History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution: Volume 1 — Theological Controversies and Studies, Part 2

The condemnation pronounced by Urban VIII.

(1642) against /Augustinus/, though accepted by the king, the Archbishop of Paris, and the Sorbonne, found many staunch opponents.

It was contended that the condemnation was the work of the Jesuits rather than of the Pope, that it was based on the groundless supposition that the system of Jansen was identical with that of Baius, and that as no individual proposition in /Augustinus/ had been condemned people were perfectly free to discuss the views it contained.

To put an end to all possibility of misunderstanding Cornet, syndic of Paris University, selected from /Augustinus/ five propositions, which he believed contained the whole essence of Jansen's system, and submitted them to the Sorbonne for examination (1649).

Owing to the intervention of the Parliament of Paris in favour of the Jansenists the propositions were referred to the Assembly of the Clergy (1650), but the vast body of the bishops considered that it was a question on which a decision should be sought from Rome.

Accordingly eighty-five of the bishops addressed a petition to Innocent X. (1651) requesting him to pronounce a definitive sentence on the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of the five propositions, while a minority of their body objected to such an appeal as an infringement of the liberties of the Gallican Church.

A

commission, some of the members of which were recognised supporters of the Jansenists, was appointed by the Pope to examine the question, and after prolonged discussions extending over two years Innocent X. issued the Bull, /Cum occasione/ (1653), by which the five propositions were condemned.

The Bull was received so favourably by the king, the bishops, and the Sorbonne that it was hoped the end of the controversy was in sight.

The Jansenists, however, soon discovered a new method of evading the condemnation and of rendering the papal letters null and void.

They admitted that the five propositions were justly censured, but they denied that these propositions were to be found in /Augustinus/, or, if they were in /Augustinus/, they contended they were there in a sense quite different from that which had been condemned by the Pope.

To justify this position they introduced the celebrated distinction between law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the authority of the Church to issue definite and binding decisions on doctrinal matters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to questions of fact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was contained in a certain book or what might be the meaning which the author intended to convey.

On matters of fact such as these the Church might err, and the most that could be demanded of the faithful in case of such decisions was respectful silence.

At the same time by means of sermons, pamphlets, and letters, by advice given to priests, and by the influence of several religious houses, notably Port Royal, the sect was gaining ground rapidly in Paris, and feeling began to run high against the Jesuits.

The antipathy to the Jesuits was increased and became much more general after the appearance of the /Lettres Provinciales/ (1656-57) written by Pascal (1623-62).

The writer was an exceedingly able controversialist, and in many respects a deeply religious man.

From the point of view of literature the /Provincial Letters/ were in a sense a masterpiece, but they were grossly unfair to those whom they attacked.

[3] The Sorbonne offered a strong opposition to the Jansenists, as did also the bishops (1656).

In the same year Alexander VII.

issued the Bull, /Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem/, by which he condemned the distinction drawn between law and fact, and declared that the five propositions were to be found in /Augustinus/ and were condemned in the sense in which they were understood by the Jansenists.

The Assembly of the Clergy having accepted this Bull drew up a formulary of faith based on the teaching it contained.

The greater part of the Jansenists either refused entirely to subscribe to this formulary, or else subscribed only with certain reservations and restrictions.

The nuns at Port Royal were most obstinate in their refusal.

As they persisted in their attitude notwithstanding the prayers and entreaties of the Archbishop of Paris he was obliged reluctantly to exclude them from the sacraments.

One of the principal objections urged against the acceptance of the formulary being that the Assembly of the Clergy had no authority to prescribe any such profession of faith, Alexander VII.

at the request of many of the bishops issued a new constitution, /Regiminus Apostolici/ (1664), in which he insisted that all priests secular and regular and all members of religious communities should subscribe to the anti-Jansenist formulary that he forwarded.

Most of the Jansenists refused to yield obedience even to the commands of the Pope.

They were strengthened in their refusal by the fact that four of the French bishops set them a bad example by approving publicly in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction between law and fact.

The Council of State promptly suppressed these pastorals (1665), and at the request of Louis XIV.

Alexander VII.

appointed a commission for the trial of the disobedient bishops.

In the meantime, before the commission could proceed with the trial, Alexander VII.

died, and was succeeded by Clement IX.

(1667).

Several of the French bishops addressed a joint letter to the new Pope, in which by a rather unfair use of extracts from the works of theologians they sought to excuse the attitude of their brother bishops, and at the same time they hinted to the king that the controversy was taking a course likely to be fraught with great danger to the liberties of the Gallican Church.

Louis XIV.

, who had been hitherto most determined in his efforts against the Jansenists, began to grow lukewarm, and the whole situation in France was fast becoming decidedly critical.

Some of the French bishops offered their services as mediators.

