F. X. von (Franz Xaver) Funk.

A manual of church history (Volume 2) online

. (page 16 of 34)
Online LibraryF. X. von (Franz Xaver) FunkA manual of church history (Volume 2) → online text (page 16 of 34)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


becomes gratia efficax and in others does not. Likewise Predestina-
tion to further means of Grace and ultimately to eternal happiness,
depends on God's foreknowledge of man's merits {praevisis meritis
gratia [prima vel secunda] comparatis). This doctrine, as it seemed
to put Salvation in the power of man rather than of God, was
vehemently assailed and was censured by the Faculties of Louvain
(1587) and Douai (1588). It was also examined at Rome, though
no decision was vouchsafed.



B. The Molinist Controversy 1

Baiiez, a Dominican professor at Salamanca, in order to
explain the infallible efficaciousness of Grace, which had been
taught by both Augustine and Thomas of Aquin, alleged a
physica praedeterminatio or praemotio of the human will. At
the other extreme, the Jesuit Luis Molina of Evora in Portugal
considered that he had found in the theory of a Scientia media,
or Scientia conditionata , the means of safeguarding both the
infallibility of efficacious Grace and the freedom of the human
WAX. His teaching was the following : God knows from all
eternity what men will do under given circumstances, whether
they occur or not, and He accordingly from all eternity bestows
His efficacious Grace on those whom He foresees will co-operate
with it, whereas on the others He merely bestows sufficient
Grace. This view was brought before the public in the work
De liheri arhitrii cum gratiae donis &c. concordia (1588), and
was generally received with applause. It also found deter-
mined opponents. In the opinion of the Dominicans this view,
like the doctrine of Lessius, involved a semi-pelagian exaggera-
tion of human freedom at the expense of Divine Grace, disre-
spect for the authority of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, &c. So
acute did the controversy become that Clement VIII was
obliged to reserve to himself the decision of the question (1596),
and to refer it to a special Congregatio de anxiliis gratiae (1598).
In the two examinations which followed, the judgment of the
congregation was adverse to Molina, but, as the judgment was

* ScHNEEMANN, S. J., Entstehung u. Entwicklung der thomistisch-molinist.
Kontroverse, 1879-80; in Latin, 1881 ; Frins, S. J., 5. Thomae Aqii. doctrina
de cooperations Dei cum omni natura, &'C. 1S93. On the opposite side :
DuMMERMUTH, O. P., 5. Thomas et doctrina praemotionis physicae, 1886 ;
De/ensio doctrinae S. Thomae de praemotione phys. 1S95.



Jansenism 155

not unanimous, the Pope refused to confirm it. Conferences
were then arranged between the two parties, though with no
result. Within the Congregation, however, the Mohnists were
gaining strength, and the number of Mohna's propositions
which had been reserved for censure was reduced from ninety
to twenty, nor were the consulters unanimous even as to
these. For the purpose of assuring himself of the position of
matters, the Pope (1602) again had the whole question threshed
out in his presence. His successor, Paul V, even ordered an
inquiry into the Dominican theory of the Divine predetermina-
tion of the human will. The trial finally ended in 1607, either
party being forbidden to incriminate the other of heresy,
both opinions being thereby declared permissible. A few
years later the publication of works dealing with this thorny
question was made conditional on the permission of the
Inquisition (1611).

The originator of the theory of the Scientia media was the Jesuit
Peter Fonseca. It owes its name to the fact that it stands midway
between the two kinds of Divine knowledge admitted by the
Schoolmen, i.e. between the Scientia visionis, or knowledge of
realities, and the Scientia simplicis intellegentiae, or knowledge of
mere possibilities.



C. The Jansenist Controversy 1

The occasion for the last of the disputes was furnished by
Cornelius Jansenius, a Louvain professor, afterwards (1636-
1638) bishop of Ypres. His great work on the Augustinian
doctrine of Grace [Augttstinus, sive doctrina S. Augusiini de
humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudifie, medicina adv. Pelagianos
et Massilienses) was published two years after his death, was
hailed with great applause in the Netherlands, and found
admirers even in France, where the ground had been prepared
for it by the author's personal friend Verger de Hauranne,
abbot of St. Cyran. The commotion was therefore all the
greater when the book was attacked by the Jesuits and forbidden

^ Leydecker, Hist. Jansen. 1695 ; Rapin, Hist, du Jansdmsme, publiee
parVahbe Domenech, 1865 ; Reuchlin, Gesch. von Port-Royal, 2 vol. 1839-41 ;
Saint-Beuve, Port Royal, 3rd ed. 7 vol. 1867-71 ; S^ch6, Les derniers
Jansenistes (1710-1S70), 2 vol. 1891.



