THE AGE OF THE REFORMING COUNCILS
The development of theories of papal power may next be traced in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Pursuing the method adopted
hitherto, we will endeavour to describe the facts as objectively as
possible, and then to relate the criticisms to which they have given
rise within the Roman obedience.
1. With the fourteenth century (1305) the Popes transferred their
residence from Rome to Avignon. There they continued for seventy
years. It was to the papal prestige a period of unmixed calamity. The
authority of the Church was subordinated to France. Rome made numerous
overtures to secure the Popes’ return. Europe at large was jealous of
the French preponderating influence; and France was naturally reluctant
to lose its ascendancy.
But the “Babylonish Captivity of the Papacy,” with its inevitable
effect on theories of papal power, was to be followed by a worse
disaster: the Great Schism of forty years (1378–1417). On the death of
Gregory XI. in 1378 the Cardinals had before them a great alternative:
either to elect an Italian and so secure residence in Rome, or to elect
a Frenchman and so continue the residence at Avignon. The Conclave met
in Rome, and was furiously beset by magistrates and people, demanding
a Roman or at least an Italian Pope. External pressure resulted in a
hurried election and the production of Urban VI. The Cardinals declared
him canonically elected and treated him for some months as actual Pope.
Then, under pretext that they had acted under compulsion, partly, it
is said, disgusted by the new Pope’s brutality, many Cardinals fled
from Rome, declared their election void, and appointed Robert of Geneva
Pope, as Clement VII. Men have enquired, men still enquire, how should
this double election be esteemed? Which was the genuine Pope? Was the
election of Urban canonical? Was it the result of intimidation? If the
latter, does the subsequent acknowledgment by the Cardinals cancel
irregularities? Or was Clement the real Pope?[79] This is one of the
problems of history.
[79] Christophe, _Histoire de la Papauté, pendant le XIV. Siècle_, iii.
p. 36.
The historian Pastor sides with Urban VI.[80] The pretext that he
was elected under compulsion will not hold for a moment; for all the
Cardinals took part in his coronation, and assisted afterwards in his
ecclesiastical functions. They gave him homage as Pope and proclaimed
him to the world. Catherine of Sienna told them plainly, “If what
you say were as true as it is false, must you not have lied when you
proclaimed him lawful Pope?”[81] In any case Christendom was now
divided into two obediences. This lasted for forty years. The most
learned canonists differed on the question which of the two was the
Vicar of Christ. Distinguished teachers and saintly people were found
on either side, in equally good faith; and a Roman writer declares
himself unable to characterise either with the title of Antipope.[82]
Nations were divided, so were cities and universities, into Urbanists
and Clementines. Urban and Clement both died, but each received
successors. It looked as if Christendom might witness a double headship
becoming part of the permanent constitution of the Church. It was the
glory of France, and, in particular, of the famous University of Paris,
then at the height of its power, to intervene and take steps in behalf
of unity. It was now A.D. 1400. The Avignon line was now represented
by Peter de Luna, entitled Benedict XIII.; the Italian line by Angelo
Corario, entitled Gregory XII. Christendom was scandalised by their
mutual excommunications.
[80] Pastor, i. p. 119.
[81] _Ibid._ i. p. 131.
[82] Christophe, _Histoire de la Papauté, pendant le XIV. Siècle_, iii.
p. 37.
The state of the Church was deplorable. Gregory asserted that as
Pope he was above law; Benedict that no appeal from a Pope was
permissible.[83] This, says Bossuet, was the first time in Christendom
that a Pope ventured expressly to condemn all appeals from his
authority.[84] A recent historian of the Papacy says:--
[83] Bossuet, _Defense_, i. p. 567.
[84] _Ibid._ ii. p. 325.
“The amount of evil wrought by the Schism of 1378, the longest known
in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated when we reflect
that it occurred at a moment when thorough reform in ecclesiastical
affairs was a most urgent need. This was now utterly out of the
question; and indeed all evils which had crept into ecclesiastical
life were infinitely increased. Respect for the Holy See was also
greatly impaired, and the Popes became more than ever dependent on
the temporal power, for the Schism allowed each Prince to choose
which Pope he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people the simple
fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the Holy
See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that these fifty
years of Schism prepared the way for the great Apostasy of the
sixteenth century.”[85]
[85] Pastor, i. p. 142.