Through their intervention it was agreed that without expressly retracting their pastorals the bishops should consent to sign the formulary drawn up by the Pope, and induce the clergy to do likewise.

The bishops signed the formulary, and held synods in which they secured the signatures of their clergy, but at the same time in their conversations and in their addresses they made it perfectly clear that they had done so only with the Jansenist restrictions and reservations.

The announcement of their submission pure and simple was forwarded to the Pope without any reference to any conditions or qualifications, and the Pope informed the king that he was about to issue letters of reconciliation to the four bishops.

Before the letters were forwarded, however, rumours began to reach Rome that all was not well, and a new investigation was ordered.

Finally, in view of the very critical state of affairs it was decided that the Pope might proceed safely on the documents received from the nuncio and the mediators without reference to the information acquired from other sources.

In January 1669 the letters of reconciliation were issued.

The Jansenists hailed the /Clementine Peace/ as a great triumph for their party, and boasted publicly that Clement IX.

had receded from the position taken up by his predecessor, by accepting the Jansenist distinction between law and fact.

That their boasting was without foundation is sufficiently clear from a mere cursory examination of the papal letters.

The Pope makes it perfectly evident that the letters were issued on the assumption that the bishops had subscribed without any reservation or restriction.

He states expressly that he was firmly resolved to uphold the constitutions of his predecessors, and that he would never admit any restriction or reservation.

---------- [1] Calleawert, /Cornelius Jansenius d'Ypres, ses derniers moments, sa soumission/, 1893. [2] Montlaur, /Angelique Arnauld/, 1902. [3] Giraud, /Pascal, l'homme, l'ouevre, l'influence/, 1905. (d) The Immaculate Conception.

Passaglia, /De Immaculat.

Concept.

B.

V. M.

/, 3 vols.

, 1855. Strozzi, /Controversia dell' Immacolata Concezione/, 1700. Roskovany, /De Beata Virgine in suo conceptu immaculata/, 1873-92. Le Bachelet, /L'Immac.

Conc.

/, 1903. Bishop, /The Origins of the Feast of the Conception of B. V. M.

/, 1904. Ullathorne, /The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God/, 1904. From the days of Dons Scotus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was received very generally by the universities and theologians.

The Dominicans, feeling themselves called upon to support the views of St. Thomas, who argued against the Immaculate Conception as understood in his own time, opposed the common teaching.

The question was brought before the schismatical assembly at Basle (1439), where it was defined that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was in harmony with reason and Scripture, and should be approved and accepted by all Christians.

This teaching was confirmed by several provincial synods in France and Germany, as well as by many of the universities.

Paris and Cologne, for example, obliged all their members to swear to defend the doctrine.

Sixtus IV.

bestowed indulgences on those who would observe the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (1476), but although favouring the doctrine he forbade the defenders or opponents to charge each other with heresy (1483).

When in the discussions on Original Sin at the Council of Trent the subject was raised, no formal decision was given because the Fathers were determined to direct all their attention to the doctrines that had been rejected by the Reformers.

At the same time the opinion of the Fathers was expressed clearly enough, since they declared that in their decrees regarding the universality of Original Sin they did not mean to include the Immaculate Virgin Mary (V. Sess.

1546).

Pius V. condemned a proposition of Baius, in which it was laid down that Christ alone escaped the guilt of Original Sin, and that the Blessed Virgin suffered death on account of the guilt she contracted by her descent from Adam (1567).

A Spanish Franciscan, Francis of Santiago, having claimed that he had a vision in support of the doctrine, a sharp controversy broke out in Spain, to end which Philip III.

besought the Pope to give a definitive decision.

Paul V. contented himself, however, with renewing the decrees of his predecessors Sixtus IV.

and Pius V. forbidding charges of heresy to be bandied about by the disputants (1616), but in the following year he forbade any public defence of the theses directed against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Gregory XV.

though unwilling to yield to the request of the Spanish Court for a formal definition, prohibited either public or private opposition to the doctrine unless in case of those who had received special authorisation from the Holy See.

Finally in 1661 Alexander VII.

in the constitution, /Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum/, explained the true meaning of the doctrine, and forbade any further opposition to what he declared to be the common and pious belief of the Church.

(e) Tyrannicide.

Hergenrother, /Katholische Kirche u. Christl.

Staat/, 1872. Parkinson, /Catholic Writers on Tyrannicide/ (/Month/, March- April, 1873).

Duhr.

/Jesuiten-Fabeln/, 3 auf.

, pp. 659 sqq.

Whether Tyrannicide is lawful or unlawful was a question on which different views were held by theologians.

The murder of the Duke of Orleans by orders of the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir up the controversy.