156 A Manual of Church History

by Urban VIII (1641-43), Its great defender, the Sorbonnist
Antoine Arnauld, and the soHtaries and nuns of Port Royal,
the latter headed by their abbess, Angclique Arnauld, refused
to see in the censure anything less than a condemnation of St.
Augustine, whose doctrines they therefore resolved to defend
in the person of Jansenius. Other differences lent acrimony
to the quarrel. The abbot of St. Cyran was an opponent of
the frequent Communions defended by the Jesuits, a practice
which was attacked by Arnauld in his work, De la frequente
communion (1643). This work was a success, but Arnauld
was soon to suffer defeat elsewhere. The syndic Cornet laid
before the Sorbonne seven theses from the Augustinus (1649).
Eight-and-eighty bishops now demanded a condemnation of the
first five, whilst eleven bishops requested a delay, or at least
that the theses should receive due consideration. The five
theses were ultimately condemned as heretical by Innocent X
in the Bull Cum occasione.

The five propositions read as follows : —

(i) Some of God's commandments, owing to the absence of the
needful Grace, cannot be fulfilled even by the just.

(2) Man is unable to withstand inward Grace.

(3) Merit and demerit presuppose freedom from physical com-
pulsion, but not freedom from necessity.

(4) The Semi-Pelagians erred in teaching that the human will
is able either to resist or to follow Grace.

(5) It is Semi-Pelagian to hold that Christ died for all men.

It had been hoped that the Pope's decision would end the
controversy ; as a matter of fact it made it more acute. The
Jansenists themselves, indeed, respected the judgment to the
extent of admitting the falsehood of the censured propositions,
but they did not hold themselves defeated. Arnauld, for
instance, denied that the propositions really represented the
teaching of Jansenius; in other words, whilst admitting that
the quaestio iuris was definitively solved, he raised the quaestio
facti, justifying his conduct by the assertion that in questions
of fact the Church's decisions could lay no claim to inward
assent, but only to a respectful silence. Simultaneously an
assault was led on the Jesuits' system of morality, to which
Pascal devoted the larger portion of his Lettres provinciales
(1656-57). Alexander VII indeed rejected the subterfuge (1656),



Jansenism 157

but without bringing the controversy to an end. A formulary,
which was offered for subscription by the General Assembly of
the Clergy (1657), was rejected by many on the pretext that
it was disapproved by Rome. Even the formulary drawn
up by the Holy See (1665) was not accepted everywhere uncon-
ditionally, though the king had again threatened to withdraw
their benefices from all who refused to sign it. Four bishops
(of Alet, Angers, Beauvais, and Pamiers) issued pastoral letters
in which they recommended the observance of a discreet
silence on the question of fact. Their manifesto threatened
further complications, but soon after the accession of Clement
IX (1667-69) a compromise was reached. The four bishops
signed the formulary, at the same time giving private expres-
sion to their own convictions in a separate protocol, and the
Pope declared himself satisfied.

The peace was generally kept until the end of the century,
though trifling conflicts were not wanting. The edition of the
works of St. Augustine, undertaken by the Benedictines of St.
Maur (1679-1700), was made a subject of severe strictures by
the Jesuits and their allies, but the quarrel did not spread, for
the attention of the French was then concentrated on the
question of the Regalia (§182). New fuel was supplied to the
controversy by the presentation in the summer, 1702, of
the famous ' case of conscience ' in which the quaestio facti and
the silentium obsequiosmn again made their appearance. Forty
doctors of the Sorbonnegave it as their opinion that the cherish-
ing of this pet theory of the Jansenists could form no bar to
absolution. This opinion was forthwith rejected by Rome
and by several of the French episcopate. As the matter was
not yet at an end, Clement XI, at the demand of Lewis XIV,
issued his Bull Vineam Domini (1705). This did not improve
matters, for not only was the Bull opposed by the bishop of St.
Pons, but even the nuns of Port-Royal-des-Champs refused to
accept it save under conditions ; their action resulted in the
closing of the convent, which shortly afterwards (1710) was
laid level with the ground. The independence of judgment
claimed on this occasion by the General Assembly of the
Clergy, even in questions already decided by the Pope, con-
tributed to a lengthy misunderstanding which had not ceased
when a yet greater controversy broke out.



