|
Mysticism as implying the substantive union of the soul with God was
the distinguishing feature of the pantheistic religious creeds of
India, as it was also of some of the Greek philosophical systems.
In the Middle Ages, while many of the ablest exponents of
Scholasticism were also distinguished mystics, yet more than once
Mysticism or the theology of the heart, unrestrained by the guiding
influence of the theology of the intellect, fell into grievous errors
akin to the Pantheism of the Buddhists and the Stoics. Many of
these Middle Age mystics maintained that perfection consisted in the
union of the soul with God by quiet contemplation, so that those who
reached that state had no need of external aids to sanctity, such as
good works, the sacraments, or prayer; that they were under no
obligation to obey any law, ecclesiastical or divine, since their will
was united to God's will; and that they need make no effort to resist
carnal thoughts or desires, as these came from the devil and could not
possibly stain the soul. Such, however, was not the teaching of the
great Spanish authorities on mystical theology, Saint Teresa,
Saint John of the Cross, and Louis of Granada, whose works on
spiritual perfection and on the ways that lead to it have never been
surpassed. But side by side with this school of thought, another and
less orthodox form of mysticism manifested itself in Spain. Many of
the sectaries, such as the Alumbrados or Illuminati, carried away by
pantheistic principles, fell into error, and put forward under the
guise of mystical theology not a few of the extravagances that had been
condemned by the Council of Vienne (1311) and by the judgment of
the universal Church.
Closely akin to the errors of this Spanish school was the doctrine
known as Quietism taught by Michael de Molinos (1640-96), a
Spanish priest, who having completed his studies at Valencia took up
his residence in Rome. He published a work entitled "Guida
Spirituale" in 1675, the ascetical principles of which attracted
so much attention that translations of the book appeared almost
immediately in nearly every country of Europe. The teaching of
Molinos was denounced to the Inquisition by the Jesuits and the
Dominicans, and in 1687 Innocent XI issued the Bull
"Coelestis Pastor",[181] in which he condemned sixty-eight
propositions put forward by Molinos. The author having been arrested
was obliged to make a public recantation, and remained a prisoner until
his death (1696).
According to Molinos perfection consists in a state of self-
annihilation in which the soul remains entirely passive, absorbed
completely in the contemplation and love of God. By means of this
passivity or complete surrender of the human faculties to God the soul
of man is transformed, and is in a sense deified. While in this
condition there is no need to act or to desire to act, to think of
rewards or punishments, of defects or virtues, of sanctification,
penance, or good works, nor is there any necessity to resist carnal
thoughts or motions since these are the works of the devil. Such a
system, founded nominally on the pure love of God, and leading of
necessity to the overthrow of law, morality, and religious authority,
found great favour in Italy and Spain, where it required all the
energies and powers of the Inquisition to secure its suppression. It
was backed by the Oratorian, Petrucci, afterwards created a cardinal
(1686), whose books on the spiritual life were attacked by the
Jesuit, Paul Segneri, and condemned by the Inquisition.
Quietism found favour in France through the writings and teachings of
Francis Malaval of Marseilles and of the Barnabite Pere Lacombe.
The individual whose name is most closely identified with Quietism in
France is, however, Madame Jeanne de la Mothe Guyon, a young
widow who on the death of her husband gave herself up to the practice of
prayer and to the study of the principles of the spiritual life.
Admitting as she did the fundamental doctrine of the system of
Molinos, namely, that perfection consists in a state of
self-abnegation in which the soul is wrapped up completely in pure love
of God, she rejected most of the absurd and immoral conclusions that
seemed to follow from it. According to her, and more especially
according to her principal defender, Fenelon, pure love of God
without any thought of self- interest or of reward or punishment,
constitutes the essence of the spiritual life, and must be the
principle and motive of all deliberate and meritorious acts. This
teaching constitutes what is known as Semi- Quietism. Madame Guyon
published several works and gave many conferences in various cities of
France. The close connexion between her teaching and the mysticism of
Molinos attracted the unfriendly notice of the French authorities,
particularly as Louis XIV was a strong opponent of Quietism. As
a result Madame Guyon and her spiritual director, Pere Lacombe,
were arrested in Paris (1688), but owing to the interference of
Madame de Maintenon, Madame Guyon was released.
Fenelon, then a priest and tutor to the Duke of Burgundy, grandson
of Louis XIV and prospective heir to the throne of France, was
deeply interested in the teaching of Madame Guyon whose acquaintance
he had made in Paris. Fenelon, while rejecting the false mysticism
of de Molinos, agreed with Madame Guyon in believing that the state
of perfection in this life is that in which all righteous acts proceed
from pure love without any hope of reward or fear of punishment, and
that all virtuous acts to be meritorious must proceed directly or
indirectly from charity. This teaching found a strenuous opponent in
Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux. A commission consisting of Bossuet, de
Noailles, then Bishop of Chalons, and Tronson, superior of the
Sulpicians, was appointed to examine the whole question (1695).
A little later Fenelon, who had just been promoted to the
Archbishopric of Cambrai, was added to the list. The conference met
in the Sulpician seminary at Issy, and as a result thirty-four
articles were drawn up, all of which were accepted by Madame Guyon
and Pere Lacombe. The former having returned to Paris was
arrested, and forced to sign another recantation of her theories and to
promise that she would never again attempt to spread them. From that
time till her death in 1717 she took no further part in the
discussions.
But the controversy regarding Semi-Quietism was to be carried on
between the two greatest churchmen and literary giants of their age,
namely, Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, and Fenelon, Archbishop of
Cambrai. Bossuet, not content with the partial victory that he had
secured at the Issy conference, determined to expose the dangerous
tendencies of Madame Guyon's teaching by a short statement of the
Catholic doctrine on perfection and the spiritual life. This he did
in his book "Instructions sur les etats d'oraison", which he
submitted to Fenelon in the hope of obtaining his approval. This
Fenelon refused to give, partly because he thought Madame Guyon had
been punished severely enough and should not be attacked once she had
made her submission, and partly also because he believed the views of
Bossuet on charity and self-interest were unsound. Before
Bossuet's book could be published Fenelon anticipated him in a work
entitled "Explication des maximes des Saints sur la vie
interieure", in which he defended many of Madame Guyon's views.
This book was submitted to the Archbishop of Paris, to Tronson,
and to some of the theologians of the Sorbonne, from all of whom it
received the highest commendations.
The Bishop of Meaux, annoyed at the action of Fenelon, denounced
the book to Louis XIV, who appointed a commission to examine it
(1697). Fenelon, fearing that a commission, one of the members
of which was his rival Bossuet, would not be likely to give an
impartial judgment, forwarded his book to Rome for judgment. While
the Roman authorities were at work a violent controversy was carried on
between Fenelon and Bossuet, which, however much it may have added
to the literary reputation of the combatants, was neither edifying nor
instructive. On the side of Bossuet especially it is clear that
personalities played a much greater part than zeal for orthodoxy. In
Rome opinion was very much divided about the orthodoxy of Fenelon's
work. Louis XIV left no stone unturned to secure its
condemnation. In the end Innocent XII condemned twenty
propositions taken from the book (1699).[182] This sentence was
handed to Fenelon just as he was about to mount the pulpit in his own
cathedral on the Feast of the Annunciation. After mastering its
contents he preached on the submission that was due to superiors, read
the condemnation for the people, and announced to them that he
submitted completely to the decision of the Pope, and besought his
friends earnestly neither to read his book nor to defend the views that
it contained.
|
|