THE SORBONNE
During the seventeenth century Ultramontanism found its principal
obstruction in the Church of France, its principal support in the
Jesuit Society. The progress of the theory roughly corresponded with
the vicissitudes of this powerful community. The League against the
succession in France exchanged monarchical and Gallican sentiments for
Republican and Ultramontane. The theories of political independence and
ecclesiastical absolutism flourished for a time. Ultramontanism even
controlled for a time the very stronghold of Gallican doctrine--the
Sorbonne itself. But this cannot be rightly regarded as anything more
than a transient politically affected phase. The Sorbonne returned to
its ancient loyalties. It possessed no longer the same authority and
weight as in the disastrous days of the great Schism; but it still
imposed a powerful check on the theories of the Ultramontane. Its
influence was often compromised, sometimes counterbalanced, by the
Jesuit Society which, supported by an Italian Queen Regent during the
minority of Louis XIII., was enabled to effect gradual encroachments
upon the ancient University, by founding colleges and, ultimately,
granting degrees, even in Paris itself.[100] Cardinal Richelieu,
rebuilder and lavish patron of the Sorbonne though he was, could,
nevertheless, for political reasons, encourage the Jesuit foundations;
on the pretext that rival educational establishments sharpened the wits
of both. Thus the first half of the century witnessed the perpetual
efforts of the Sorbonne to strengthen the theological principles of the
French Church, and to exclude the Ultramontane, thwarted or weakened
by the influence of the Jesuit exercised through the Palace. Jesuit
confessors directed the Royal consciences, and made them inaccessible
to the protests of the Sorbonne. Again and again theological
discussions were suspended or suppressed by royal authority, at the
secret instigation of this powerful community. A notable instance is
found in the experiences of the celebrated Edmond Richer, the learned
Syndic of the Sorbonne, in the opening years of the seventeenth
century. Richer had been in early youth a member of the League, and, as
such, a Republican and an Ultramontane; but his matured reflections led
him to embrace the historic principles of the Church of France, and to
become a truceless foe of the Jesuits, and of the Ultramontane opinions
with which they were at the time identified. In the year 1606 he
distinguished himself by republishing the works of Chancellor Gerson.
In 1611 the opposing School proposed for discussion at a Dominican
Convent in Paris, before an illustrious assembly, including royal
personages, the Papal Nuncio, and Cardinal du Perron, the following
thesis:--(1) That the Roman Pontiff cannot err in faith and morals; (2)
that the Council is in no case superior to the Pope.[101] Richer, as
Syndic of the Sorbonne, protested. The forbearance of the Gallicans was
sorely tried by such contradictions to the principles of their fathers.
Ultimately it was arranged that a member of the Sorbonne, Claudius
Bertin, should advocate the Gallican side. Bertin began with the
syllogism: Whatever contradicts an Ecumenical Council is heresy. Your
thesis--the Council is in no case superior to the Pope--contradicts the
Ecumenical Council of Constance, therefore it is heresy. At this the
Papal Nuncio grew visibly indignant. Bertin’s opponent mildly answered:
“Do not say this assertion is heretical; it is enough to call it
misleading, erroneous.” He disclaimed any desire to offend the Faculty
of Paris. He only desired to ascertain the truth. And where in all the
world could this question be discussed if not within this most famous
University? Here Richer, the Syndic, interposed. The Sorbonne had
always held the Council of Constance as Ecumenical, and, accordingly,
that its decision on the supremacy of the Council over the Pope was a
matter of faith.
[100] Cf. Jourdain, _Hist. Univ. Paris_.
[101] Richerius, _Vindiciæ Gall._
The discussion was resumed, but ultimately, at Cardinal du Perron’s
request, and evidently in the Ultramontane interests, brought to an
abrupt conclusion. The Parliament of Paris followed this up with an
injunction prohibiting the Dominicans from disputes on the Pope’s
Infallibility.
The Jesuits were so enraged by Richer’s action that from that day
forward they never gave him peace. They were powerful enough to secure
his dismissal from office. But he was a person more easily dismissed
than suppressed. He wrote a pamphlet on ecclesiastical and political
power, to show that the Church is a monarchy, but its government an
aristocracy; for neither the Pope nor the other Bishops can decide
matters of importance without the guidance of a Council. The infallible
authority in matters of faith rests, he taught, with the Universal
Council as representing the Universal Church. This work offended
Cardinal du Perron, who could not see how proper regard for monarchy
was consistent with the view that aristocracy was naturally the highest
form of government.[102] Meanwhile Richer retired contentedly into
studious quietude, where he composed his great work on the Councils,
published after his death. But his enemies could not let him rest. He
says that he could not venture beyond the gates of the College lest
the satellites of the Roman authorities should fall upon him.[103]
From the treatment measured out to him he sees that the Roman Curia is
resolved to obliterate the ancient doctrine of the School of Paris,
and to allow no man to speak of the true government of the Church, or
the independence of the State, without branding him as a heretic or
schismatic.[104] It is said that Richer was forced by menaces to sign
a recantation of his views of papal power. Whatever he signed, the
independent statements of his own literary _Testament_ remain to show
his real convictions.
