|
For centuries France had been the zealous defender of the Church and
of the Holy See. From the days of Clovis the French nation had
never wavered in its allegiance to the successors of Saint Peter,
many of whom had been obliged to seek refuge on the soil of France.
In return for this support given ungrudgingly in many a dangerous
crisis, several important privileges were conferred by the Popes on
the French rulers, in which privileges moderate supporters of
Gallicanism were inclined to seek the origin and best explanation of
the so-called Gallican Liberties. But the extreme Gallicans,
realising that such a defence could avail but little against the Pope,
who could recall what his predecessors had granted, maintained that the
Gallican Liberties were but the survival of the liberty possessed by
individual churches in the early centuries, that these liberties had
been restricted gradually by the Holy See, which succeeded in
reducing the national churches to servitude, and that the French
Church alone had withstood these assaults, and had maintained intact
the discipline and constitution of the apostolic age. The rulers of
France, well aware that every restriction upon the authority of the
Church meant an increase of the power of the Crown, gladly fostered
this movement, while the French bishops, unconscious of the fact that
independence of Rome meant servitude to the king, allowed themselves
to be used as tools in carrying out the programme of state absolutism.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Louis IX, referred to by many writers
as the first indication of Gallicanism, is admitted by all scholars to
be a forgery. The exorbitant demands formulated by Philip the Fair
during his quarrel with Boniface VIII are the first clear
indication of the Gallican theory that confronts the historian. The
principles laid down by the rulers of France during this quarrel were
amplified considerably in the writings of William of Occam, Jean of
Jandun, and Marsilius of Padua, and were reduced to definite form
in the time of the Great Western Schism. At that time, mainly
owing to the influence of Gerson, D'Ailly, and other French
leaders, the doctrine of the superiority of a General Council over
the Pope was accepted, and received official confirmation in the
decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance
(1414-17), and in the Council of Basle (1431-6).
The decrees passed by the Synod of Bourges (1438) were strongly
anti-papal, and despite of the efforts of Nicholas V and his
successors to procure their withdrawal most of them remained in force
till the Concordat of 1516. Partly owing to this Concordat, by
which the right of nomination to all bishoprics and abbacies in France
was secured to the Crown, and partly to the strong feeling aroused in
France during the conflict with Calvinism, little was heard of
Gallicanism during the sixteenth century. It was mainly, however,
as a result of the opposition of the French bishops that the decree of
the Council of Florence regarding papal supremacy was not renewed at
the Council of Trent, and it was in great measure due to the
influence of Gallican principles that the decrees of the Council of
Trent were not received in France for years.
Gallicanism was renewed in the beginning of the seventeenth century by
Edmund Richer (1559-1631), syndic of the Paris
University and editor of the works of Gerson. He was a man who held
novel views about the constitution both of Church and State, and who
professed his sincere admiration for Gerson's exposition of the
relations that should exist between a General Council and the Pope.
In 1610 one of the Dominican students undertook to defend publicly
the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, whereupon a violent
controversy broke out, but it was settled for a time by the prudent
intervention of Cardinal Du Perron. The Parliament of Paris,
however, undertook the defence of Richer and of the work that he
published in explanation of his theories. In this book, "De
Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate" (1611) he laid it down
that the Church was a limited not an absolute monarchy; that the whole
legislative power rested in the hands of the hierarchy, composed
according to him of both bishops and parish priests; that this
legislative power should be exercised in a General Council, which as
representing the entire hierarchy was the repository of infallibility,
and was not subject to the Pope; that the power of executing the
decrees of General Councils and of carrying on the administration of
the Church rested in the hands of the Pope, who could not act
contrary to the canons; that neither Pope nor hierarchy could
undertake to enforce ecclesiastical decrees by any other means except
persuasion; and that if force were required it could be exercised only
by the head of the State, who was the natural protector of the
Church, and responsible to God for the due observance of the canons.
This book was condemned by the provincial Synod of Sens, held under
the presidency of Cardinal Du Perron in 1612, by the provincial
Synod of Aix, by the Bishop of Paris, and by the Pope. The
Parliament of Paris, however, supported Richer, who lodged an
appeal with the civil authorities against the action of the bishops,
and sought to secure for his theories the support of the Sorbonne.
Though forced by the king to resign his office at the University he
continued to defend his views stubbornly till 1629, when for
political rather than for religious reasons he was called upon by
Cardinal Richelieu to sign a complete recantation. Shortly before
his death in 1631 he declared in the presence of several witnesses
that this submission was made freely and from conviction, but some
papers written by him and discovered after his death make it very
difficult to believe that these protestations were sincere.