158 A Manual of Church History

The Oratorian Paschase Quesnel 1 had published several
editions of the New Testament with moral reflections, and
Noailles, bishop of Chalons, gave his approval, together with
the highest commendations, to the edition published in 1693.
As, however, the explanatory notes adopted the ideas of the
irresistible efficaciousness of Grace, of God's particular Will to
save, &c., the work found gainsayers, and was censured at
Rome (1708). Two years later it was prohibited by the
bishops of Lu9on and La Rochelle, and upon these two bishops,
through their pastoral letters, coming into conflict with
Noailles, now cardinal-archbishop of Paris, the latter was
challenged to withdraw the approbation which as bishop of
Chalons he had granted to Quesnel's Reflexions morales. As
he refused to comply, the book was again examined at Rome,
and loi propositions extracted from it were condemned by the
Constitution Unigenitus in 1713. At about this time Noailles
changed his mind with regard to the book, though this did not
prevent him and other bishops from refusing to accept the
Bull, alleging that many of the propositions condemned, as
they stood and apart from their context, were open to a
perfectly orthodox interpretation. On the death of Lewis XIV
(1715), the new regent, duke Philip of Orleans, proved more
compliant to the malcontents, and the conflict soon spread.
The theological Faculties of Paris, Rheims, and Nantes, which
had previously accepted the Bull, now withdrew their accept-
ance. Four bishops appealed against it to a General Council
(1717), and their example was followed without delay by others
of their colleagues and by hundreds of priests, secular and
regular. The Bull Pastoralis officii (1718) indeed excommuni-
cated the appellants, but only to be itself appealed against. Only
in 1728 was it again possible to establish peace, when cardinal
Noailles, a year before his death, consented to submit uncon-
ditionally to the Bull Unigenitus. The wonders which are said to
have been wrought shortly afterwards, at the tomb of the deacon
Fran9ois de Paris in the cemetery of St. Medard at Paris, were of
little avail, and the days of French Jansenism were numbered.

^ A. ScHiLL, Die Konstitution Unigenitus, 1876; Cp. Th. Ou. 1877, p.
150 flf. ; Barth6lemy, Le Card, de Noailles, 1888 ; Le Roy, Le Gallicanisme
au XV 1 11^ Steele ; Hist, diplom. de la Bulle Unigenitus, 1892 ; A. M. P.
Ingold, Rome et la France : Fragment de I'histoire de la constitution Unigenitus
de D, Vincent-Thuillier, 1901,



The French Regalia 159



D. The Schism of Utrecht

Whereas in France the Jansenist dispute, whatever detriment it
may have caused the Church, did not bring about a dissolution of the
Church's unity, in the Netherlands, aided by other circumstances,
it produced a schism. On the suspension of the vicar-apostolic
Peter Kodde on suspicion of Jansenism and the nomination of
Theodore van Kock to the succession (1702), a protest was made by
both the States-General and a number of the clergy. In the con-
flict which ensued, Holland being without a bishop, the chapter of
Utrecht, to bring this state of things to an end, elected the vicar-
general Cornelius Steenoven (1723) to be their own archbishop.
At a later date, to ensure the succession, suffragan bishoprics were
estabhshed at Haarlem (1742) and Deventer (1757). All these
bishoprics were schismatical, for the proceedings having been in
several particulars contrary to the law of the Church, they were
never recognised by Rome. Nor did the schism ever gain many
adherents even in Holland. At the present day it can reckon only
some 6,000 souls. Cp. Th. Qn. 1826.



§ 182

The French Regalia — The Gallican Liberties— Quietism ^

I. During the pause in the Jansenist controversy which
ensued after the intervention of Clement IX, France was
disturbed by other conflicts. The occasion was furnished by
the Royal rights, in virtue of which, ever since the twelfth
century, the king had, during the vacancy of a see, appropriated
its revenues, and himself bestowed the benefices belonging to
its occupant, with the exception of the parishes. This was the
practice throughout the larger portion of the realm, the ex-
ceptions being mostly in the south (the provinces of Bordeaux,
Auch, and Narbonne, and the districts which had formerly
belonged to the Empire, the Provence and Dauphine, i.e. the
provinces of Aries, Aix, Embrun, and Vienne). The institution
had its origin in, and took its name from, the fiefs (regalia)
which had formerly been granted to the dioceses in question.

