonstrates the esteem for his teach-ing among those in authority in the time directly preceding the First Vatican Council.

Features of Perrone’s influence at the Vatican Council

Perrone also directly influenced the Vatican Council itself; his résumé at the time reflects his broad impact. He played a role in the Council as one of the Roman curia’s official theological consultants. He was Prefect of Studies at the Collegio Romano, consultant for the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, consul-tant for the Council for the Revision of Provincial Councils, for two Councils connected to the Congregation of Propaganda, and a consultant for the Congregation of the Index, of Rites, of the Ex-amination of Bishops, of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, of the Dataria, and the Examiner of Roman Clerics.67 Though not a bishop, Perrone was the senior curial theological consultant at the Vatican Council and played a major role, albeit behind the scenes,

65 Wolf, ed., Römische Inquisition… [see n. 5], 3/1, p. 1164; for the long prehistory of the Syllabus Errorum, see Giacomo Martina, Osservasioni sulle varie redazioni del ‘Sillabo,’ in Chiesa e Stato nell’Ottocento. Miscellanea in onore di Pietro Pirri. Italia Sacra 3-4, R. Aubert, ed., Padova, Editrice Antenore, 1962, p. 419-523.

66 Ickx, La Santa Sede… [see n. 5], p. 521-552.67 According to his introduction at the commencement of the prepara-

tory commission: “Il padre Giovanni Perrone, gesuita, prefetto degli studi nel collegio Romano, consultore delle congregazioni dei Vescovi e Regulari, del Concilio per la revisione dei concili provinciali, delle due di Propaganda, dell’Indice, dei Riti, dell’esame de’vescovi, degli Affari ecclesiastici stror-dinari, teologo della Dataria, esaminatore del clero Romano e membro del collegio theologico…” (Mansi, 49, p. 467).


c. m. shea806

in the drafting of conciliar decrees.68 He began this work as ear-ly as the spring of 1866.69 The other major theological consul-tants for the dogmatic preparatory commission included Clemens Schrader, Johann Baptist Franzelin, and Giuseppe Pecci, each of whom had studied under Perrone at the Collegio Romano.70

A number of those influenced by Perrone had a direct hand in composing conciliar texts. Franzelin was in large measure re-sponsible for drafting the first schema of the Constitution on the Catholic Faith, which was proposed to the Council in December 1869. The section of the text devoted to the uses of reason bore striking similarities to the teachings of Perrone’s theological cur-riculum. The schema underwent revision but retained much of its basic structure. The final text provides a sense of Franzelin’s proximity to Perrone in the Council’s work. Hermann Joseph Pottmeyer has drawn attention to a few of these parallels in his in-depth study of Dei Filius:

Chapter I. of Perrone’s treatise, De ratione ante fidem spectata, covers: –The natural knowledge of God and other preambles of faith (cf. Dei Filius II § 1); –The natural, sure knowledge of motives of credibility and the true Church of Christ (cf. Dei Filius III §§ 2, 5).

Chapter II. of Perrone’s treatise, De ratione cum fide spectata, covers: –The nature of faith as distinguished from reason (cf. Dei Filius III § 3); –The non-contradictory nature of faith and reason (cf. Dei Filius IV § 3); –The mutual fulfillment of faith and reason (cf. Dei Filius IV § 4).

Chapter III. of Perrone’s treatise, De ratione post fidem spectata, covers: –The nature and task of theological science (cf. Dei Filius IV § 2).71

68 The list of consultants for the Theological-Dogmatic Commission at the Council can be found in Mansi, 49, p. 467. For an overview of the most important curial theological consultants at the Council, see Van Der Horst, Das Schema… [see n. 1], p. 49-57.

69 Wolf, ed., Römische Inquisition… [see n. 5], 3/1, p. 1164.70 For background on Franzelin, see Walter, Johann Baptist Franzelin…

[see n. 32], p. 19-22; for Schrader and Franzelin see Kasper, Die Lehre… [see n. 4], p. 14-26.

