Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility/Chapter 5

by William John Sparrow Simpson

CHAPTER V

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?^[1] This is one of the problems of history.

The historian Pastor sides with Urban VI.^[2] 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?"^[3] 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.^[4] 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.

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.^[5] This, says Bossuet, was the first time in Christendom that a Pope ventured expressly to condemn all appeals from his authority.^[6] A recent historian of the Papacy says:—

 

"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."^[7]

 

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.^[8] 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.

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.^[9] 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.

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.^[10] 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.

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?^[11]

The argument that these Councils possessed exceptional power in an exceptional time was, according to Bossuet,^[12] 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.

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.^[13]

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 readers attention to Pope Hadrian's view of the Papacy.^[14] 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).

1. Christophe, Histoire de la Papautè, pendant le XIV. Siècle, iii. p. 36.
2. Pastor, i. p. 119.
3. Ibid. i. p. 131.
4. Christophe, Histoire de la Papautè, pendant U XIV. Siècle, iii. p. 37.
5. Bossuet, Defense, i. p. 567.
6. Ibid. ii. p. 325.
7. Pastor, i. p. 142.
8. Gerson, De Auferibilitate Papa ab Ecclesia.
9. Bonnechose, C. Const. i. p. 40.
10. Baronius, Annals.
11. Bossuet, t. xxi. p. 57.
12. Works, t. xxi. p. 551.
13. Bossuet, Works, t. xxi. p, 53.
14. Works, i. p. 37.