Through all this crisis, the Sorbonne, the theological faculty of the
University of Paris, was the strenuous advocate of the doctrine that
the supreme authority in Christendom was the Council, not the Pope.
They declared that things were come to such a pass, through the Schism,
that on all sides men did not hesitate publicly to affirm that it was
purely indifferent whether there were two Popes or twelve. Gerson, the
celebrated Chancellor of the University of Paris, reassured men by
asserting that the ultimate authority in Christendom was the entire
Church and not the Pope. This teaching implies a denial of Papal
Infallibility: and with this teaching the entire Church in France was
identified.
The perplexity of the situation forced upon men’s attention certain
neglected aspects of ecclesiastical truth. It compelled them to
consider, what resources, apart from the Pope, did the Church
possess? The rival Pontiffs scandalising Christendom by their selfish
indifference, as it appeared, to the Church’s real interests,
challenged reflection on the relation between the Papacy and the
Church. Yet where was the authority competent to intervene? Theories
of papal power had greatly developed since the age of Honorius. The
Pope’s practical ascendancy was very different from that which existed
eight hundred years before. Habitual acquiescence in large practical
assumptions made it harder now than in earlier times to find the true
solution. The problem, therefore, absorbed the gravest attention of the
ablest theologians of the day.
The Pope, said Gerson, is removable by his own voluntary
abdication.[86] This was historically exemplified in the case of Pope
Celestine, who, while he abdicated the Papacy, is elevated among the
saints. And if removable by his own act, he must be also removable by
the Church, or by its representative, a General Council. For since
he can give his Spouse a writing of divorcement, she must possess an
equal liberty. Moreover, no office, dignity, or ministry, exists except
for the edification and good of the community. Many cases may arise in
which the Church will not be edified unless the Pope either abdicates
or is deposed. There is no contradiction between this principle and the
legitimate sense of the injunction--“Touch not Mine Anointed!” If the
Greeks were willing to return to unity conditionally on the removal of
the existing Pope, Gerson has no hesitation in saying that for the sake
of so great a blessing this concession should be made.
[86] Gerson, _De Auferibilitate Papæ ab Ecclesia_.
From discussion men advanced to action. The two Colleges of Cardinals
united, and summoned a Council of the Church to be held at Pisa in
1409. The significance of the Council of Pisa lies in its assumption
of superiority over Popes. The trend of several centuries had been the
other way. Now the balance of power was asserted and employed. The
explicit intention of the Council was the healing of the Schism and the
reforming of the Church alike in its head and members.[87] It declared
its action necessary and lawful, and pledged itself not to dissolve
until it had effected a real reformation. It discussed at full length
the respective claimants to the Roman See; and decided that Peter de
Luna and Angelo Corario, named in their respective obediences Benedict
XIII. and Gregory XII., were both schismatics, and were hereby deposed.
This deposition of Pope by Council was hitherto unexampled.
[87] Bonnechose, _C. Const._ i. p. 40.
The Roman See was now declared to be vacant, and then the Council
proceeded to fill the vacancy by the creation of a new Pope under title
of Alexander V.
It is generally admitted that this creation was unwise because
premature. Its success depended on the consent of Christendom. And
since neither Benedict nor Gregory would resign, it resulted in a
triple obedience. To the Italian and Avignonese lines was now added
the Pisan.[88] Alexander V. vainly denounced those “two monstrous sons
of perdition”; and then, after an exemplary pontificate of ten months,
died at Bologna, and was replaced by the notorious and unfortunate,
Balthasar Cossa, Master of Bologna, who assumed the style of John
XXIII. Between these three Popes there followed the routine of mutual
anathema and excommunication, which continued to lower the dignity of
the Papacy in the esteem of Europe. Thus the Council of Pisa failed to
heal the afflicted Church, or remedy the Schism.
[88] Baronius, _Annals_.