The writings of Pithou, Richer, and Dupuy, and above all the
rising influence of the Jansenist party helped to spread the Gallican
teaching among the French clergy, and to make them more willing to
yield obedience to the king than to the Pope. The Abbot of St.
Cyran attacked the authority of the Holy See, but fortunately the
extreme nature of his views, and the need felt by both the priests and
the bishops of France for the intervention of the Holy See against
the Jansenists, served to restrain the anti-papal feeling, and to
keep the leading theological writers, like Duval, Du Perron,
Ysambert and Abelly, free from any Gallican bias. The accession of
Louis XIV (1661) marked a new era in the history of the
Gallican Liberties. He was young, headstrong, anxious to extend
the territories of France, and determined to assert his own supreme
authority at all costs. With Louis XIV firmly seated on the
French throne, and with the Jansenist party intriguing in the
Parliament of Paris, which had shown itself hostile to papal claims,
it was not difficult to predict that the relations with the Holy See
were likely to become unfriendly. The Duke of Crequi,[174] Louis
XIV's ambassador at Rome, set himself deliberately to bring
about a complete rupture. Owing to an attack made by some Corsicans
of the papal guard on the French embassy, the ambassador refused to
accept any apology and left Rome, while Louis XIV dismissed the
nuncio at Paris, occupied the papal territories of Avignon and
Venaissin, and despatched an army against the Papal States.
Alexander VII was obliged to yield to force, and to accept the
very humiliating terms imposed upon him by the Peace of Pisa
(1664).
The Jansenist party and the enemies of the Holy See took advantage
of the policy of Louis XIV to push forward their designs. A
violent clamour was raised in 1661 against a thesis defended in the
Jesuit schools ("Thesis Claromontana") in favour of papal
infallibility, and a still more violent clamour ensued when it was
maintained in a public defence at the Sorbonne (1663) that the
Pope has supreme jurisdiction over the Church, and that General
Councils, though useful for the suppression of heresy, are not
necessary. The Jansenist party appealed to the Parliament of
Paris, which issued a prohibition against teaching or defending the
doctrine of papal infallibility, but the majority of the doctors of the
Sorbonne stood by their opinion, and refused to register the decree of
Parliament. The opponents of the Sorbonne, hastening to avenge this
first defeat, denounced the defence of a somewhat similar thesis by a
Cistercian student as a violation of the prohibition. The syndic of
the university was suspended from his office for six months, and the
university itself was threatened with very serious reforms unless it
consented to accept the Gallican theories. As a result of the
interference of intermediaries a declaration satisfactory to the
Parliament was issued by the doctors of the faculty (1663). In
this document they announced that it was not the teaching of the
university that the Pope had any authority over the king in temporal
matters, that he was superior to a General Council, or that he was
infallible in matters of faith without the consent of a General
Council. On the contrary, they asserted that it was the teaching of
the university that in temporal affairs the king was subject only to
God, that his subjects could not be dispensed from their allegiance to
him by any power on earth, and that the rights and liberties of the
Gallican Church must be respected. This decree was signed by
seventy-seven doctors, and was published by the Parliament as the
teaching of the entire theological faculty and as a guide that should be
followed in all theological schools. A violent agitation was begun
against all who attempted to uphold the rights of the Holy See either
in public disputations or in published works, an agitation that was all
the more inexplicable, owing to the fact that at this time both the
king and Parliament were endeavouring to persuade the Jansenists to
accept as infallible the decrees by which the Pope had condemned their
teaching.
Before this agitation had died away a new cause of dissension had come
to the front in the shape of the "Regalia". By the term
"Regalia" was meant the right of the King of France to hold the
revenues of vacant Sees and abbacies, and to appoint to benefices
during the vacancy, and until the oath of allegiance had been taken by
the new bishops and had been registered. Such a privilege was
undoubtedly bad for religion, and though it was tolerated for certain
grave reasons by the second General Council of Lyons (1274), a
decree of excommunication was levelled against anyone, prince or
subject, cleric or layman, who would endeavour to introduce it or to
abet its introduction into those places where it did not already exist.
Many of the provinces of France had not been subject to the
"Regalia" hitherto, but in defiance of the law of the Church Louis
XIV issued a royal mandate (1673-75), claiming for
himself the "Regalia" in all dioceses of France, and commanding
bishops who had not taken the oath of allegiance to take it immediately
and to have it registered.
The bishops of France submitted to this decree with two exceptions.