Amongst the dependants of the Duke of Burgundy was a priest, John Parvus (Petit or Le Petit), who accompanied the Duke to Paris, and in a public assembly defended the Duke of Burgundy on the ground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant (1408).

Nine propositions selected from this speech were condemned by the Bishop of Paris, by the Inquisition, and by the university (1414).

The Duke of Burgundy appealed to Pope John XXIII.

, while the representatives of France at the Council of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of the assembly.

The discussion of the subject was complicated by political issues.

As the Council of Constance was anxious to avoid all quarrels with the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, or the Emperor, it contented itself with issuing a very general condemnation of Tyrannicide.

Before the council closed, however, the question was raised once more in connexion with a book published by the Dominican, John of Falkenberg, who was a strong partisan of the Teutonic Knights in their struggle against the King of Poland, and who maintained that it was lawful to kill the King of Poland.

He undertook the defence of Petit's work, and wrote strongly against the representatives of the University of Paris.

The Poles demanded his condemnation, but though he was arrested and detained in prison his book was not condemned by the council.

A Dominican chapter held in 1417 repudiated Falkenberg's teaching.

For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic theologians though Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers, including Luther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in France and in Scotland it was advocated in theory by some of the French Calvinists such as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch leader, John Knox, and put into practice by their followers against the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Beaton.

[1] The Jesuits in France were accused of sympathising with this doctrine during the reign of Henry IV.

, but there was not sufficient evidence to support such a charge.

Some of their theologians may have defended the legality of rebellion in certain circumstances, but this was a doctrine in no way peculiar to the Jesuits.

The only serious argument brought forward by the opponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a Spanish Jesuit, Mariana (1536-1624).

It was written for the instruction of some of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to Philip III.

In many respects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy work, but the author's reference to the murder of Henry III.

of France and his defence of Tyrannicide, hedged round though it was by many restrictions and reservations, gave great offence in France, and provided the enemies of the Society with a splendid weapon for a general attack upon the entire body.

As a matter of fact Mariana's book did not represent the views of the Jesuits.

In 1610 the general, Aquaviva, forbade any of his subjects to defend the teaching on Tyrannicide it contained.

---------- [1] Lecky, /The History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe/, 1913, p. 164. (f) The Copernican System.

Galileo Galilei.

Muller, /Nicolaus Copernicus/ (/Stimmen aus M. -Laach/, 1898, /Supp.

/ 72).

Hipler, /Nicolaus Copernicus u. Martin Luther/, 1868. Muller, /Galileo Galilei/, 1908. Von Gebler, /Galileo Galilei und die Romische Curie/ (Eng.

Trans.

, 1879).

L'Epinois, /La question de Galilee/, 1878, /The Month/ (Sept.

, 1867; March-April, 1868).

Nicolaus Copernicus (Koppernick or Koppernigk, 1473-1543) was born at Thorn, and was educated principally at Cracow, Bologna, Padua, and Ferrara.

He was a canon of the chapter of Frauenberg, and most probably a priest.

During his stay in Italy he was brought into contact with the new views put forward by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and others regarding the position of the earth in the system of the universe.

His own studies let him to the conclusion that the sun was the centre round which the earth and all the heavenly bodies moved in their course.

He communicated his conclusions to some of his special friends in 1531, but he hesitated to publish them on account of the ridicule that such a novel opinion was sure to excite.

One of his pupils lectured at Rome on the subject, and explained the theories of Copernicus to Clement VII.

(1533).

Yielding at last to the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, Archbishop of Capua, and Bishop Giese of Culm he entrusted his work for publication to one of his pupils, Rheticus, professor at Wittenberg, but the opposition of the Lutheran professors made it impossible to bring out the book in that city.

It was finally published under the editorship of Osiander at Nurnberg in 1543. In the preface to the work Osiander made considerable changes out of deference to the views of Luther and Melanchthon, the most important of which was that he referred to the system of Copernicus as an hypothesis that might or might not be true.

The work, /De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium/ was dedicated to Pope Paul III.

The principal opposition to the novel views of Copernicus came from the side of the Lutheran theologians, and it was only years later, when feeling was aroused by the controversy regarding Galileo, that any suspicion of unorthodoxy was directed against Copernicus by Catholic writers.

Needless to say Copernicus died as he had lived, a devoted Catholic, fully convinced that he had done good service for religion as well as for science.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was remarkable from a very early age for his abilities as a student of mathematics and mechanics.

Indeed it was in these subjects and not in astronomy that he achieved his most brilliant and most lasting successes.

He taught at Pisa and Padua, and was afterwards employed at the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

In 1609 he perfected the telescope by means of which he was enabled to make observations of the heavenly bodies, and from these observations and discoveries he was led to the conclusion that the heliocentric system as advocated by Copernicus was the only one scientifically tenable.