71 Hermann Pottmeyer, Der Glaube vor dem Anspruch der Wissenschaft: Der Konstitution über den katholischen Glauben „Dei Filius“ des Ersten Vati-kanischen Konzils und die unveröffentlichten theologischen Voten der vorbe-reitenden Kommission, Freiburg, Herder, 1968, p. 109-111. See also Peter Walter, Die Frage der Glaubensbegründung aus innerer Erfahrung auf dem I. Vatikanum: Die Stellungnahme des Konzils vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgen-



After the first schema of the Constitution on the Catholic Faith went to the floor of the Council, the task of revising the text was entrusted to Bishop Konrad Martin of Paderborn.72 Martin’s personal theologian, the Jesuit Joseph Kleutgen (1811-1883), is believed to have played a key role in completing the Constitution.

Like so many other figures in this narrative, Kleutgen was Perrone’s student. Kleutgen came to Rome as a young Jesu-it in 1843 and fell under Perrone’s influence. Kleutgen accepted Perrone’s principle of reason embedded within an authority-matrix of ecclesiological relations, and regarded the Protestant principle of private judgment to be the source of modern rationalism and atheism.73 A biographer of Kleutgen has characterized the theolo-gian as Perrone’s successor, both in polemics against semi-rational-ists (Perrone’s antagonist was Georg Hermes;74 for Kleutgen it was primarily Anton Günther) and as chair of dogmatic theology at the Collegio Romano in 1878-1879.75 Although Kleutgen was disgraced through his connection to the infamous “Ambrogio Affair” in 1859, he regained influence in the years preceding the Council and con-sistently sided with Perrone on matters of faith and reason.76

In addition to the Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei filius), Perrone also had an important impact on definition of the infalli-bility of the papal magisterium. The doctrine came to the Council floor between April and July of 1870. The two bishops who worked most visibly in favor of the definition were Henry Manning, arch-

össischen römischen Theologie, Mainz, Matthias-Grünewald,1980, p. 107-120 (109-110). Franzelin completed the first edition of his magnum opus on tra-dition, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura, Rome, Typis s.c. de Propag. Fide, 1870, during the time of the Council and was deeply indebted to Per-rone’s treatise De locis theologicis. See Walter, Johann Baptist Franzelin… [see n. 32], p. 39-45, 47-49.

72 See Schatz, Vaticanum I… [see n. 1], 2, p. 93; Martina, Pio IX… [see n. 1], 3, p. 186.

73 Joseph Kleutgen, Philosophie der Vorzeit vertheidigt. 2 vols., Munster, Theissing’schen Büchhandlung, 1860, 1, p. 4-14.

74 For Perrone’s efforts to secure condemnation of Hermes’s work, see Herman Schwedt, Das römische Urteil über Georg Hermes (1775-1831). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Inquisition im 19. Jahrhundert, Rome, Herder, 1980, passim.

75 For a discussion of Kleutgen’s indebtedness to Perrone, see Deufel, Kirche und Tradition… [see n. 39], p. 116-119.

76 For an extensive treatment of Kleutgen’s involvement in this sordid affair, see Wolf, Die Nonnen… [see n. 46].


c. m. shea808

bishop of Westminster, and Ignaz von Senestrey, the bishop of Ratisbon. The resolve of these two “whips” for the majority party was memorialized in Manning’s later reminiscences:

On the eve of St. Peter’s Day I and the Bishop of Ratisbon were as-sisting at the throne of the Pope at the first Vespers of St. Peter; we then made a vow…to do all in our power to obtain the Definition of Papal Infallibility. We undertook to recite every day certain prayers in Latin contained in a little book still in my possession.77

Scholars have regarded Manning as a man of action rather than reflection, but his actions emerged from theological commitments. Manning converted to Roman Catholicism from the Church of England in part because of intractable difficulties relating to authority and certainty. Melchior Cano’s treatise De locis theo-logicis confirmed Manning’s decision to leave the Church of Eng-land.78 Once he went to Rome in the early 1850s, he became close with Perrone and studied his theological curriculum.79 Perrone’s work was in keeping with Manning’s strong ultramontane com-mitments.80 Manning later cited Perrone’s work as an authority in the 1860s.81 And although it does not seem that Manning col-laborated with Perrone or referred to his work at the Council, Manning’s contribution to the Constitution on the Catholic Faith displayed the same concern for authority that had been current in Rome during his seminary studies.82

Manning’s episcopal confrère, Bishop Ignaz von Senestrey (1818-1906) studied under Perrone as a seminary student in the

77 Edmund Purcell, The Life of Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of West-minster. 2 vols., London, MacMillan and Co., 1895, p. 420.