' G. J. Phillips, Das Regalienrecht in Frankreich, 1873 ; Collect. Lac. I,
793-846 ; 'LoYSOTSi , L' assemblee duclerge de 1682, 1870 ; De Mouy, Louis XIV
et le Saint-Siege, 1662-65, 2 vol. 1893 ; G6rin, Louis XIV et le Saint-Siige,
1894 ; Mention, Documents relatifs au rapport du clerge avec la royauti de
1682 a 1705, 1893.



i6o A Manual of Church History

Subsequently to the fourteenth century, the name was no
longer derived from the object which it concerned, but from the
person of the sovereign, the regaha being considered in the
hght of a right inherent in the king. The new theory logically
involved the extension of this right over the whole kingdom, and,
in the event, repeated attempts were made in this direction.
The Sainte Chapelle, to which the revenues in question were
assigned, did not fail to demand them even of those dioceses
which were not liable, and the Parhament at Paris supported
its cla ms. For a long while the kings hearkened to the protests.
The rights of the Sainte Chapelle were even abolished, the
revenues of the vacant bishoprics being assured to the future
bishops as gifts from the king. On the other hand, the right of
nominating to the prebends in widowed dioceses the so-called
regalia spiritualis was now more rigorously enforced throughout
the kingdom, Lewis XIV giving the claim the force of a law
(1673). The edict in question was even made retrospective ; all
bishoprics, whose occupants refused to accept it, were to be
considered vacant, and such of their benefices as fell under
the regalia were to be filled by the king. The clergy submitted
to the law, in spite of its injustice, realising that, in the then
state of things, any protest would have been futile. Two bishops
only ventured to reject it, Pavilion of Alet and Caulet of
Pamiers. Pavilion's action was of little consequence, as he
died soon after (1677), and his successor submitted to the new
order, but that of Caulet had for its result a serious conflict.
Both sides energetically strove to win the day, and the bishop's
death (1680) only increased the trouble. The government
now proceeded to deal severely with his supporters, one of his
vicars-general being even condemned to death, a sentence
which was, however, only carried out on his effigy. The two
bishops on being condemned by their metropolitan appealed to
Rome, and on being supported by Innocent XI, the quarrel
became one between France and the Pope. In the meanwhile,
the regalia retained the form which it had received, though
with some slight amendment. The General Assembly of the
Clergy (1681-82) requested the removal of certain hardships
which it carried with it, suggesting that those on whom a benefice
involving a cure of souls was bestowed, in virtue of the regaha,
should receive the missio canonica from the ecclesiastical



The Gallican Articles i6i

superiors ; in other words, that, instead of such benefices being
actually conferred by the sovereign, he should be content with
presenting a candidate. To this the king acceded.

II. The dispute was, however, not at an end, as Rome, in
spite of this modification, had rejected the increase of the
regalia which had been sanctioned by France. The measures
which had been taken by the Roman See were interpreted as
an attack upon the liberties of the Gallican Church and a
violation of certain articles (7, 8) of the Concordat of 1516. A
portion of the clergy was therefore inclined to essay a defence,
or a declaration of the limits of the papal power. The king was
still more strongly in favour of the plan, having been greatly
offended by Rome's conduct during the progress of the quarrel.
The plan was put into execution by the General Assembl}/ in
1682, when four articles were drafted by Bossuet, bishop of
Meaux.

{a) The Popes have received from God only a spiritual power ; in
temporal matters the princes are subject to no ecclesiastical power.

(6) The fulness of Apostolical power is limited by the decrees of
Constance regarding the authority of General Councils.

(c) The execution of the papal power is determined by the canons
of the Church ; the principles and usages of the Gallican Church
must be respected.

{d) The Pope has the largest part in matters of faith, but his
judgment, without the Church's consent, is not irreformable.

By an edict of Lewis XIV these articles were immediately
imposed on the whole of France, professors of theology and
all candidates for academic degrees being compelled to accept
them. These proceedings aroused much wrath in Rome, where
the opposite doctrines held the field. On certain deputies who
had been present at the assembly of 1682 being presented to
bishoprics, Rome refused to ratify the choice. As this was
construed by the king as a breach of the Concordat of 1516 he
took the course of forbidding any candidates nominated by
himself, who had not signed the declaration, to seek their
brief of confirmation from Rome. In consequence of all this,
within six years no less than thirty-five sees were devoid of
pastors, or rather were occupied by mere bishops-elect. A
grievance of a different character now came to lend greater
bitterness to the dispute. Innocent XI abolished the right of