He came to Rome, where he was welcomed by the Pope and the cardinals, and set up his telescope in the Vatican gardens (1611).

At first Galileo's views excited no great opposition, but owing to the imprudent propaganda carried on by some of his own friends, notably by the Carmelite, Foscarini, a violent controversy broke out in which the scientific side of the theory was almost completely forgotten.

Against Galileo it was contended that his system contradicted the Scripture, which spoke of the sun standing still in its course at the prayers of Josue, and that it was, therefore, inadmissible.

At the time in Italy the ecclesiastical authorities were markedly conservative and hostile to innovations, particularly as there was then a strong party in Italy, of whom Paul Sarpi may be taken as a typical example, who were liberal and Lutheran in their tendencies and sympathies.

Had the discussion been confined to learned circles no notice might have been taken of it, but once an appeal was made to the masses of the people it was almost inevitable that Galileo should have been denounced to the Inquisition.

In the circumstances a decision favourable to Galileo could hardly have been expected.

The old Ptolemaic system was so closely bound up with the philosophic and scientific teaching of the age that its abandonment meant little less than a complete revolution in the world of learning.

As yet the vast body of those who were specially versed in the subject treated the new theory with derision, while the arguments put forward by Galileo in its defence were so weak and inconclusive that most of them have been long since abandoned.

The hostile attitude, too, of the Lutheran divines could hardly fail to exercise some influence on the Roman consultors.

In 1615 Galileo appeared before the Inquisition to defend his views, but without any result.

The heliocentric system was condemned as being opposed to Scripture and therefore heretical, and Galileo was obliged to promise never again to put it forward (1616).

The work of Copernicus and those of some other writers who advocated the Copernican system were condemned /donec corrigantur/.

The decision of the congregation was wrong, but in the circumstances not unintelligible.

Nor can it be contended for a moment that from this mistake any solid argument can be drawn against the infallibility of the Pope.

Paul V. was undoubtedly present at the session in which the condemnation was agreed upon and approved of the verdict, but still the decision remained only the decision of the congregation and not the binding /ex-cathedra/ pronouncement of the Head of the Church.

Indeed, it appears from a letter of Cardinal Bellarmine that the congregation regarded its teaching as only provisional, and that if it were proved beyond doubt that the sun was stationary it would be necessary to admit that the passages of Scripture urged against this view had been misunderstood.

Galileo left Rome with no intention of observing the promise he had made.

After the election of Urban VIII.

who, as Cardinal Barberini, had been his faithful friend and supporter, Galileo returned to Rome (1624) in the hope of procuring a revision of the verdict; but though he was received with all honour, and accorded an annual pension from the papal treasury his request was refused.

He returned to Florence, where he published eight years later a new book on the subject, couched in the form of a dialogue between supporters of the rival systems, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican, in which Simplicissimus, the defender of the old view, was not only routed but covered with ridicule.

Such a flagrant violation of his promise could not pass unnoticed.

He was summoned to appear once more before the Inquisition, and arrived in Rome in February 1633. At first he denied that he had written in favour of his views since 1616, then he pleaded guilty, confessed that he was in error, and appealed to the court to deal gently with an old and infirm man.

He was found guilty, and was condemned to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and to be imprisoned at the pleasure of the Inquisition.

It is not true to say that Galileo was shut up in the dungeons of the Inquisition.

He was detained only for a few days, and even during that time he was lodged in the comfortable apartments of one of the higher officials.

Neither is it correct to state that he was tortured or subjected to any bodily punishment.

He was released almost immediately on parole, and lived for a time at Rome in the palace of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

Later on he retired to his villa at Arcetri, and finally he was allowed to return to Florence.

In 1642, fortified by the last sacraments and comforted by the papal benediction, he passed away.

His body was laid to rest within the walls of the Church of Santa Croce at Florence.

Most of his misfortunes were due to his own rashness and the imprudence of his friends and supporters.

His condemnation is the sole scientific blunder that can be laid to the charge of the Roman Congregation.

That his condemnation was not due to any hatred of science or to any desire of the Roman ecclesiastics to oppose the progress of knowledge is evident enough from the favours and honours lavished upon his predecessors in the same field of research, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Peurbach, Muller (Regiomontanus), and Copernicus.

(g) Progress of Theological Studies.

Hurter, /Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae/, 3 auf.

, 1903. Werner, /Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der Christlichen Theologie/, 1865. Turmel, /Histoire de la theologie positive/, etc. , 1906. Slater, /A Short History of Moral Theology/, 1909. Gigot, /General Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures/, 1900. De Smedt, /Introductio Generalis ad Historiam Ecclesiasticam/, 1876. Benigni, /Historiae Ecclesiasticae Repertorium/, 1902. Collins, /The Study of Ecclesiastical History/, 1903.