78 Pereiro, Cardinal Manning… [see n. 38], p. 75-76.79 Purcell, The Life… [see n. 77], 2, p. 20.80 For an interpretation of Manning’s conversion and the role of author-

ity, see Kenneth Parker, Henry Manning and Neo-Ultramontanism: The An-glican Context for an Oxford Movement Convert’s Faith in Papal Infallibility, in Authority, Dogma, and History: The Role of Oxford Movement Converts in the Infallibility Debates, K. Parker, and M. Pahls, eds., Bethesda, MD, Aca-demica Press, 2009, p. 96-113.

81 Henry Manning, The Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Eng-land, A Letter to Reverend E. B. Pusey. 2nd ed., London, Spottiswoode and Co., 1865, p. 13.

82 For Manning’s locutio on 28 March 1870, see Mansi, 51, p. 155-156.



Germanicum in Rome (1836-1842).83 Senestrey later became bish-op of Ratisbon in 1858, and chose as his secretary and theological consultant, Willibald Maier (1823-1874).84 Maier also studied un-der Perrone at the Germanicum from 1839 to 1847.85 In the 1850s, Maier translated into German one of Perrone’s lengthiest works on tradition and ecclesiastical authority.86 Senestrey’s choice for a secretary and theological consultant offers some gauge of his theological commitments at the time.

Although Manning and Senestrey can be regarded as broadly within the Roman School’s influence and at the epicenter of the majority party, Perrone and Franzelin proposed to the Council a more qualified formula for papal infallibility and attempted to account for the difficulties of the minority party with greater cir-cumspection.87 Franzelin continued to play a key role in bring-ing the definition of infallibility to completion and worked closely with the commission for revising the text.88

Other important bishops and theologians at the Council also studied Perrone’s theological curriculum. Mieczyslaw Ledochowski (1822-1902), the Archbishop of Posen-Gnesen and organizer for the majority, studied under Perrone at the Collegio Roma-no in the 1840s.89 Joseph Hergenröther (1824-1890), a promi-

83 Andreas Steinhuber, Geschichte des Collegium Germanicum und Hun-garicum in Rom. 2 vols., Freiburg, Herder, 1895, 1, p. 470-471.

84 Schatz, Vaticanum I… [see n. 1], 2, p. 137-139.85 Peter Schmidt, Das Collegium Germanicum in Rom und die Germa-

niker: zur Funktion eines römischen Ausländerseminars (1552-1914), Tübin-gen, Max Niemeyer, 1984, p. 335; Das deutsche Collegium in Rom, entstehung, geschichlicher Verlauf, Wirksamkeit, gegenwartiger Zustand und Bedeutsamkeit desselben; unter Beifügung betreffender und Belege, Leipzig, Hahn’schen Ver-lagsbuchhandlung, 1843, p. 201.

86 Giovanni Perrone, Der Protestantismus und die Glaubensregel. 3 vols., W. Maier, trans., Regensburg, G. Joseph Mainz, 1857.

87 See Senestrey’s diary entry for 6 May 1870, in Wie es zur Definition der päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeit kam: Tagebuch vom. 1 Vatikanischen Konzil. K. Schatz, ed., Frankfurt: Joseph, Knecht, 1977, p. 98-99; Michele Mac-carrone, Il Concilio Vaticano I e il “Giornale” di mons. Arrigoni (Italia sacra; studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica, 7-8), Padova, Editrice Antenore, 1966, p. 303; see also Mansi, 53, p. 251.