In the Council of Constance, 1414, the attempt was made again. Briefly,
after numerous struggles John XXIII., Benedict XIII., and Gregory XII.,
were all declared deposed, and eventually this sentence, through the
influence of the Emperor Sigismund, prevailed. A new Pope was created
in the person of Martin V. The three obediences were reunited, and the
peace of the Church restored.
The main interest of this Council, however, lies in its famous
declaration. It claimed to be an Ecumenical Council, legitimately
assembled with the authority of the Holy Spirit, representing
the Catholic Church, having its power direct from Jesus Christ.
Accordingly, to its decision in matters of faith as well as in other
things, persons of whatever rank, including papal, are subordinate.
“This holy Synod of Constance, being a General Council, lawfully
assembled in the Holy Spirit, and representing the Church militant,
has received immediately from Jesus Christ a power to which all
persons of whatever rank and dignity, not excepting the Pope
himself, are bound to submit in those matters which concern the
faith; the extirpation of the existing Schism; and the reformation of
the Church in its head and its members.”
“Whosoever, be his dignity what it may, without excepting the Pope,
shall obstinately refuse to obey the statutes, ordinances, and
precepts of the present Council, or of any other General Council
lawfully assembled, shall be subjected, unless he repent, to
proportionate penance, and punished according to his deserts” (etc.).
2. So far, then, for the details of history. We are next to follow
the criticisms of theological schools within the Roman Communion upon
the facts. Bellarmine, the Jesuit theologian, was a Cardinal in 1600.
While claiming for the Pope a supremacy and Infallibility, in the
most uncompromising terms, and with a fulness and clearness hitherto
unexampled, he was naturally challenged to harmonise his theories with
the facts of the Councils of the fifteenth century.
It was argued that the Council of Constance possessed an ecumenical
character. Now either this claim is legitimate or it is not. If it
is, we must accept its principles, which affirm that an Ecumenical
Council has its authority direct from Christ, and that all, of whatever
rank, including papal, are subjected to its decisions. If it is not,
then its work in deposing John XXIII., Gregory XII., and Benedict
XIII., and in replacing them by Martin V. is invalid, and cannot be
sustained. Consequently, the whole line of Martin’s successors is also
illegitimate.
Bellarmine denied that Constance was an Ecumenical Council. For, he
said, it included only a third of the Church, one obedience out of
three. He denied also that its election of Martin V. was thereby
invalidated. An assembly may have power to elect, but not to define
in matters of faith. Constance possessed exceptional power in an
exceptional time. For a doubtful Pope is no Pope at all.
With regard to the ecumenical character of the Council of Constance,
Bossuet replied to Bellarmine that his criticism upon it did not go far
enough. For the Council described itself as a general Synod assembled
in the Holy Spirit, rightly and justly summoned, opened, and enacted.
Now this account of itself is either a simple truth, or a blasphemous
assumption. Its opponents dare not venture to call it the latter.
It is also quite misleading to say, as Bellarmine does, that the
Council of Constance represented only one out of three obediences. As
a matter of fact, the vast majority of Christendom was represented
there. The adherents of Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII. had by that
time dwindled to relative insignificance. The great nationalities, the
theological faculties, the religious orders, were all on the Council’s
side. If insignificant fractions, with Popes of doubtful claims, still
remained for a period aloof, this did not seriously affect the claims
of Constance to a representative character in Christendom. Still less
is it possible that their claim to authority as assembled in the Holy
Ghost, and constituting a General Council, can be condemned as a
falsehood and a blasphemy.
Bellarmine himself admitted that the Council of Basle decided with the
Legate’s consent that the Council is above the Pope, which is certainly
_now_ considered erroneous. Now! echoes Bossuet: that is a sign of
novelty. And by whom? By a private theologian. Is, then, the opinion of
a private teacher to be set above the unanimous decree of a Universal
Council presided over by the Legates of the Apostolic See?[89]
[89] Bossuet, t. xxi. p. 57.