VOL. II. M



1 62 A Manual of Church History

asylum possessed by the ambassadors at Rome ; this right had
been extended by custom so as to cover the whole neighbour-
hood around the embassies, and had finally become an intoler-
able hindrance to the police in the performance of their duties.
The measure was perfectly reasonable, and was submitted to
with good grace by the other powers. Lewis, however, when
the time came for changing his ambassador and for beginning
the new arrangement, refused to forego the privilege (1687),
and on the Pope laying a censure on the ambassador, he appealed
to a General Council and took possession of Avignon and
Venaissin. On a change occurring in the occupant of the
Roman See, the king relented. He restored to Alexander VIII
the two provinces and renounced the right of asylum. To
the next Pope, Innocent XII, a promise was given to revoke
the edict concerning the execution of the declaration of 1682,
though the articles themselves were to remain in force. The
bishops who had been nominated in the meantime now
received permission to fetch their Briefs, and the conflict was
practically at an end. The only other disturbing factor was
the question of those candidates who had participated in the
General Assembty. The difficulty had been in fact increased
by a Bull published by Alexander VIII {Inter mulfiplices, 1691),
in which the decisions of the Assembly were declared null and
void, both as regards its consent to the extension of the regalia
and its sanction of the four articles. Rome demanded an
apology ; France was unwilling to give it. Ultimately, in
1693, an apology was so worded as to prove acceptable to both
parties.

The four Articles agree in the main with the doctrines expressed
by the Sorbonne in 1663. They will be found in Phillips, pp. 358,
362 ; Mention, p. 23 ; Walter, Pontes iuris eccles. 1862, p. 127 ;
Coll. Lac. I, 381 ; Mirbt, Papsttum, p. 300.

III. Whilst these disputes were in progress an ascetic contro-
versy had broken out. Miguel de Molinos, a Spaniard living at
Rome, was moved to teach that Christian perfection consists in
entire quiet and passivity of the soul, and in such complete immola-
tion of the self, that there remains no desire for the individual's
salvation, for virtue, or for perfection ; in fact, no operation or effort
whatever. This theory, commonly denominated Quietism, the
author brought before the public in his Spiritual Guide (1675).
The work was at first well received and was translated into several



Quietism — Feast Days and Fasts 163

languages. Afterwards, however, it was seen to contain errors, and
sixty-eight theses drawn from it were censured by Innocent XI
(1687). Cp. Denzinger, Enchiridion. Th. Qu. 1856; Heppe,
Gesch. der quietistischen Mystik in der kath. K. 1876 ; Z. f. KG.
XVIII (1898), 572-95.

Similar views were advocated in France by the Barnabite La
Combe {Analysis orationis) and the pious widow de la Mothe Guyon.
They opined that a pure and disinterested love of God — in which He
is loved wholly on His own account, and without any regard for
reward or punishment — may exist as a permanent habit and not
merely as a passing disposition. Their works accordingly fell under
the Church's censure, and at the conference of Issy (1694-95), the
genuine doctrine of the m^-stics, as distinct from theirs, was em-
bodied in thirty-four Articles. Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, who had
taken part in this conference, decided to pursue the aberration still
further ; but through his work Sur les etats d'oraison he came into
conflict with Fenelon, archbishop of Cambrai, who answered him by
his Explication des maximes des Saints sur la vie interieiire (1697).
The quarrel, however, soon ended, Fenelon submitting when twenty-
three theses from his book were condemned by Innocent XII (1699).
Cp. Guyon's (Euvres spirit. 42 vol. Cologne, 1713 ff. ; C.T. Upham,
Madame Guyon, 1905.

The General Assembly of the Clergy, which looms so
large in French history during this period, was wont to meet in order
to sanction by its vote the taxes or other support claimed of the
clergy by the State. It also concerned itself with other matters
affecting the Church. The Assembly was supposed to meet at
intervals of ten years, though in point of fact it really met every
five years in order to control the accounts of the Receiver-General.
It consisted of four deputies from each province, two being bishops,
and two representatives of the second Estate or lower clergy. Cp.
Meric, Le clergesous Vancien regime, 1890; L. S'ERBhT, Les assemhlees
du clerge de France (1561-1615), 1906.



§ 183

Festivals — The Fasting Discipline

I. During the Middle Ages the number of festivals had
steadily increased ; even now it had not yet attained its limit,
the feast of St. Joseph (1621) and that of the Immaculate
Conception of our Lady (1708) being raised to the dignity of
feasts of obligation. The latter had, however, been already
ordered for the Austrian States by Ferdinand II (1629), and
for Spain by Innocent X (1644) at the request of Phihp IV.



164 A Manual of Church History

On the other hand, during this period the conviction became
more and more prevalent that the festivals were already too
numerous, and repeated attempts were made to diminish them.
So far as Germany and the adjacent eastern countries were
concerned, by the statute of reform drafted by the legate,



Online LibraryF. X. von (Franz Xaver) FunkA manual of church history (Volume 2) → online text (page 16 of 34)