|
Bishop of St. Polten in Austria and secretary of the Vatican
Council; b. 2 December, 1813, at Lochau near Bregenz in the Vorarlberg;
d. 25 April, 1872. His parents were peasants. He early showed great
abilities. His classical studies were done at Feldkirch his philosophy
at Innsbruck including a year of legal studies, and has theology at
Brixen. He was ordained priest in 1837, and, after a year as master in
a school at Innsbruck, studied for two more years in Vienna life then
became professor of ecclesiastical history and canon law in the
theological school at Brixen, 1841-52. He published at the quest of the
Episcopal Conferenee of Wurzburg, in 1848, a useful little book "Ueber
die Provincial-Concilien und Diöcesan-Synoden" (Innsbruck, 1849), and
in 1850-1 the well-known "Institutiones Patrologiae quas ad
frequentiorem utiliorem et faciliorem SS. Patrum lectionem promovendam
concinnavit J. Fessler" (Innsbruck, 2 Vols. 8vo). This excellent work
superseded the unfinished books of Möhler and Permaneder and was not
surpassed by the subsequent works of Alzog and Nirschl. In its new
edition by the late Prof. Jungmann of Louvain (Innsbruck, 1890-6), it
is still of great value to the student, in spite of the newer
information given by Bardenhewer. From 1856 to 1861 Fessler was
professor of canon law in the University Of Vienna, after making
special studies for six months at Rome. He was consecrated as assistant
bishop to the bishop of Brixen, Dr. Gasser, on 31 March, 1862, and
became his vicar-general for the Vorarlberg. On 23 Sept., 1864, he was
named by the emperor Bishop of St. Polten, not far from Vienna. When at
Rome in 1867 he was named assistant at the papal throne. In 1869 {ln:Pope}
Pius IX proposed Bishop Fessler to the Congregation for the direction
of the coming Vatican Council as secretary to the council. The
appointment was well received, the only objection being from Cardinal
Caterini who thought the choice of an Austrian might make the other
nations jealous. Bishop Fessler was informed of his appointment on 27
March, and as the {ln:Pope} wished him to come with all speed to Rome, he
arrived there on 8 July, after hastily dispatching the business of his
diocese. He had a pro-secretary and two assistants. It was certainly
wise to choose a prelate whose vast and intimate acquaintance with the
Fathers and with ecclesiastical history was equalled only by his
thorough knowledge of canon law. He seems to have given universal
satisfaction by his work as secretary, but the burden was a heavy one,
and in spite of his excellent constitution his untiring labours were
thought to have been the cause of his early death. Before the council
he published an opportune work "Das letzte und das nächste allgemeine
Konsil" (Freiburg, 1869) and after the council he replied in a masterly
brochure to the attack on the council by Dr. Schulte, professor of
canon law and German law at Prague. Dr. Schulte's pamphlet on the power
of the Roman {ln:Pope} s over princes, countries, peoples, and individuals,
in the light of their acts since the reign of Gregory VII, was very
similar in character to the Vaticanism pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, and
rested on just the same fundamental misunderstanding of the dogma of
Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council. The Prussian
Government promptly appointed Dr. Schute to a professorship at Bonn,
while it imprisoned Catholic priests and bishops. Fessler's reply, "Die
wahre und die falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Päpste" (Vienna, 1871), was
translated into French by Cosquin editor of "Le Français", and into
English by Father Ambrose St. John, of the Birmingham Oratory (The True
and False Infallibility of the {ln:Pope} s, London, 1875). It is still an
exceedingly valuable explanation of the true doctrine of Infallibility
as taught by the great Italian "Ultramontane" theologians, such as
Bellarmine in the sixteenth century, P. Ballerini in the eighteenth,
and Perrone in the nineteenth. But it was difficult for those who had
been fighting against the definition to realize that the Infallibilists
"had wanted no more than this. Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, who had
strongly opposed the definition and afterwards loyally accepted it,
said he entirely agree with the moderate view taken by bishop Fessler,
but doubted whether such views would be accepted as sound in Rome. It
was clear, one would have thought, that the secretary of the council
was likely to know; and the hesitations of the pious and learned Hefele
were removed by the warm Brief of Approbation which Pius IX addressed
to the author.
|