[102] Letter to Casaubon, _Les Ambassades et Negotiations_, p. 694.
[103] Richer’s _Testament_, p. 3.
[104] Richerius, _Vindiciæ Doctrinæ Majorum_, p. 2.
“I, Edmond Richer ... in the 53 year of my life ... seated in my
library, sound in body and mind, write this latin codicil in the form
of a Testament.”[105]
[105] _Ibid._ p. 11.
He then appeals to his defence of the ancient principles in the
Disputations of 1611; and recalls the persecutions he has undergone:
how it was said that a vow to assassinate him would be most acceptable
to God, or that if he were snared and sent to Rome he would soon
find out whether the Pope possessed the temporal sword.[106] Men do
not realise, says Richer, how grievously these theories compromise
the Apostolic See. For more than twenty years he has been beset by
enemies. And yet they are the true principles of Church government,
transmitted by the Fathers, restored in the Councils of Constance and
Basle, which are being attacked through him.[107] The example of Richer
is intended as a warning to frighten the theologians of Paris from
maintaining the doctrine of their fathers. Accordingly whatever his
malicious opponents may contrive at this day, or may hereafter contrive
against him, he prays that he may have the grace to forgive and the
fortitude to resist. In this unhappy age in which truth is diminished
among the children of men he registers his emphatic rejection of
the theory that the Pope is the absolute infallible ruler of the
Church.[108]
[106] _Ibid._ p. 14.
[107] Richerius, _Vindiciæ Doctrinæ Majorum_, p. 14.
[108] _Ibid._ 16–17.
Undoubtedly this was the faith in which Richer died.[109]
[109] A.D. 1629.
Another instance of the teaching of the French Church occurs in a
book by Francis Veron, entitled _The Rule of Faith_, or a separation
of those matters which are of Catholic faith from those that are
not. Veron was Doctor of Theology in Paris, and died in 1646.[110]
He quotes the doctrine of Trent and Florence. Trent committed him to
the recognition of the Roman Church as the Mother and Mistress of all
Churches; to the belief that the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor
and Vicar of Christ; and to the duty of obedience to his commands. The
Council of Florence described the Pope as Head of the whole Church, and
as Father and Teacher of all Christians; and affirmed him to possess
a plenary power, such as is recognised in the Acts of the Ecumenical
Councils, and in the canons. So much, then, Veron acknowledges as of
faith. But nothing beyond this is of faith, because the Church has
asserted nothing more. He lays particular stress on the language of
Florence, because Greek and Latin were therein met in conclave.
[110] Ed. Sebastian Brunner, 1857, p. 145.
“Accordingly,” Veron’s conclusion is that, “it is not of faith
that the Roman Pontiff, in his teaching, whether in a particular
Council, or in a Provincial Synod, even if he address the Universal
Church, or when, as they say, he speaks _ex cathedra_, supposing
him to teach apart from a Universal Council, is the supreme judge
of controversies, or is infallible; nor that what is so defined is
of faith, unless the conviction of the Universal Church otherwise
declare it.”[111]
[111] _Veron. Regula Fidei._ Ed. Sebastian Brunner, 1857, p. 146.
According to the doctrine of Trent it is the Church alone whose
function it is to determine the true meaning and interpretation of Holy
Scripture. No theologian hitherto, says Veron, not even Bellarmine
himself, has ventured to assert that the Pope’s Infallibility is of
faith.[112] Bellarmine admits that the theory that the Pope, if he
venture to define even as Pope apart from a General Council, may fall
into heresy, was held by no less a personage than the theologian who
afterwards became Pope Hadrian VI.[113] Bellarmine admits also that
this theory is not heretical, for its advocates are tolerated by the
Church. If Bellarmine, nevertheless, labels this same theory proximate
to heresy, this is his individual view and in Veron’s judgment
unjustifiable. As to further discussion, Veron deprecates it. He writes
as a Catholic teacher and not in a scholastic or speculative way.
[112] _Ibid_, p. 147.
[113] _Ibid._ p. 147.
“Since the Catholic Church teaches nothing concerning this matter,
[of Papal Infallibility] neither need I.”[114] What is true is that
whatever issues from so high an authority is to be received with great
regard.
[114] _Ibid._ p. 148.