These were Pavillon, bishop of Alet, and Caulet, bishop of
Pamiers, both of whom though attached to the Jansenist party were
determined to maintain the rights of the Church. The king,
regardless of their protests, proceeded to appoint to benefices in
their dioceses on the ground that they had not registered their oath of
allegiance. They replied by issuing excommunication against all those
who accepted such appointments, and, when their censures were declared
null and void by their respective metropolitans, they appealed to the
Holy See. During the contest Pavillon of Alet died, and the whole
brunt of the struggle fell upon his companion. The latter was
encouraged by the active assistance of Innocent XI, who quashed
the sentence of the metropolitans, encouraged the bishop and chapter to
resist, and threatened the king with the censures of the Church unless
he desisted from his campaign (1678-79). The bishop himself
died, but the chapter showed its loyalty to his injunctions by
appointing a vicar-capitular in opposition to the vicar-capitular
nominated by the king. A most violent persecution was begun against
the vicar-capitular and the clergy who remained loyal to him. Both on
account of the important interests at stake and the courage displayed by
the opponents of the king the contest was followed with great interest
not only in France itself but throughout the Catholic world. While
feeling was thus running high another event happened in Paris that
added fuel to the flame. The Cistercian nuns at Charonne were
entitled according to their constitution to elect their own
superioress, but de Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, acting in
conformity with the orders of Louis XIV endeavoured to force upon
the community a superioress belonging to an entirely different order.
The nuns appealed to Innocent XI, who annulled the appointment
and insisted upon a free canonical election (1680). The
Parliament of Paris set side the papal sentence, and when this
interference was rejected by the Pope, the papal document was
suppressed.
In view of the difficulties that had arisen an extraordinary meeting of
the bishops of France was summoned. Fifty-two of them met in Paris
(March-May, 1681). The two leading men in favour of the king
were Francis de Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, and Le Tellier,
Archbishop of Rheims. Acting under the influence of these men the
bishops agreed that it was their duty to submit to the claims of the
crown in regard to the "Regalia"; they condemned the interference of
the Pope in favour of the Paris community of Cistercian nuns as well
as his action against the metropolitan of the Bishop of Pamiers; and
they expressed the opinion that a general assembly of the clergy of
France should be called to discuss the whole situation.
The General Assembly consisting of thirty-four bishops and thirty-
seven priests elected to represent the entire body of the French clergy
met at Paris (October 1681-July 1682). The most
prominent men of the Assembly were Francis de Harlay of Paris, Le
Tellier of Rheims, Colbert of Rouen, Choisseul of Tournay, and
Bossuet, the recently appointed Bishop of Meaux. The latter,
whose reputation as a preacher had already spread throughout France,
delivered the opening address, which was moderate in tone, and not
unfriendly to the rights of the Holy See though at the same time
strongly pro-Gallican. Certain minor rights claimed by the king
having been abandoned, the bishops gratefully accepted the
"Regalia", and despatched a letter to the Pope urging him to yield
to the royal demands for the sake of peace. But the Pope, more
concerned for the liberty of the French bishops than they were
themselves, reminded them sharply of their duty to the Church, while
at the same time he refused to follow their advice. In their reply to
the Pope the bishops took occasion to praise the spirit of religious
zeal shown by Louis XIV, who, according to them, was forced
reluctantly to take up the gauge of battle that had been thrown at his
feet by Rome. Meantime an attempt was made by the Assembly to
formulate definitely the Gallican liberties. These were:
|
(1) That Saint Peter and his successors have received jurisdiction
only over spiritual things. Kings are not subject to them in temporal
matters, nor can the subjects of kings be released from their oath of
allegiance by the Pope.
(2) That the plenitude of power in spiritual things by the Holy
See does not contradict the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of
the Council of Constance, which decrees, having been passed by a
General Council and approved by the Pope, were observed by the
Gallican church.
(3) That the apostolic authority of the Roman Church must be
exercised in accordance with the canons inspired by the Holy Ghost,
and with the rules, constitutions, and customs of the Gallican
Church.
(4) That though the Pope has the chief part in determining
questions of faith, and though his decrees have force in the entire
Church and in each particular church, yet his decisions are not
irreformable, at least until they are approved by the verdict of the
entire Church.
|
|
This Declaration (the Four Gallican Articles) was approved by the
king, who ordered that it should be observed by all teachers and
professors, and should be accepted by all candidates for theological
decrees. Although the Archbishop of Paris recommended warmly the
acceptance of the Gallican Articles the doctors of the Sorbonne
offered strong opposition to the new royal theology, so that it was
only after recourse had been had to the most violent expedients that the
consent of one hundred and sixty-two doctors could be obtained, while
the majority against the Gallican Articles was over five hundred.