The argument that these Councils possessed exceptional power in an
exceptional time was, according to Bossuet,[90] refuted by the Councils
themselves. No doubt the Assembly of Constance declared its mission to
be the termination of the Schism, and the union and reformation of the
Church in its head and members--a temporary work. But it also affirmed
that it was the duty of all men of whatever rank and condition, even
papal, to submit to the authority not only of this Council, but also
of every other General Council lawfully assembled. Thus the supremacy
of the Council is asserted to be not a mere temporary expedient to
solve exceptional difficulties, but an inherent characteristic of the
Universal Church in this representative form of self-expression.
[90] _Works_, t. xxi. p. 551.
Bellarmine’s second main argument against the Council of Constance was
that Pope Martin V. never confirmed its decrees. This involved two
points: a speculative theory of the nature of papal confirmation; and
also a question of fact. Bossuet replied to the speculative theory that
confirmation of the acts of a Council did not imply what Bellarmine
supposed; for Popes have often confirmed the acts and decrees of their
predecessors, which certainly on Ultramontane principles could not
be interpreted as imparting to them a validity not possessed before.
Confirmation merely meant acceptance, assent. Beyond it lay the further
enquiry: What is the inherent value of a Universal Council’s decree
apart from papal acceptance? Bossuet would answer that question one
way, Bellarmine another. And in so doing each would have his followers;
for each represented schools of thought within the Roman Communion.
Then as to the question of fact:
Bellarmine’s assertion that Martin V. did not accept the decisions
of Constance is, according to Bossuet, particularly unfortunate. For
Martin V. was, as Cardinal Colonna, present through the sessions
of Pisa and of Constance, and influential in passing the Council’s
claims to be ecumenical and assembled in the Holy Spirit. And yet this
Cardinal, without any revocation of this opinion, was elected to the
Papal See. Martin’s own mind on the authority of General Councils is
sufficiently clear. All that Bellarmine found to urge was that Martin
said he confirmed what had been done _conciliariter_; that is, says
Bellarmine, in the proper way, as Councils should: which he interpreted
to mean, after careful examination into facts--a condition which was
not fulfilled at Constance. And, therefore, Martin did not intend to
confirm this claim.
Bossuet considered that nothing could exceed the feebleness of the
argument. The Roman Pontiffs, says Bossuet, have never spoken of
the Council of Constance without veneration; have never passed any
adverse criticism upon it. Paul V. had its proceedings published by
the Vatican, complete, on a level of authority with the Council of
Nicea.[91]
[91] Bossuet, _Works_, t. xxi. p. 53.
The long struggle of the fifteenth century between two conceptions of
Ecclesiastical Authority--that which placed the ultimate decision in
the Collective Episcopate, and that which placed it in the solitary
Voice--issued, on the whole, to the advantage of the latter. However
great the services which the reforming Council rendered to Christendom,
and great undoubtedly they were, yet the blunders perpetrated by them,
and their ultimate collapse, seriously compromised their rightful
claims. The Papacy had learnt lessons it was never likely to forget,
and the following period was instinctively a period of self-protection
and recovered authority. Wonderful as it seems, even the characters of
Alexander VI., Julius II., and Leo X. did not prevent an advance of the
papal power over the limits which it occupied in the previous period.
None of these individuals asserted their Infallibility. Their interests
were elsewhere. Pope Hadrian VI. was successor to Leo X. As Professor
of Theology at Louvain, he published the following observations on
Infallibility:--
“If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the Pope, it
is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the
Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many
Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported
that Pope John XXII. publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be
believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of
God before the Final Judgment.”
Bossuet calls the reader’s attention to Pope Hadrian’s view of the
Papacy.[92] How clearly he taught, and held as indisputable, that the
Pope could be a heretic not only in his private capacity, but in his
official decisions and decrees! How emphatically he rejects what his
predecessor “publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by
all!” Whether any explanation of the teaching of Pope John XXII. can
be attempted is not to the point. In any case the fact remains that
Hadrian VI. held these ideas of Papal Fallibility. And if he wrote this
as a theologian, before his elevation to the Papacy, there is no trace
that he ever retracted his doctrine, as he must have done had he come
to think it erroneous. On the contrary, he published it after becoming
Pope (1522).
[92] _Works_, i. p. 37.