88 Ignaz von Senestrey, Wie es zur Definition… [see n. 87], p. 102-103.89 L’Università Gregoriana… [see n. 23], p. 217. For Ledochowski’s connec-

tions at the Council, see Butler, The Vatican Council… [see n. 1], p. 148, 374.


c. m. shea810

nent Church historian and proponent of the definition of papal infallibility, also studied Perrone’s curriculum at the Collegio Romano.90 Curial officials invited Hergenröther to the Council to serve as a theological consultant for the preparatory com-mission.91 Although he was unable to attend, Hergenröther was an important advocate for the majority position and an antago-nist to the Council’s most vocal detractor, Ignaz von Döllinger.92 Another important controversialist for the majority, Matthias Scheeben, studied under Perrone as a student at the Germanicum in the 1850s.93 In his 1873 Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, Scheeben underscored the importance of Perrone’s work in shap-ing the theological method of his day:

Of foreign works, even of which freely the great portion of names have not become known to us, we call particularly important only the Praelectiones of Perrone, which…possess great merit and honour, and on account of its great dissemination has cleaned the air and awakened an ecclesial consciousness all over the whole world.94

90 Friedrich Bautz, Hergenröther, Joseph, in BBKL, II (1990), p. 746-747; Weber, Kardinale und Prälaten… [see n. 23], 1, p. 148; L’Università Gregori-ana… [see n. 23], p. 216.

91 Mansi, 49, p. 775.92 Joseph Hergenröther, Anti-Janus: eine Historisch-theologische Kritik

der Schrift “Der Papst und das Konzil,” von Janus, Freiburg, Herder, 1870; English trans: Anti-Janus: An Historical-Theological Criticism of the Work, Entitled “The Pope and the Council,” by Janus, J. Robinson, trans., Dublin, W. R. Kelly, 1870.

93 Kerkvoorde, La formation théologique… [see n. 40], p. 174-193. Scheeben’s works around the time of the Vatican Council were voluminous and have received little attention. See Der Papst un seine neuesten Verläum-der, Frankfurt, J. G. Hamacher, 1869; Der Papst und das Concil von Janus, Charakteristik und Würdigung, Mainz, Franz Kirchheim, 1869; “Die männ-liche That” und “die unwiderleglichen Bemerkungen” des Herrn Professors von Döllinger, ein fries Wort an die besonnenen und freisinnigen Männer Kölns und Deutschlands, Cologne, T. Mellinghaus, 1870; Das Ökumenische Concil vom Jahre 1869. 2. Vols., Regensburg, Friedrich Pustet, 1870.

94 “Von auswärtigen Erscheinungen, die frielich großentheils nicht ein-mal dem Namen nach bei uns bekannt werden, nennen wir als besonders wichtig nur die Praelectiones von Perrone welche, eigentlich nur die Contro-verstheologie enthaltend, das größe Verdienst und die Ehre besitzen, bei ihrer großen Verbreitung fast in der ganzen Welt das kirchliche Bewußtsein geweckt und die Luft gereinigt zu haben” (Matthias Scheeben. Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik,Freiburg, Herder, 1873, 2, p. 460).



The theologian Heinrich Denzinger also deserves note, though he was not present at the Council. Denzinger, the editor of the famous Enchiridion symbolorum (first ed., 1854), was also deep-ly impressed by Perrone’s curriculum at the Collegio Romano.95 Denzinger became a professor in Würzburg during the Vatican Council and a proponent of papal infallibility. Denzinger’s choice of texts for his famous Enchiridion demonstrates his esteem for Perrone. In the third edition of the Enchiridion (1856), Denzinger included propositions that the fideistic philosopher Louis Bautain signed for the Congregation for Bishops and Regulars in Rome in 1840. Perrone was the author of these propositions, and it is one of the few texts in Denzinger’s handbook that did not originate from a pope or ecumenical council.96