The decision of the minority was published as the decision of the
faculty, and steps were taken at once to remove the opponents of the
articles, and to make the Sorbonne strongly Gallican in its
teaching. While protests against the articles poured in from different
universities and from many of the countries of Europe the Pope kept
silent; but when two priests, who took part in the Assembly of
1682, were nominated for vacant bishoprics Innocent XI refused
to appoint them until they should have expressed regret for their
action. The king would not permit them to do so, nor would he allow
the others who were nominated to accept their appointments from the
Pope, and as a result in 1688 thirty-five of the French Sees
had been left without bishops.
In this same year another incident occurred that rendered the relations
between the Pope and Louis XIV even more strained. The right of
asylum possessed by various ambassadors at the papal court had become a
very serious abuse. Formerly it was attached only to the residence of
the ambassador, but in the course of time it was extended until it
included the whole of the quarter in which the embassy was situated,
with the result that it became impossible for the guardians of the peace
to carry out their duties. For this reason the right of asylum was
suppressed by the Pope. All the other nations submitted to such a
reasonable restriction, but Louis XIV, anxious rather to provoke
than to avoid a quarrel, refused to abandon the privilege. He sent as
his ambassador to Rome (1687) the Marquis de Lavardin, who
entered Rome at the head of a force of five hundred armed men, and
whose conduct from first to last was so outrageous that Innocent XI
was obliged to excommunicate him, and to lay the Church of Saint
Louis under interdict. Immediately Louis XIV occupied Avignon
and Venaissin, assembled an army in Southern France to be despatched
against the Papal States, and ordered that an appeal to a future
General Council should be prepared for presentation. Twenty-six of
the bishops expressed their approval of this appeal, and so successful
had been the dragooning of the university that nearly all the faculties
adopted a similar attitude (1688).
For a time it seemed as if a schism involving the whole of the French
Church was unavoidable, since neither Pope nor king seemed willing to
give way. But Louis XIV had no wish to become a second Henry
VIII. The threatening condition of affairs in Europe made it
impossible for him to despatch an army against Rome. At the same time
the fear of civil disturbance in France in case he rejected completely
the authority of the Pope, and the danger that such a step might
involve for French interests abroad kept him from taking the final
plunge. He recalled the obnoxious ambassador from Rome (1689),
abandoned the right of asylum as attached to the quarter of the French
embassy (1690), and restored Avignon and Venaissin to the
Pope. Alexander VIII demanded the withdrawal of the royal edict
of March 1683 enjoining the public acceptance of the Gallican
Articles. He required also a retraction from the clergy who had taken
part in the Assembly, and issued a Bull denouncing the extension of
the rights of the "Regalia" and declaring the Gallican Articles
null and void (1690). Louis XIV, finding that the public
opinion of the Catholic world was against him, and that a
reconciliation with the Papacy would be very helpful to him in carrying
out his political schemes, opened friendly negotiations with Innocent
XII. In the end an agreement was arrived at, whereby the clerics
who had taken part in the Assembly of 1682, having expressed their
regret to the Pope for their action, were appointed to the bishoprics
for which they had been nominated; while the king informed the Pope
(1693) that the decrees issued by him insisting on the acceptance
of the Gallican Articles, would not be enforced.
But in spite of this royal assurance, Gallicanism had still a strong
hold upon France. The younger men in the Sorbonne could be relied
upon to support the Articles, and the influence of writers like John
de Launoy (1603-1678) and of Dupin helped to spread
Gallicanism among the clergy and laymen of the rising generation.
Throughout the whole controversy Bossuet had shown himself too
accommodating to the crown, though at the same time he was not
unfriendly to the claims of the Holy See, nor inclined to favour such
extreme measures as most of his episcopal colleagues. Acting on the
request of the king he prepared a defence of the Gallican Articles,
which was not published till long after his death. During the
eighteenth century, when the crown and the Parliament of Paris
interfered constantly in all religious questions, the bishops and
clergy of France had good reason to regret their defence of the
so-called Gallican Liberties. The Concordat concluded by Napoleon
with Pius VII and the action taken by the Pope with the approval
of Napoleon for the carrying out of the Concordat dealt a staggering
blow to Gallicanism, despite the attempt made to revive it by the
Organic Articles. The great body of the bishops of the nineteenth
century had little sympathy with Gallican principles, which
disappeared entirely after the definition of Papal Infallibility at
the Vatican Council.
|
|