Perrone and the minority

While the influence of Perrone’s curriculum was strongest in those places connected to Rome and the majority party at the Council, he also impacted some of the minority bishops. It is im-portant to note that an overwhelming majority of bishops at the First Vatican Council regarded the infallibility of the papal mag-isterium as theologically true. A sizable minority, however, viewed an official definition of teaching as inopportune. Archbishop Georges Darboy of Paris, for example, was outspoken against the initiative. Yet he nevertheless commended Perrone’s theological curriculum in 1849, and used the text as a standard in the exami-nation of priests in the 1860s.97 Even Bishop Henri Maret, one of the only prelates to publically oppose papal infallibility on theo-logical grounds, cited Perrone’s work with apparent deference.98

95 Friedrich Bautz, Denzinger, Heinrich, in BBKL, I (1990), p. 1263; Joseph Schumacher, Der “Denzinger”: Geschichte und Bedeutung eines Buches in der Praxis der neueren Theologie, Freiburg, Herder, 1974, p. 56-59, 83-88.

96 Henricus Denzinger. Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum quae de rebus fidei et morum a conciliis oecumenicis et summis pontificibus emanarunt. 3rd ed., Wurzburg, Sumptibus Stahelianis, 1856, § cxxiii.

97 George Darboy, Des leçons théologiques du P. Perrone, in Le correspon-dant, 20 (1847), p. 521-539; and, Programme pour les examens des jeunes prêtres, Nancy, Imprimeur de l’évêché, 1862, p. 6; Margaret O’Gara, Tri-umph in Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I., and the French Minority Bishops, Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press, 1988, p. 8-9.

98 Henri Maret. Du concile général et de la paix religieuse, 2 vols., Pa-ris, Henri Plon, 1869, 2, p. 359-360; see O’Gara, Triumph in Defeat… [see n. 97], p. 23-28.


c. m. shea812

One of the most striking testimonies to Perrone’s influence at the Council arose from a prelate who attempted to understand the positions of both sides of the infallibility debate. Cardinal Filippo Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, was the most prominent ecclesias-tical figure to publically sympathize with the minority.99 Guidi voted in favor of the definition of infallibility but argued elo-quently for a more qualified formulation, which would unite the papal magisterium to the teaching office of the entire Church.100 Guidi appealed to two authors — Bellarmine and Perrone — in support of this position. A passage from Guidi’s oration merits citation at length:

This is the reason why the venerable Cardinal Bellarmine says and other theologians more or less affirm, that although the Roman Pon-tiffs certainly have decisive and ultimate power or decisively and ultimately know questions of defining faith and proscribing errors, nevertheless there was never any new heresy that a new council did not condemn.This is the reason why the most learned and illustrious Father Per-rone boldly and rightly grasped: “It certainly never falls upon the Roman Pontiff to step forth alone in dogmatic definitions.”Finally, this is the reason why all theologians come together as one, even as those authors of these very schemata have written in these days […]. Hence rightly and deservedly the venerable Bellarmine in the cited place concluded, “moreover that is accomplished always and by all — what ordinary person will venture to deny that which is said can be and actually is? And the most illustrious Perrone (in the place cited) describing the method by which the pontiff can proceed to issue a dogmatic definition: “When in the same way” he says “the high pontiff finally proffers his judgment, the entire business has ma-tured. For” he describes in detail “provincial and national councils were held to strike the thing down, and bishops bring to mind the error to popes and call upon their judgment.”101

99 Wolf, ed., Römische Inquisition… [see n. 5], 1, p. 750-752.100 Mansi, 52, p. 740-748.101 The Latin oratio was as follows: Haec est ratio cur, ut loquitur ve-

nerabilis cardinalis Bellarminus et caeteri plus minusve affirmant theolo-gi, cur nempe Romani pontifices etsi decretoriam et finalem, seu decreto-rie et finaliter sciverint se habere potestatem quaestiones fidei definiendi proscribendique errores, tamen (verba sunt venerabilis cardinalis laudati, controversium libro 1 de conciliis et ecclesia c.XI) nullam umquam haeresim novam sine novo concilio damnaverunt. Hucusque cardinalis Bellarminus. Haec est ratio cur et doctissimus et clarissimus pater Perrone fidenter et iure asseruit: “Numquam (eius verba sunt, de loc. theol. part. I, sect. II cap. IV de



It is significant that Guidi cited only Bellarmine and Perrone, for they had something important in common for participants at the Vatican Council. Bellarmine was the author of the Dottrina cristiana breve or Small Catechism for laypersons. The catechism was used in Rome since the 16th century and was entertained by some at the Council to serve as the model for a new universal catechism.102 Perrone’s curriculum, as has been shown, was the course of study in Rome for priests and in many other places within Rome’s sphere. Like Bellarmine, Perrone served as a ma-jor teacher for the Church in his day and his work represented a benchmark for orthodoxy almost unmatched for an individual theologian in the modern age.

Conclusion

Giovanni Perrone had a major impact on theological discourses in the middle decades of the 19th century. His influence was pres-ent, directly or indirectly, at nearly every stage of the First Vati-can Council. This is no surprise, since Perrone’s curriculum was the most influential course of theological study in Roman clerical circles. This does not suggest that Perrone’s curriculum was con-sulted at the Council as a matter of course, or that the conciliar documents themselves represented a ratification of Perrone’s the-ology. He did not enjoy quasi-official veneration as had Thomas Aquinas at the Council of Trent. Nevertheless Perrone’s theology helps to explain the unity of the majority at the Council, and how

dotibus primatus) numquam certe accidit, Romanum pontificem in defini-tionibus dogmaticis solum extitisse.” Haec ille. Haec tandem ratio est, cur ad unum omnes theologi, etiam illi qui hisce diebus scripsere ipsique schema-tis auctores, hanc inquisitionem apud episcopos et per episcopos necessariam innuerunt, ut papa tuto et cum certa scientia, atque matura deliberatione et cognitione ultimum in fide suum iudicium proferat. Unde iure meritoque venerabilis Bellarminus loco citato concludebat, scilicet: “quod autem sem-per et ab omnibus factum est, quis negare audebit, ordinarium dici posse et revera esse?” Et clarissimus Perrone loco citato methodum describiens, qua ad definitionem dogmaticam edendam pontifex procedere potuit: “Quando proinde, inquit ille, summus pontifex ultimum suum iudicium profert, in-tegrum negotium maturuit. Nam, prosequitur, et provincialia et nationalia concilia celebrata fuerunt ad rem discutiendam, et episcopi de errore com-monuerunt pontifices, et iudicium expostularunt.” (Mansi, 52, p. 743).

102 See Butler, The Vatican Council… [see n. 1], p. 197-200.


c. m. shea814

relative consensus arose in so short a time on questions of faith, reason, and ecclesiastical authority.

Attention to Perrone’s curriculum may aid future attempts to assess the Council’s work within broader historiographical frame-works in 19th- and 20th-century ecclesiastical and social-religious history. The advantage of such an approach is that it sheds light upon the deep connection between social behaviors and intellec-tual discourses of the period. The approach gestures to general features of the Council’s mentalité, or “spirit,”103 while rooting this spirit in concrete monuments of the age.

Features of Perrone’s theological curriculum also point to broader questions involving Roman Catholic identity in the 19th century. Perrone’s course of study offered a vision of Catholic faith that defined itself in terms of obedience and authority over and against the autonomy of the individual and the secular state. This emphasis certainly had much to do with the ideals of the Society of Jesus, but the widespread use of Perrone’s curriculum both ex-pressed and contributed to a broader shift that was occurring in the 19th-century Church. In the time of the ancien régime, ques-tions of faith, reason, and papal authority were largely restricted to the spheres of canonical debate, diplomacy, and occasional cen-sure. Yet from the age of political revolution and the steam print-ing press on, this constellation of issues became a matter of pasto-ral urgency and political, and even individual identity. Perrone’s pedagogical synthesis played a vital role in this change. What had been disputed partially, and in lonely heights of academic and ec-clesiastical discourse, now began to emerge as a defining charac-teristic of modern Roman Catholic identity and belief.

Seton Hall University C. Michael SheaDepartment of the CoreArts and Sciences 238400 South Orange Ave.South Orange, NJ 07079USA

Summary. — This article examines the role of theological education as a factor in shaping the priorities and teachings of the First Vatican Council. The contribution of the Jesuit professor of dogmatic theology at

103 For a historiographical discussion of “spirit” in application to eccle-siastical councils, see John O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II?, Cam-bridge, ma, Harvard University Press, 2008, p. 43-52.



the Collegio Romano, Giovanni Perrone, was particularly important for forming the theological minds of Church leaders in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. Perrone’s four-year curriculum, the Praelec-tiones Theologicae, was organized around the principles of faith, reason, and ecclesiastical authority. These principles formed a coherent and tightly integrated constellation for those educated in Perrone’s curricu-lum, in which reason relied upon the formative structure of faith, and faith as an act required the authority of the Church for its exercise. Cor-respondingly, the unity of the Church required the authoritative dimen-sion of faith and suitable organs for its exercise. Perrone’s curriculum was employed in many parts of Europe during the nineteenth century. This article examines the theology of Perrone’s curriculum and also its reception in the years preceding the First Vatican Council and at the Council itself. The evidence adduced in the study shows that Perrone’s curriculum was decisive in shaping the Council’s teachings.

Résumé — Cet article étudie le rôle de la formation théologique dans l’élaboration des priorités et des enseignements du concile Vatican I. Le jésuite Giovanni Perrone, professeur de théologie dogmatique au Colle-gio Romano, a contribué de manière particulièrement importante à for-mer les conceptions théologiques des dirigeants ecclésiastiques du milieu du 19e s. Son programme quadriennal, les Praelectiones Theologicae, était organisé autour des principes de foi, de raison et d’autorité ecclésias-tique. Ces principes formaient une constellation cohérente et étroitement intégrée au sein d’un programme où la raison s’appuyait sur la base constitutive de la foi et où la foi comme acte nécessitait l’autorité ecclé-siale pour son exercice. De manière correspondante, l’unité de l’Église requérait l’autorité de la foi, ainsi que des organes appropriés pour son exercice. Le programme de Perrone a été utilisé dans de nombreuses contrées européennes au cours du 19e s. L’article étudie la théologie du programme de Perrone et sa réception dans les années qui ont précédé le Concile Vatican I et durant le Concile lui-même. Les témoignages ici rassemblés montrent que le programme de Perrone a été décisif dans l’élaboration des enseignements du Concile.

Zusammenfassung. — Dieser Artikel untersucht die Rolle der theo-logischen Ausbildung als Faktor bei der Formulierung der Prioritäten und Lehren des Ersten Vatikanischen Konzils. Insbesondere der Beitrag des jesuitischen Professors für dogmatische Theologie am Collegio Ro-mano, Giovanni Perrone, war für die Gestaltung des theologischen Ver-ständnisses der Kirchenführer Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts wichtig. Per-rones vierjähriger Lehrplan, die Praelectiones Theologicae, waren um die Prinzipien des Glaubens, der Vernunft und der kirchlichen Autorität herum aufgebaut. Diese Prinzipien bildeten eine kohärente Einbindung der nach Perrones Lehrplan Ausgebildeten, in der Vernunft auf die for-


c. m. shea816

mativen Struktur des Glaubens baute, und in der der Glaube zu seiner Ausübung die Autorität der Kirche bedurfte. Entsprechend erforderte die Einheit der Kirche die authoritative Glaubensdimension und geeig-nete Organe für deren Ausübung. Perrones Lehrplan wurde während des 19. Jahrhunderts in vielen Teilen Europas angewendet. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Theologie von Perrones Lehrplan und darüberhinaus dessen Rezeption in den Jahren, die dem Ersten Vatikanischen Konzil vorangingen, und während des Konzils selbst. Die in der Studie ange-führten Beweise zeigen, dass Perrones Lehrplanfür die Formgebung der Lehren des Konzils entscheidend war.

giovanni perrone's theological curriculum and the first vatican council

Documents